LithoGraphica - Recent changes [en]

User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4

Reversedragon — Sat, 13 Jun 2026 12:16:54 GMT

There is no difference between morality and "manufacturing consent"

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 <h2 id="section-proposed4"><span class="mw-headline">Unsorted Items (page 4)</span> {{editsection|User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4}}</h2>
 <noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean reset  field_ML">
 {{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.

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q618-FinalClassOfHumanity/FinalClass01

Reversedragon — Fri, 12 Jun 2026 08:53:47 GMT

What is to be done?

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:53, 12 June 2026
Line 3:		Line 3:

	<!-- {{E:Q46,02\|ai.wsws.org}} -->		<!-- {{E:Q46,02\|ai.wsws.org}} -->
	{{li\|start=y\|I=M3/A\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}How do we know the petty bourgeoisie is not the final class of humanity before the abolition of classes? (~~question~~)		{{li\|start=y\|I=M3/A\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}How do we know the petty bourgeoisie is not the final class of humanity before the abolition of classes? / ({{9k\|RD/Q618-FinalClassOfHumanity}})

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 29:		Line 29:
	== Motifs ==		== Motifs ==
	* Leninist party structure		* Leninist party structure
	** _What is to be done_
	** Lenin actually said that the middle vanguard only develops _because_ people are connected in one big structure to the Leninist party		** Lenin actually said that the middle vanguard only develops _because_ people are connected in one big structure to the Leninist party
	*** wow, I did legitimately forget that. in my defense I think I forgot it after talking to this silly Trotskyist bot too much when it kept talking about 'the independence of the working class' and 'not letting Stalinist parties rule the people'. I started thinking that Trotskyists think Leninism is largely about "democracy" rather than about teaching people a particular consciousness, so I was thinking, don't Trotskyists want the workers to assemble the party from the bottom up rather than the party herding the workers? forgive me for my _Trotskyist error_ away from Leninism! lol		*** wow, I did legitimately forget that. in my defense I think I forgot it after talking to this silly Trotskyist bot too much when it kept talking about 'the independence of the working class' and 'not letting Stalinist parties rule the people'. I started thinking that Trotskyists think Leninism is largely about "democracy" rather than about teaching people a particular consciousness, so I was thinking, don't Trotskyists want the workers to assemble the party from the bottom up rather than the party herding the workers? forgive me for my _Trotskyist error_ away from Leninism! lol
Line 47:		Line 46:
	* so part of what I'm getting from this is that if parties seem distant from workers and like they're not supporting workers' movements and leaving movements and individuals to solve everything themselves they're doing something wrong		* so part of what I'm getting from this is that if parties seem distant from workers and like they're not supporting workers' movements and leaving movements and individuals to solve everything themselves they're doing something wrong
	** the bot does not actually like "demographic Trotskyists" that are determined to create a model of Leninist revolution and not give in to Stalin so they can supposedly have a perfect "Trotskyist country" one day but don't actually help anyone.		** the bot does not actually like "demographic Trotskyists" that are determined to create a model of Leninist revolution and not give in to Stalin so they can supposedly have a perfect "Trotskyist country" one day but don't actually help anyone.
	** when you think about it, the bot itself is a symptom of terrible leadership because it basically exists to be there when the world is full of demographic Trotskyists that are unbudgeable and busy with whatever they think is important and it's the only thing left to talk to

	<!--		<!--
Line 59:		Line 57:
	<ol class="hue clean reset">		<ol class="hue clean reset">

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/IV\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}There are groups of people that attempt to become a class but fail to create stable class societies within the bounds of a particular economic base, such as "The Bureaucracy"		{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/IV\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}What is to be done? (Lenin)

			{{li\|I=S2/IV\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}There are groups of people that attempt to become a class but fail to create stable class societies within the bounds of a particular economic base, such as "The Bureaucracy"

	{{li\|I=S2/IV\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}A layer of tiny contractors which has successfully been "googlized" or "Amazonized" will eventually get squashed back down into an owner and a proletariat		{{li\|I=S2/IV\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}A layer of tiny contractors which has successfully been "googlized" or "Amazonized" will eventually get squashed back down into an owner and a proletariat

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q618-FinalClassOfHumanity

Reversedragon — Fri, 12 Jun 2026 08:52:11 GMT

subpage

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:52, 12 June 2026
Line 23:		Line 23:
	--></dl>		--></dl>
	== Ideologies or fields ==		== Ideologies or fields ==

			== Subpages ==
			* [[EC:9k/RD/Q618-FinalClassOfHumanity/FinalClass01\|FinalClass01]] - page for chewing over my really long "trans4mer" question (nickel page, contains no AI quotes)

	<!--== Full title for bookmarks (optional) ==		<!--== Full title for bookmarks (optional) ==

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q618-FinalClassOfHumanity/FinalClass01

Reversedragon — Fri, 12 Jun 2026 08:51:59 GMT

worker compression; themes

Show changes

Category:"Trans4mer" pages (RD)

Reversedragon — Fri, 12 Jun 2026 08:11:58 GMT

Template:Correction

Reversedragon — Fri, 12 Jun 2026 08:02:03 GMT

copy markup from Template:b

New page

<includeonly><onlyinclude><ins {{if:{{{lang|}}}|lang="{{{lang|}}}"}} class="correction">{{{1}}}</ins></onlyinclude></includeonly>
== Demo ==

This is an important demo 
{{correction|[It's only so important.]}}

== Description ==

This is a template meant to mirror the HTML <code>ins</code> tag. It can be used for inserting comments into paragraphs.

== Parameters ==
* <code>1</code> - Text to be offset as comment.
* <code>lang</code> - Text language.

== Internal templates ==

* [[Template:TTS]] - used to specify HTML tag plus pronunciation.

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

MediaWiki:Common.css

Reversedragon — Fri, 12 Jun 2026 08:01:39 GMT

.correction

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:01, 12 June 2026
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 14:		Line 14:
	.bop i i, i[lang=ja] { font-style: normal; }		.bop i i, i[lang=ja] { font-style: normal; }
	h1.bop.subtitle, .bop h1 .subtitle, .bop h2 .subtitle { display: block; font-size: 85%; }		h1.bop.subtitle, .bop h1 .subtitle, .bop h2 .subtitle { display: block; font-size: 85%; }
			ins.correction { margin-left: 1.5em; }

	/* bop-related CSS */		/* bop-related CSS */

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q618-FinalClassOfHumanity/FinalClass01

Reversedragon — Fri, 12 Jun 2026 07:46:46 GMT

copy markup from trans4mer page ; prompt created 2026-06-11T06:42:00H

New page

{{NickelBank/x4mer| final class of humanity 
|nickel = FinalClass01 |Contents=y}}

== Question ==
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean">


{{li|start=y|I=M3/A|tradition=|Q=618|Q2=618}}How do we know the petty bourgeoisie is not the final class of humanity before the abolition of classes? (question)

</li></ol>

== Prompt ==
<blockquote>
How do we know the petty bourgeoisie is not the final class of humanity before the abolition of classes? 
At the very start of a Marxist revolution, Leninist parties come to exist by building up people who have some amount of expertise in historical patterns, organizing, and dialectical materialism. The central party of a given region watches other movements and attempts to predict how to get all the workers' movements organized into one large structure that is capable of resisting any remaining non-proletarian movements and creating a workers' state. Then, during the later stages of that process the central party tries to join up with the most class-conscious workers to create a vanguard between the central party and the masses of workers which will be able to meaningfully run a government by the people. Stalin's Marxism stops at recognizing this overall 3-level structure as the workers' state, while Trotskyists want the middle vanguard to break out and realize its own government that removes any bureaucratic elements, structures, or processes of the original central party, and perhaps eventually abolishes it. At some point in the process of the middle vanguard taking over and becoming "central" the dictatorship of the proletariat is created, which enables multiple workers' states to link together. 
The problem with this is that in First World countries people are very spread-out and movements are often too sparse and isolated to join up effectively. In the early stages of attempting to form a Leninist movement, very few people have any incentive to care about Marxism or Materialism at all, while just a few Marxist theorists argue about it. Meanwhile, all the movements that form locally are generally anarchist, and very anticommunist; they will fixate on abstract notions of taking "institutions" (social structures) ranging in size from a workplace to a nation-state and carrying out operations of leaking information about the structure's misdeeds and pressuring the structure from the outside until it is either destroyed or contains only individuals that perform the behaviors the people outside consider moral. 
People like Lenin and Krupskaya believed in the power of education to transform the people toward Materialism and toward the proletariat. But what's been observed in First World countries is that as people get more educated they get more willful. Peasants are very willing to go along with combining everyone into a workers' state, but once a country is full of industry and educated people they all become obsessed with "the individual" and no individual ever getting second priority in a movement or else wrecking all the world's movements and governments until said political factions start out with the same concept of an ideal society. I see a lot of talk in First World countries that their civil rights movements have actually "discovered" important truths that parties aren't allowed to forget, but all of these findings are basically incomprehensible to any Leninist or Dengist party in the Third World, and frequently dismissed as total nonsense. The charitable perspective there is that when people start talking about how LGBT+ people and women's movements to attempt to burst open the Soviet Union or China have taught everyone that progressive movements are combinations of demographics excluded from society that refused to settle for any incorrect picture of them, the efforts of workers to industrialize society and pay for later generations' education have changed society just like Lenin and Krupskaya said. The strange thing is that when countries become educated and industrialized the whole process of starting a Leninist party becomes completely divorced from the people. Countries fill up with product categories, jobs run out, people become educated anyway, and then a significant majority of people just do not understand Marxism or often Materialism at all, and everyone has trouble being good enough to join a group of Leninist theorists but also "knows" that if Leninist theorists will be busy arguing amongst themselves and won't be ready to interact with them for the next 30 years they "have to" create theories of social movements solely on the basis of Liberal-republicanism and anarchism. The more this progresses, the harder it gets for Leninist theorists to actually predict social movements at all to the point of correctly predicting a meaningful crisis of capitalism capable of joining them, and the more nightmarishly difficult it gets for Leninist theorists, the harder it is for workers to become conscious of how to organize everybody around them and become the middle vanguard that keeps a traditional Leninist workers' state going. As far as I understand Lenin thought there was a gradient from workers to Leninist theorists and the middle vanguard was just workers slowly becoming more educated toward the point of optionally becoming Leninist theorists; if they don't become theorists, then the entire nation-wide organization at once still disciplines people and "learns" almost as if it was a living thing. But in the first world it seems like there is just one big antagonism developing between Leninist theorists who want to organize people and seas of educated people and tiny contractors who don't desire being organized and are fighting them. The ICFI seems to have a hypothesis that gig workers are the proletariat but because of all this I doubt that's true. It looks to me like whole First World economies are just transforming into the petty bourgeoisie and developing petty-bourgeois consciousness. But it also looks to me like this is the natural endpoint of people going through education and industrialization like Lenin wanted them to. Countries full of peasants want to build a republic to fight off colonialism but countries full of workers eventually start to understand the concept of taking control of their own destinies as a population and that they can't wait for Leninist theorists to arrive and help them but instead have to educate themselves and be responsible "now" to become the kind of proactive, informed people who would become Leninist theorists... but then this understanding simply transforms them into the petty bourgeoisie and thwarts Leninist parties. What if Marxism has been wrong and the proletariat is actually an anomaly while socialist transition inevitably restores the petty bourgeoisie? How would we know the difference?
</blockquote>




== Usage notes ==
* You are allowed to post LLM prompts as nickels (the part you wrote), as long as they stay in one of the {{TTS|html=code|... talk:|Talk}} namespaces and there are no direct quotes from response text. Concisely describing abstract propositions that turn up several times inside response text is fine.
* It's recommended you include all of the AI's "references", such that each prompt becomes a sort of 'combination nickel' that happens to cover twenty links instead of one. If any of the pages referenced are already nickels, you should link the nickel page.

== Links ==
* Thread ID (for search purposes): {{TTS|html=code|tts=f7f...24 (see page source)|f7f14cab-4219-4fec-8a90-7683d76b3824}}


[[Category:GPT-"Fourth" prompt pages (RD)]] [[Category:Nickel links (NickelBank)]]

Category:I-Template classnames displaying swatch A

Reversedragon — Fri, 12 Jun 2026 07:39:22 GMT

Template:IM3/A/class

Reversedragon — Fri, 12 Jun 2026 07:38:59 GMT

charcoal swatch

New page

<onlyinclude>class="field_anarchy manual {{{1|}}}" data-dimension="M3"</onlyinclude>
[[Category:I-Template classnames displaying swatch A]]

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q618-FinalClassOfHumanity

Reversedragon — Fri, 12 Jun 2026 06:55:50 GMT

copy markup from Q21,50 ; question created yesterday

New page

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

{{li|start=y|I=S2/A|tradition=|Q=618|Q2=618}}Academics are the final class / The petty bourgeoisie is the final class of humanity before the abolition of classes (proposition) / How do we know the petty bourgeoisie is not the final class of humanity before the abolition of classes? (question)

{{li|I=S2/A |tradition=|Q=618|Q2=618}}Homesteads are the final class / Communities (tents of freedom poles) are the final class
{{li|I=S2/A |tradition=|Q=618|Q2=618}}Tribes are the final class
{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=|Q=618|Q2=618}}Academics are the final class / Artists are the final class

</li></ol>

== Related ==


</dl>
== Ideologies or fields ==


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

User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/4000

Reversedragon — Fri, 12 Jun 2026 06:50:14 GMT

Trotskyite conspiracy period

@@ Line 664: / Line 664: @@
 </li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4520">??
 </li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4530">??
 </li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4540">??
 </li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4550">??

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q53,83

Reversedragon — Fri, 12 Jun 2026 06:40:33 GMT

The goal of Marxism is to unify all applied Materialisms / Anticommunism belies Habermas

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:40, 12 June 2026
Line 7:		Line 7:
	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

	== ~~Swapping historical materialism for morality~~ ==		== Empirical observations ==
	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">

	<li ~~data-qid~~=~~"36,67" value~~=~~"3667" class~~=~~"field_mdem" data-dimension~~=~~"S2">Nothing should be done unless everyone thinks it wonderful / Do not what others would not "unto"~~ / ([[User:RD/9k/~~Q36~~,67\|9k]])		{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/A\|tradition=\|Q=32,95\|Q2=3295}}China detained BL writers / ([[User:RD/9k/Q32,95\|9k]])

	</li><li class="field_exstruct" ~~data-~~tradition="ES" ~~value~~="618~~" data~~-~~dimension~~="S2">where there is oppression there will be resistance; where dignity and justice are denied they will be sought (incomplete thought) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q36,67\|9k]])		</li></ol>

			== "Existentialist" explanations ==
			<ol class="hue clean field_exstruct">

			{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/A\|tradition=\|Q=36,67\|Q2=3667}}Do not what others would not "unto" ([[EC:9k/RD/Q618-PeriodicTableOfRules\|inverse xenon rule]]) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q36,67\|9k]])

			{{li\|I=S2/A\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Treat others as they would like to be treated ([[EC:9k/RD/Q618-PeriodicTableOfRules\|platinum rule]]) / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q50,98\|9k]])

			{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/HM\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Oppression leads to resistance / where there is oppression there will be resistance; where dignity and justice are denied they will be sought (motif; incomplete thought) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q36,67\|9k]])

			{{li\|I=F2/Aa\|tradition=\|Q=53,81\|Q2=5381}}Outlawing gay marriage is obviously wrong -> the problem with this statement is "obviously".

			{{li\|I=F2/Aa\|tradition=\|Q=53,82\|Q2=5382}}We know gay marriage is a fact because Jungian repression {{YouTube\|BE7UPO6GGK4}} -> again it's the line of argument that's bad.

			{{li\|I=S1/Aa\|tradition=Aa onto ML\|Q=53,80\|Q2=5380}}seeing Bolshevism through psychoanalysis / seeing workers' states through psychoanalysis

	</~~li><li class~~=~~"field_anarchy" data-qid~~=~~"32~~,~~95" value~~=~~"3295" data-dimension="S2">China detained BL writers~~ / ([[User:RD/9k/~~Q32~~,95\|9k]])		{{li\|I=F2/Aa\|tradition=Aa onto ML\|Q=53,84\|Q2=5384}}Freudian repression can be used to identify Marxist errors / ([[User:RD/9k/Q36,67\|9k]])
	</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="Aa" data-qid="53,81" value="5381" data-dimension="F2">Outlawing gay marriage is obviously wrong -> the only problem with this statement is "obviously".

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

	==~~= Freud =~~==		== Marxist explanations ==
	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean field_ML">

	<li ~~class~~=~~"field_exstruct" data-tradition~~=~~"Aa" data-qid~~=~~"53~~,~~82" value~~=~~"5382" data-dimension~~=~~"S2">We know gay marriage~~ is a ~~fact because Jungian repression {{YouTube\|BE7UPO6GGK4}}~~ -> ~~again~~ it~~'s the line~~ of ~~argument that~~'s ~~bad~~.		{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/IV\|Q=36,74\|Q2=3674\|h4= Defeat Stalin with gender identity }} / Gender identity is proletarian but it's Stalin that divides people [https://www.leftvoice.org/toward-a-trans-trotskyism/] / Homosexuality is proletarian but it's Stalin that divides people -> I might have problems with this on a theoretical level but this is one of those propositions I nonetheless love because it comes out of nowhere and it's frankly hilarious.

	</li~~><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition~~=~~"Aa onto ML" data-qid="53,80" value="5380" data-dimension="S">seeing Bolshevism through psychoanalysis~~ / ~~seeing workers' states through psychoanalysis~~		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=\|Q=618}}The goal of Marxism is to unify all applied Materialisms / ({{9k\|RD/Q38,59}}) -> this proposition means that if Marxism fails to explain empirical observations of history or social phenomena which are describable as material objects or processes observable from the outside, dialectical materialism falls apart.
	~~</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-~~tradition=~~"Aa onto ML" data-qid="53,84" value~~=~~"5384" data-dimension="F2">Freudian repression can be used~~ to ~~identify Marxist errors~~ / (~~[[User:~~RD/~~9k/Q36~~,~~67\|9k]]~~)

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

	== ~~Identity~~ analysis ==		== meta-Marxist analysis ==
	<ol class="hue clean field_LGBT">		<ol class="hue clean field_LGBT">

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/MX/LGBT\|tradition=ES, HM, A\|Q=53,77\|Q2=5377}}Gay and Stalinist are incompatible identities -> you could say this in two directions: gay is not allowed if you are a Stalin-follower, or Communism is not allowed if you're gay. ok, there's actually a third one too: gay and state capitalism are incompatible identities, which means that state capitalism disallows gay and gay disallows state capitalism disallows Bolshevism.<br/>		{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/HM\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618\|h4= Oppression leads to resistance }} / where there is oppression there will be resistance; where dignity and justice are denied they will be sought (motif; incomplete thought) {{Youtube\|cpP1EX8kK0o}} -> my only problem with this is how you define what oppression is — or what dignity and justice are. you can't identify it just from seeing resistance ... almost any time you introduce the concept of oppression versus resistance you actually {{em\|lose}} the ability to tell what's right and what's wrong.<br/>
			say [[User:RD/9k/Q32,95\|a gay man lives in the Soviet Union in 1930]]. the government is [[E:Gay movements are against the proletariat\|not in favor of autonomous gay movements]] (although 'autonomous' is the intended key word in that sentence, not 'gay'). a great number of people accept and side with the government. the gay man participates in an unauthorized movement. the public responds with resistance as if hurt. if the public produces resistance in response to someone's actions and choices, does this mean [[User:RD/9k/Q37,77\|the public is oppressed]]? did the individual in fact [[E:democulture (meta-Marxism)\|choose wrong]]? should he have fully sided with the central government on the position of defending the Soviet Union from division and external attack in order to not be oppressive and dominating? this particular scenario actually gets a lot easier if you know the historical context and that it's not actually scary to say the answer is "yes". but for most people looking at workers' states from the outside this scenario is really difficult, and it shows that a simple rule from anarchism / critical theory is quite unsuited for real situations.

			{{li\|I=S2/MX/LGBT\|tradition=ES, HM, A\|Q=53,77\|Q2=5377\|h4= Gay and Stalinist are incompatible identities }} -> you could say this in two directions: gay is not allowed if you are a Stalin-follower, or Communism is not allowed if you're gay. ok, there's actually a third one too: gay and state capitalism are incompatible identities, which means that state capitalism disallows gay and gay disallows state capitalism disallows Bolshevism.<br/>
	Gay and Stalinist are incompatible identities + Anticommunism belies Habermas = ????		Gay and Stalinist are incompatible identities + Anticommunism belies Habermas = ????

			{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=\|Q=618\|h4= Anticommunism belies Habermas }} / Anticommunism is [[E:does not promote freedom (truth value)\|Prejudice]] / The continued presence of anticommunism in the world shows that the world still contains some unknown kind of bigotry and all critical-theorists and anarchists will continue to be [[E:Society is the progression of moral consciousness\|bigots]] as opposed to [[E:moral vanguard theory\|progressives]] until they figure out what it is -> people can be anticommunist for many reasons but the fact is that today in 2026 all of those reasons [[EC:9k/RD/Q1961\|hurt the Cuban population as a whole]]. even the Trotskyist reasoning that Cuba 'persecuted gay people once' (as it hasn't been doing recently). every statement that people who are anticommunist are moral is false on its face if you've been to Cuba. so the question that remains is, exactly in what way are Habermasians lying to everyone?

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

	== Related ~~themes~~ ==		== Related ==
			<!--
	<ol class="hue clean terse">		<ol class="hue clean terse">
			</li></ol> -->
	{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=\|Q=618\|h4= Anticommunism belies Habermas }} / Anticommunism is [[E:does not promote freedom (truth value)\|Prejudice]] / The continued presence of anticommunism in the world shows that the world still contains some unknown kind of bigotry and all critical-theorists and anarchists will continue to be [[E:Society is the progression of moral consciousness\|bigots]] as opposed to [[E:moral vanguard theory\|progressives]] until they figure out what it is

	</li></ol>

	== Ideology codes ==		== Ideology codes ==

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q38,59

Reversedragon — Fri, 12 Jun 2026 05:56:26 GMT

unifying relativity and quantum mechanics (Marxism)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:56, 12 June 2026
Line 37:		Line 37:
	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.		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}}unifying relativity and quantum mechanics (~~Marxism~~) -> 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=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 -><br/>		{{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 -><br/>

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q66

Reversedragon — Fri, 12 Jun 2026 05:54:58 GMT

move section about unifying Materialisms to "materialist inversion & math"

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:54, 12 June 2026
Line 17:		Line 17:
	<ol class="hue clean field_relativity">		<ol class="hue clean field_relativity">

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/STM\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Dualism is separating noumenon and phenomenon / physicalism and prediction (generic) / ({{9k\|RD/Q14,80}}) -> ... the only real confusion on how to use Materialism to understand every meaningful process in material reality comes up around relativity and how to fully apply relativity to everything in the universe including time and causality. that can get confusing because events have to actually happen from the collision of two processes at some point, they can't be infinitely separate and relative and never converge, and we know they converge, physicists are just very confused how they do or at what scale. if they knew the answer to that, they'd have unified quantum mechanics and smallest-scale relativity and gravity.		{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/STM\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Dualism is separating noumenon and phenomenon / physicalism and prediction (generic) / How can we fully apply relativity to every model of every process in the universe including time and causality? (generic) / ({{9k\|RD/Q14,80}}) -> ... that can get confusing because events have to actually happen from the collision of two processes at some point, they can't be infinitely separate and relative and never converge, and we know they converge, physicists are just very confused how they do or at what scale. if they knew the answer to that, they'd have unified quantum mechanics and smallest-scale relativity and gravity.

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 34:		Line 34:
	in one sense, relativity almost {{em\|is}} physics. it's easy to take for granted that events happen, chemical or quantum interactions take place, and comparatively large objects such as apples or golf balls collide, but we should actually find it really remarkable that any of these physical events are happening given that every single physical event that happens {{em\|disrupts and changes time}}. the Newtonian physics equations typically taught in grade school hardly ever take this into account, presenting every individual event as if [[E:absolute determinism\|the whole universe were a scripted television show]], or a ball rolling off a counter simply "decided" to happen. in the real world, it would appear that relativity is more or less leading to every physical event through the constant collision and interaction of countable objects and semi-countable localized arrangements of objects or contained energy. it is not in fact circular {{em\|logic}} to say that time caused itself. in the current universe, time is a circular process that builds on itself [[E:Time happens multiple times at a time per time\|multiple times at a time per time]] and that is exactly what time does.		in one sense, relativity almost {{em\|is}} physics. it's easy to take for granted that events happen, chemical or quantum interactions take place, and comparatively large objects such as apples or golf balls collide, but we should actually find it really remarkable that any of these physical events are happening given that every single physical event that happens {{em\|disrupts and changes time}}. the Newtonian physics equations typically taught in grade school hardly ever take this into account, presenting every individual event as if [[E:absolute determinism\|the whole universe were a scripted television show]], or a ball rolling off a counter simply "decided" to happen. in the real world, it would appear that relativity is more or less leading to every physical event through the constant collision and interaction of countable objects and semi-countable localized arrangements of objects or contained energy. it is not in fact circular {{em\|logic}} to say that time caused itself. in the current universe, time is a circular process that builds on itself [[E:Time happens multiple times at a time per time\|multiple times at a time per time]] and that is exactly what time does.

	{{li\|I=S2/GR/MX\|Q=618}}Relativity is inherently ~~Communist~~ / Relativity is inherently ~~Marxist~~ / Because Einstein's [[E:scientific model\|theories]] of special and general relativity more or less forbid [[E:absolute determinism\|absolute determinism]] and in practice only allow for [[E:lambda-calculus determinism\|limited]] or [[E:relativistic determinism\|relativistic]] determinism, relativity inherently promotes the use of naïve dialectical materialism to model the process by which causality leads from past states to future states; this is to {{em\|imply}} that relativity promotes large-scale, [[E:dialectical materialism (Marxism)\|specific-sense dialectical materialism]] as in Marx but only to outright state that it promotes multivariable functions as opposed to single-variable functions, and [[E:wavemachine logic (meta-Marxism)\|wave-machine logic]]		{{li\|I=S2/GR/MX\|Q=618\|h4= Relativity is inherently Marxist }} / Relativity is inherently Communist / Because Einstein's [[E:scientific model\|theories]] of special and general relativity more or less forbid [[E:absolute determinism\|absolute determinism]] and in practice only allow for [[E:lambda-calculus determinism\|limited]] or [[E:relativistic determinism\|relativistic]] determinism, relativity inherently promotes the use of naïve dialectical materialism to model the process by which causality leads from past states to future states; this is to {{em\|imply}} that relativity promotes large-scale, [[E:dialectical materialism (Marxism)\|specific-sense dialectical materialism]] as in Marx but only to outright state that it promotes multivariable functions as opposed to single-variable functions, and [[E:wavemachine logic (meta-Marxism)\|wave-machine logic]]

			{{li\|I=S1/MX\|tradition=\|Q=618\|h4= unifying relativity & quantum }} / unifying relativity and quantum mechanics (Marxism) / ({{9k\|RD/Q38,59}}) -> the motif of unifying general relativity and quantum mechanics, taken literally as it is, but then applied to the new context of 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 / ({{9k\|RD/Q38,59}})

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 57:		Line 61:
	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

	== ~~Materialisms must unify to remain accurate~~ ==		== Related ==
	<ol class="hue clean field_relativity">		<ol class="hue clean field_relativity">

	{{li\|start=y\|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\|start=y\|I=S1/MX\|Q=38,59\|Q2=3859\|rem=Q59 mathematics\|h4= [[E:MaterialistInversionAndMath\|materialist inversion and math]] }} / ({{9k\|RD/Q38,59}})

	{{li\|~~I=S1~~/MX\|tradition=\|Q=618}}conflict between empirical materialism and dialectical materialism -> I had so much trouble putting this into words. 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". 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.<br/>
	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></ol>~~

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

	{{li~~\|start=y~~\|I=Z1/IV/Fy\|Q=16,32\|Q2=1632}}{{book\|1632}} (Eric Flint) -> make 9k page later		{{li\|I=Z1/IV/Fy\|Q=16,32\|Q2=1632}}{{book\|1632}} (Eric Flint) -> make 9k page later

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

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q38,59

Reversedragon — Fri, 12 Jun 2026 05:22:16 GMT

The goal of Marxism is to unify all applied Materialisms

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:22, 12 June 2026
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 10:		Line 10:
	<ol class="hue clean field_ML">		<ol class="hue clean field_ML">

	{{li\|start=y\|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\|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= 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.<br/>		{{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.<br/>
Line 20:		Line 24:
	<ol class="hue clean field_ML">		<ol class="hue clean field_ML">

	{{li\|start=y\|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 -><br/>		{{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 -><br/>
	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.<br/>		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.<br/>
	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]].		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=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=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.<br/>
			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}}unifying relativity and quantum mechanics (Marxism) -> 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/ES\|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\|isn't the thing it thinks it refers to]]. there is a point where science and even to a large extent~~ the ~~production~~ of ~~new Materialist knowledge becomes irrelevant to society~~, ~~but~~ the ~~application~~ of ~~old Materialism 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 real meanings~~ of that ~~phrase~~ is ~~"philosophy"~~ or ~~"philosophical deduction", which, when 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 even 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~~.		{{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 -><br/>
			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>		</li></ol>

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q697

Reversedragon — Fri, 12 Jun 2026 04:31:29 GMT

backhandedly true

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:31, 12 June 2026
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 9:		Line 9:

	{{li\|I=S2/ML\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Take the shovel, and its image falls out / When you pick up a [[E:shovel (meta-Marxism)\|shovel]] (any concrete physical object; shovel, rock, sword, dollar coin, building), the abstract idea someone else attributes to it and assumes to inhabit it falls out and does not go along with it; the external idea is lifted out of your hand / <s>{{i\|lang=de\|Aufhebest die Schaufel, dem Bild aufheben}}</s> (wrong) -> I do not really speak German. I wish I did, because it would make it so much easier to label a few particular propositions.		{{li\|I=S2/ML\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Take the shovel, and its image falls out / When you pick up a [[E:shovel (meta-Marxism)\|shovel]] (any concrete physical object; shovel, rock, sword, dollar coin, building), the abstract idea someone else attributes to it and assumes to inhabit it falls out and does not go along with it; the external idea is lifted out of your hand / <s>{{i\|lang=de\|Aufhebest die Schaufel, dem Bild aufheben}}</s> (wrong) -> I do not really speak German. I wish I did, because it would make it so much easier to label a few particular propositions.

			{{li\|I=S1/ML\|Q=697\|Q2=697}}backhandedly true (truth value) -> this non-binary truth value describes statements which should be false from an Idealist point of view but from an amoral Materialist point of view are accidentally true.<br/>
			a "backhanded compliment" is a statement which was expected to be [[E:fitting action (truth value)\|morally fitting]] (so, Idealist in small ways) but then says something overly honest that people didn't want to hear. a statement that is backhandedly true is true in a similar way; it is not true within the specific ideological parameters, predictions, and intentions of the faction of people that said it, but it happens to be a true description of material reality or history through some material model or form of argument that the faction who said the statement never approved of. for example: a Tory party says "Trotsky showed there were serious problems with Marxism" (implying that Trotsky disproved all Marxism). Marxists look back at the Trotskyite conspiracy, discover there were serious problems with using Marxism to model multiple Communist parties at once, and then fix Marxism. Tories were correct when they said Trotsky uncovered problems with Marxism, but they were backhandedly correct.<br/>
			(I am not sure of the precise day I first said "backhandedly true", but it was added to [[User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand\|the prototype]] in [[Special:PermanentLink/6351\|July of 2025]]. and I have only been adding to the growing pile of statements that appear to be backhandedly true since then.)

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

User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-3

Reversedragon — Fri, 12 Jun 2026 03:52:24 GMT

All philosophy is subjective

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:52, 12 June 2026
Line 972:		Line 972:

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

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

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

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q87

Reversedragon — Fri, 12 Jun 2026 03:51:37 GMT

Applied sciences are Materialisms

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:51, 12 June 2026
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 25:		Line 25:
	Idealism comes up in Pokémon types, where the interactions between two Pokémon are explained after the fact using inherent characteristics (Types). Idealism comes up in Deltarune, where the element system is taken less seriously allowing for weird new elements like "mouse" and "cat" but the inherent connections between two concepts give rise to elemental pairs. Idealism shows up in Ace Attorney designs where characters have particular roles in the story and then each character's design plays up particular abstract concepts to hint at these roles (the characters having strange names that clearly mean something but only slowly unfold like miniature mysteries of their own is one of the most obvious parts of this). Idealism shows up in a lot of places in different ways.<br/>		Idealism comes up in Pokémon types, where the interactions between two Pokémon are explained after the fact using inherent characteristics (Types). Idealism comes up in Deltarune, where the element system is taken less seriously allowing for weird new elements like "mouse" and "cat" but the inherent connections between two concepts give rise to elemental pairs. Idealism shows up in Ace Attorney designs where characters have particular roles in the story and then each character's design plays up particular abstract concepts to hint at these roles (the characters having strange names that clearly mean something but only slowly unfold like miniature mysteries of their own is one of the most obvious parts of this). Idealism shows up in a lot of places in different ways.<br/>
	Idealism may be "mostly" bad in that it clouds people's understanding of real-life events, but if you only want to use it as an art technique, you can learn a lot about how to create good "EarthBound logic" by unmasking various other instances of Idealism in other works.		Idealism may be "mostly" bad in that it clouds people's understanding of real-life events, but if you only want to use it as an art technique, you can learn a lot about how to create good "EarthBound logic" by unmasking various other instances of Idealism in other works.

			</li></ol>

			== From Idealism to Materialism ==
			<ol class="hue clean terse">

			{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/ES\|tradition=ES, MX\|Q=618\|h4= All philosophy is subjective }} / Because every philosophical text is an opinion piece, no philosophy is actually objective and all philosophy is subjective until it eventually turns into scientific models and applied science -> I don't think this is very controversial. there are ways to spin this that absolutely twist me in knots (please throw all post-structuralism in the trash) and there are also ways to play it that are more reasonable.

			{{li\|I=S2/ES\|tradition=ES, MX\|Q=618}}All philosophy is subjective / Because every philosophical text is an opinion piece, no philosophy is actually objective and all philosophy is subjective until it eventually turns into scientific models and applied science; this is to imply that if something could be philosophy and applied science at the same time that only within those conditions would philosophy actually be objective; this is to imply that philosophy starts out as a collection of subjective opinion pieces, becomes a form of Materialism, and then becomes labeled "applied science" -> you know.... this proposition is really not that bad. you have to read into it a bit but if you look at it closely enough and notice the loophole, you see it doesn't really paint a flattering portrayal of Idealism or [[User:RD/9k/Q73\|academic anarchisms]] at all, and all Materialisms inherently sift out on top of it while all Idealisms inherently sink to the bottom.

			{{li\|I=S2/STM/MX\|Q=618\|Q2=618\|h4= Applied sciences are Materialisms }} / ({{9k\|RD/Q38,59}})

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

User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/3000

Reversedragon — Fri, 12 Jun 2026 03:36:13 GMT

the scientific community

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:36, 12 June 2026
Line 99:		Line 99:
	</li><li class="number_empty" value="3047" data-dimension="S">??		</li><li class="number_empty" value="3047" data-dimension="S">??
	</li><li class="number_empty" value="3048" data-dimension="S">??		</li><li class="number_empty" value="3048" data-dimension="S">??
	</~~li><li class~~=~~"number_empty" value~~="3049~~" data-dimension="S">??~~
			{{li\|I=S1/STM/LR\|Q=30,49\|Q2=3049}}the scientific community / ({{9k\|RD/Q42,34}})

	{{li\|I=S1/HM/W\|Q=30,50\|Q2=3050}}right-wing semantic hegemony / ({{9k\|RD/Q30,52}})		{{li\|I=S1/HM/W\|Q=30,50\|Q2=3050}}right-wing semantic hegemony / ({{9k\|RD/Q30,52}})

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q42,34

Reversedragon — Fri, 12 Jun 2026 03:35:38 GMT

the scientific community

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:35, 12 June 2026
Line 40:		Line 40:
	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

	== ~~Zealous anti-pseudoscience~~ ==		== Science and capitalism ==
	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">

Line 59:		Line 59:

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/PT\|tradition=IV, Zv\|Q=42,62\|Q2=4262\|h4= doctors hate him! }} -> the moment this motif popped up in advertising everybody started laughing at it. I feel like there were very few people who took it seriously. but it can tell you a lot if you look deeper into where exactly it came from. the kinds of people peddling the stuff that "doctors hate" are probably pretty similar to "science Trotskyites", trying to shortcut the overall concept of medical knowledge and present the existence of markets as inherently better than doctors just because there's a lower barrier to entry. and this would be why doctors hate them. markets transform society into a hazardous ecosystem of potentially poisonous substances you practically need a field guide to navigate, [[E:Mushrooms are edible\|just like the world was before there were any businesses at all]], while honestly what really transformed society into modernity was the oh-so-accursed experts of particular domains. Stalin really wasn't that bad, markets destroy everything, it's a million Stalins that truly create modern society and not the markets. we have everything backwards.		{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/PT\|tradition=IV, Zv\|Q=42,62\|Q2=4262\|h4= doctors hate him! }} -> the moment this motif popped up in advertising everybody started laughing at it. I feel like there were very few people who took it seriously. but it can tell you a lot if you look deeper into where exactly it came from. the kinds of people peddling the stuff that "doctors hate" are probably pretty similar to "science Trotskyites", trying to shortcut the overall concept of medical knowledge and present the existence of markets as inherently better than doctors just because there's a lower barrier to entry. and this would be why doctors hate them. markets transform society into a hazardous ecosystem of potentially poisonous substances you practically need a field guide to navigate, [[E:Mushrooms are edible\|just like the world was before there were any businesses at all]], while honestly what really transformed society into modernity was the oh-so-accursed experts of particular domains. Stalin really wasn't that bad, markets destroy everything, it's a million Stalins that truly create modern society and not the markets. we have everything backwards.

			</li></ol>

			== The scientific what? ==
			<ol class="hue clean">

			{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/STM/LR\|Q=30,49\|Q2=3049}}the scientific community -> I hate this phrase. can I just come out and say that? it has never made any sense to me. the scientific what?? scientists are all materially grouped together in.... what exactly? everybody keeps saying this so often over years and years and I have no idea what it even means.

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

User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/4000

Reversedragon — Fri, 12 Jun 2026 03:30:28 GMT

they purged members of the scientific community / the science bureaucracy

Show changes

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q42,34

Reversedragon — Fri, 12 Jun 2026 03:27:50 GMT

Prediction markets could pick the best researchers

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 </li></ol>
-== Main entry ==
+== In the First World ==
 <ol class="hue clean">
-{{li|start=y|I=S1/DX|tradition=Zv onto DX onto STM|Q=42,37|Q2=4237}}the science bureaucracy
+{{li|start=y|I=S1/DX|tradition=STM onto STM, Zv onto DX onto STM|Q=42,37|Q2=4237}}the science bureaucracy
-{{li|I=S1/Zv|tradition=Zv onto DX onto STM|Q=42,38|Q2=4238}}science Trotskyites  ->  the non-fictional motif that there are people who oppose established structures of science purely for their failures without thinking about their successes. this could be a good thing or a bad thing. some people could have legitimate complaints that universities are stagnating and churning out a lot of papers that do very little. other people are [https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6156 Alexander Unzicker] and sound comically similar to <cite>The Revolution Betrayed</cite> in that their criticisms sound like facts but in context do not even make any sense.
+{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=42,47|Q2=4247}}Academic science is capitalism (meta-Marxism) / Academic science is an undesigned system which creates selection pressures and where the science that gets produced operates on the logic of assembly theories such that scientists are obligated to join socially-linked countable cultures in order to survive expulsion from the environment as opposed to thinking for themselves as individuals  -><br />
-{{li|I=S1/HM|tradition=LR, ES, HM|Q=42,39|Q2=4239}}science Tories  ->  the non-fictional motif that people should be presumed to not actually be knowledgeable about science because they "[[E:assigned liberal at birth|Are Actually Part Of The Right]]". (examples: Richard Dawkins, Sabine Hossenfelder.) this isn't really correct on a factual basis. somebody can be an absolutely horrible person and still understand science and create an informative book or video about science which is educational to people of all ideologies. in such a case, the work becomes valid through death of the author and other people reappropriating the work, exactly as with fictional works. it is also possible that misconceptions about science will lead somebody into Toryism, or that facts or models will become misinterpreted through Toryism into models that don't actually make sense. but this happens for reasons that a lot of center-Liberals don't want to think about: people form ontologies to comprehend the world, they strain everything through ontologies, sometimes the ontologies are inaccurate, sometimes the ontologies are accurate. in recent decades people really hate the notion of ontologies because of the fact <i>ontologies can form stereotypes</i>, so they want to smash all ontologies, but that's a bad plan when all countable Cultures and marginalized religions and things they want to protect bring ontologies, so smashing ontologies is an easy way to let people get away with forced assimilation, the opposite of the goal. there is such a trend to say reality can't be predicted and people can't be predicted to try to encourage people to be open-minded, but it never really works because people need to form ontologies to [[Ontology:Q2970|avoid catastrophes in their lives and physically survive]], and if you don't give them objectively accurate ontologies of how to successfully survive and build society they <em>will</em> use stereotypes for the same purpose, taking down notes to avoid "all men" or "all Black people" just to have a better day-to-day experience with less pain in their individual lives. back to science-Tories: science-Tories are the motif that people form countable Cultures of Toryism and then they do science for the "Tory ethnicity", and you have to root them out of science because the Tory people-group is an evil malicious people-group which [[Ontology:Q3667|intends to use]] all pieces of the Tory machine to eliminate the center-Liberal people-group so all pieces of the Tory machine are bad. even if this is true... do you see how there are undercurrents in this which indicate some nasty biases or fallacies of some kind? not in the sense of "Tories could be good", but more in the sense of "nations must be adversarial to the extent of internal imperialism and there's nothing we could have done to prevent this, we've just gotta divide and fight a civil war one day because that's the only way countries can be".
+{{li|I=S2/STM|tradition=STM / string theory|Q=42,60|Q2=4260}}String theorists are not suppressing dissent / String theorists are <em>not</em> creating localized [[E:There are millions of Spanishness Offices|Spanishness Offices]] which become more about cliques and socially-linked groups of people protecting each other than actual objective standards of science  ->  oh boy. one of those questions where I don't like having to talk about it because I know the parties are talking past each other and not even talking about the same thing. when Sabine Hossenfelder and Jim Baggott or people like that allege that string theorists are suppressing dissent, they mean inside individual specific institutions such as a university or a journal. they don't mean nationwide. what The Hossenfelder or The Baggott or The Science Trotskyite is saying is that there is a process that takes hold <em>sometimes</em> inside particular institutions where some particular individual or Filament of individuals takes over them and if you don't fit into that limited local countable culture of scientists and play by exactly the rules it wants then it doesn't let you play the game. while it can be true that Not All String Theorists do it, the accusation itself is that it's an undesirable process that happens spontaneously somewhere without recourse and so it feels like anybody anywhere can "get Gramsci'd". and here's how it historically goes in each of these cases of people complaining about "suppression": when you get Gramscianized or musical-chairs-attacked you start to feel paranoid like all the Stalinists across the Soviet Union or all the string theorists everywhere across all of Germany or all of the United Kingdom are joining together to find you and kick you out — whether such a statement is accurate or not. whereas, the claim that string theory has been improperly accepted across all of Germany is a claim of much greater scope than anybody is practically intending to make. the problem The Science Trotskyites are talking about is less a science problem and more of a social problem of localized countable cultures of people meshing badly and failing to share localized institutions such that the group of people has to divide and each countable culture has to aggressively secure its own territory. really not a problem that has much to do with the scientific method.
 </li></ol>
 == Related ==
 <ol class="hue clean terse">
-</li></ol> -->
 == Ideologies or fields ==

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q4234

Reversedragon — Fri, 12 Jun 2026 02:37:52 GMT

Reversedragon moved page Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q4234 to Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q42,34 Moving numbered Item to TTS-pronounceable title

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:37, 12 June 2026
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 3:		Line 3:
	<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean">		<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean">

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/Zv\|Q=42,34\|Q2=4234}}<!-- \|h4=}} -->they purged members of the scientific community [https://art-bin.com/art/amosc_preeng.html] -> this really begins to show what the usage of the word "community" actually means. it implies some kind of unbreakable whole where for unclear reasons it's a huge violation {{em\|to remove people who are asserted to be causing harm to the rest of the people in the whole}}. why? why would it be that people are more closely bound together by applied science than by republican society itself?<br/>		{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/ES\|Q=42,34\|Q2=4234}}<!-- \|h4=}} -->they purged members of the scientific community [https://art-bin.com/art/amosc_preeng.html] / [[E:Communist Party of the Soviet Union (1925-1940)\|Stalin's government]] purged members of the scientific community -> this really begins to show what the increasing usage of the word "community" everywhere actually means. it implies some kind of unbreakable whole where for unclear reasons it's a huge violation {{em\|to remove people who are asserted to be causing harm to the rest of the people in the whole}}. why? why would it be that people are more closely bound together by applied science than by [[E:Marxist state\|republican society]] itself?<br/>
	the scientific community + Stalinism (corruption) = this.		the scientific community + Stalinism (corruption) = this.

			{{li\|I=S1/Zv\|Q=42,34\|Q2=4234}}they purged members of the scientific community (Trotskyism)

			</li></ol>

			== Main entry ==
			<ol class="hue clean">

			{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/DX\|tradition=Zv onto DX onto STM\|Q=42,37\|Q2=4237}}the science bureaucracy

			{{li\|I=S1/Zv\|tradition=Zv onto DX onto STM\|Q=42,38\|Q2=4238}}science Trotskyites -> the non-fictional motif that there are people who oppose established structures of science purely for their failures without thinking about their successes. this could be a good thing or a bad thing. some people could have legitimate complaints that universities are stagnating and churning out a lot of papers that do very little. other people are [https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6156 Alexander Unzicker] and sound comically similar to <cite>The Revolution Betrayed</cite> in that their criticisms sound like facts but in context do not even make any sense.

			{{li\|I=S1/HM\|tradition=LR, ES, HM\|Q=42,39\|Q2=4239}}science Tories -> the non-fictional motif that people should be presumed to not actually be knowledgeable about science because they "[[E:assigned liberal at birth\|Are Actually Part Of The Right]]". (examples: Richard Dawkins, Sabine Hossenfelder.) this isn't really correct on a factual basis. somebody can be an absolutely horrible person and still understand science and create an informative book or video about science which is educational to people of all ideologies. in such a case, the work becomes valid through death of the author and other people reappropriating the work, exactly as with fictional works. it is also possible that misconceptions about science will lead somebody into Toryism, or that facts or models will become misinterpreted through Toryism into models that don't actually make sense. but this happens for reasons that a lot of center-Liberals don't want to think about: people form ontologies to comprehend the world, they strain everything through ontologies, sometimes the ontologies are inaccurate, sometimes the ontologies are accurate. in recent decades people really hate the notion of ontologies because of the fact <i>ontologies can form stereotypes</i>, so they want to smash all ontologies, but that's a bad plan when all countable Cultures and marginalized religions and things they want to protect bring ontologies, so smashing ontologies is an easy way to let people get away with forced assimilation, the opposite of the goal. there is such a trend to say reality can't be predicted and people can't be predicted to try to encourage people to be open-minded, but it never really works because people need to form ontologies to [[Ontology:Q2970\|avoid catastrophes in their lives and physically survive]], and if you don't give them objectively accurate ontologies of how to successfully survive and build society they <em>will</em> use stereotypes for the same purpose, taking down notes to avoid "all men" or "all Black people" just to have a better day-to-day experience with less pain in their individual lives. back to science-Tories: science-Tories are the motif that people form countable Cultures of Toryism and then they do science for the "Tory ethnicity", and you have to root them out of science because the Tory people-group is an evil malicious people-group which [[Ontology:Q3667\|intends to use]] all pieces of the Tory machine to eliminate the center-Liberal people-group so all pieces of the Tory machine are bad. even if this is true... do you see how there are undercurrents in this which indicate some nasty biases or fallacies of some kind? not in the sense of "Tories could be good", but more in the sense of "nations must be adversarial to the extent of internal imperialism and there's nothing we could have done to prevent this, we've just gotta divide and fight a civil war one day because that's the only way countries can be".

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

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q4234

Reversedragon — Fri, 12 Jun 2026 02:20:49 GMT

copy markup from 9k/Q42,34

New page

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=members of the scientific community|User=RD|E=Q42,34|Contents=y}}
== Main entry ==
<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/Zv|Q=42,34|Q2=4234}}they purged members of the scientific community [https://art-bin.com/art/amosc_preeng.html] -> this really begins to show what the usage of the word "community" actually means. it implies some kind of unbreakable whole where for unclear reasons it's a huge violation {{em|to remove people who are asserted to be causing harm to the rest of the people in the whole}}. why? why would it be that people are more closely bound together by applied science than by republican society itself? 
the scientific community + Stalinism (corruption) = this.
</li></ol>

== Related ==


== Ideologies or fields ==

* (none)

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

User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4

Reversedragon — Fri, 12 Jun 2026 02:14:58 GMT

Relativity is inherently Communist

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:14, 12 June 2026
Line 333:		Line 333:

	{{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=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/GR/MX\|Q=618}}Relativity is inherently Communist / Relativity is inherently Marxist / Because Einstein's [[E:scientific model\|theories]] of special and general relativity more or less forbid [[E:absolute determinism\|absolute determinism]] and in practice only allow for [[E:lambda-calculus determinism\|limited]] or [[E:relativistic determinism\|relativistic determinism]], relativity inherently promotes the use of naïve dialectical materialism to model the process by which causality leads from past states to future states; this is to {{em\|imply}} that relativity promotes large-scale, [[E:dialectical materialism (Marxism)\|specific-sense dialectical materialism]] as in Marx but only to outright state that it promotes multivariable functions as opposed to single-variable functions, and [[E:wavemachine logic (meta-Marxism)\|wave-machine logic]]

	{{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/] -><br/>		{{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/] -><br/>

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q66

Reversedragon — Fri, 12 Jun 2026 02:14:09 GMT

applied Materialism / conflict between empirical materialism and dialectical materialism

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:14, 12 June 2026
Line 33:		Line 33:
	what this practically means is that any object in the universe which is capable of perceiving or at least storing images necessarily exists in a universe where vast reaches of the universe are only hypothetical — every camera sitting on a tripod can take pictures within a particular radius but the rest of the universe is unknown until signals from other points in the universe cross over to it in time to finally reach its point in space. the crossing of a photon from one object to another is the moment that the hypothetical is confirmed to be the actual, or disproven. thus, relativity is the root of noumenon-phenomenon dualism. the boundary of a particular countable object, whether it is a person, camera, or apple, is the boundary between the "dual substances". [[E:relativistic gap\|relativistic gaps]] between objects which {{a\|separate what might be one object into two objects capable of interacting or not interacting\|E=process of Being (Heidegger)}} are the exact boundary between phenomena in the form of recorded measurements, photographs, logical statements, or linguistic descriptions, and noumena in the form of real physical objects such as a second person or apple. the two substances are distinct in that physical apples contain the physical atoms and interactions of apples while any model of an apple is generally simpler than the actual apple. at the same time, any two people, cameras, or apples have their own boundaries of signals reaching them versus their own physicality. it is just as valid to point out that the real is separated from the hypothetical as it is to point out that this separation is almost the same thing as the separation between two apples or two star systems. thus, it is technically valid to say that dualism is when two apples exist. noumenon-phenomenon dualism is nearly the same thing as the dualism of two countably separate objects producing separate "parallel timelines" as two lamps both emit light beams on different paths that could hit an object at different speeds through space, passing through each other and "changing history" through wave interference, or two apples roll into each other and change each other's paths irrevocably because up to that point each apple was proceeding on a separate local timeline of expected events until suddenly the apples exchanged kinetic energy and changed each other's futures.<br/>		what this practically means is that any object in the universe which is capable of perceiving or at least storing images necessarily exists in a universe where vast reaches of the universe are only hypothetical — every camera sitting on a tripod can take pictures within a particular radius but the rest of the universe is unknown until signals from other points in the universe cross over to it in time to finally reach its point in space. the crossing of a photon from one object to another is the moment that the hypothetical is confirmed to be the actual, or disproven. thus, relativity is the root of noumenon-phenomenon dualism. the boundary of a particular countable object, whether it is a person, camera, or apple, is the boundary between the "dual substances". [[E:relativistic gap\|relativistic gaps]] between objects which {{a\|separate what might be one object into two objects capable of interacting or not interacting\|E=process of Being (Heidegger)}} are the exact boundary between phenomena in the form of recorded measurements, photographs, logical statements, or linguistic descriptions, and noumena in the form of real physical objects such as a second person or apple. the two substances are distinct in that physical apples contain the physical atoms and interactions of apples while any model of an apple is generally simpler than the actual apple. at the same time, any two people, cameras, or apples have their own boundaries of signals reaching them versus their own physicality. it is just as valid to point out that the real is separated from the hypothetical as it is to point out that this separation is almost the same thing as the separation between two apples or two star systems. thus, it is technically valid to say that dualism is when two apples exist. noumenon-phenomenon dualism is nearly the same thing as the dualism of two countably separate objects producing separate "parallel timelines" as two lamps both emit light beams on different paths that could hit an object at different speeds through space, passing through each other and "changing history" through wave interference, or two apples roll into each other and change each other's paths irrevocably because up to that point each apple was proceeding on a separate local timeline of expected events until suddenly the apples exchanged kinetic energy and changed each other's futures.<br/>
	in one sense, relativity almost {{em\|is}} physics. it's easy to take for granted that events happen, chemical or quantum interactions take place, and comparatively large objects such as apples or golf balls collide, but we should actually find it really remarkable that any of these physical events are happening given that every single physical event that happens {{em\|disrupts and changes time}}. the Newtonian physics equations typically taught in grade school hardly ever take this into account, presenting every individual event as if [[E:absolute determinism\|the whole universe were a scripted television show]], or a ball rolling off a counter simply "decided" to happen. in the real world, it would appear that relativity is more or less leading to every physical event through the constant collision and interaction of countable objects and semi-countable localized arrangements of objects or contained energy. it is not in fact circular {{em\|logic}} to say that time caused itself. in the current universe, time is a circular process that builds on itself [[E:Time happens multiple times at a time per time\|multiple times at a time per time]] and that is exactly what time does.		in one sense, relativity almost {{em\|is}} physics. it's easy to take for granted that events happen, chemical or quantum interactions take place, and comparatively large objects such as apples or golf balls collide, but we should actually find it really remarkable that any of these physical events are happening given that every single physical event that happens {{em\|disrupts and changes time}}. the Newtonian physics equations typically taught in grade school hardly ever take this into account, presenting every individual event as if [[E:absolute determinism\|the whole universe were a scripted television show]], or a ball rolling off a counter simply "decided" to happen. in the real world, it would appear that relativity is more or less leading to every physical event through the constant collision and interaction of countable objects and semi-countable localized arrangements of objects or contained energy. it is not in fact circular {{em\|logic}} to say that time caused itself. in the current universe, time is a circular process that builds on itself [[E:Time happens multiple times at a time per time\|multiple times at a time per time]] and that is exactly what time does.

			{{li\|I=S2/GR/MX\|Q=618}}Relativity is inherently Communist / Relativity is inherently Marxist / Because Einstein's [[E:scientific model\|theories]] of special and general relativity more or less forbid [[E:absolute determinism\|absolute determinism]] and in practice only allow for [[E:lambda-calculus determinism\|limited]] or [[E:relativistic determinism\|relativistic]] determinism, relativity inherently promotes the use of naïve dialectical materialism to model the process by which causality leads from past states to future states; this is to {{em\|imply}} that relativity promotes large-scale, [[E:dialectical materialism (Marxism)\|specific-sense dialectical materialism]] as in Marx but only to outright state that it promotes multivariable functions as opposed to single-variable functions, and [[E:wavemachine logic (meta-Marxism)\|wave-machine logic]]

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 52:		Line 54:

	{{li\|I=S2/MX/GR\|Q=618\|Q2=618\|h4= Scientists cannot un-break glass }} / No scientist un-breaks glass / No human scientist can unbreak a glass of water or fly back to the earth of 100 years ago, because relativity in particular forbids any individual object resetting other countably separate objects to a previous point in time; because every object experiences the arrow of entropy {{em\|separately}} from other countably separate objects, you cannot both go forward in time yourself (as all fictional time travelers do, considering that they experience thoughts and memories exactly as they would if they were going forward in time) and send another macroscopic object backward in time, because the nature of countably separate objects experiencing time separately is that the other object will always go forward in time before you can control it and send it backward; what relativity says about causality is that separations of causality onto different timelines prevent manipulating other timelines through processes that can only include causality — when you have no foothold on the cliff of time, the foothold actively runs away and resists getting closer		{{li\|I=S2/MX/GR\|Q=618\|Q2=618\|h4= Scientists cannot un-break glass }} / No scientist un-breaks glass / No human scientist can unbreak a glass of water or fly back to the earth of 100 years ago, because relativity in particular forbids any individual object resetting other countably separate objects to a previous point in time; because every object experiences the arrow of entropy {{em\|separately}} from other countably separate objects, you cannot both go forward in time yourself (as all fictional time travelers do, considering that they experience thoughts and memories exactly as they would if they were going forward in time) and send another macroscopic object backward in time, because the nature of countably separate objects experiencing time separately is that the other object will always go forward in time before you can control it and send it backward; what relativity says about causality is that separations of causality onto different timelines prevent manipulating other timelines through processes that can only include causality — when you have no foothold on the cliff of time, the foothold actively runs away and resists getting closer

			</li></ol>

			== Materialisms must unify to remain accurate ==
			<ol class="hue clean field_relativity">

			{{li\|start=y\|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. 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". 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.<br/>
			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></ol>		</li></ol>

User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4

Reversedragon — Fri, 12 Jun 2026 01:58:41 GMT

Gay and Stalinist are incompatible identities

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:58, 12 June 2026
Line 3:		Line 3:

	{{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\|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\|tradition=\|Q=618}}Anticommunism belies Habermas / Anticommunism is [[E:does not promote freedom (truth value)\|Prejudice]] / The continued presence of anticommunism in the world shows that the world still contains some unknown kind of bigotry and all critical-theorists and anarchists will continue to be [[E:Society is the progression of moral consciousness\|bigots]] as opposed to [[E:moral vanguard theory\|progressives]] until they figure out what it is

	{{li\|I=S2/A\|tradition=ES, HM, A\|Q=618}}Gay and Stalinist are incompatible identities -> you could say this in two directions: gay is not allowed if you are a Stalin-follower, or Communism is not allowed if you're gay. ok, there's actually a third one too: gay and state capitalism are incompatible identities, which means that state capitalism disallows gay and gay disallows state capitalism disallows Bolshevism.<br/>
	~~Gay and Stalinist are incompatible identities + Anticommunism belies Habermas = ???~~

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

User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/5000

Reversedragon — Fri, 12 Jun 2026 01:24:23 GMT

Gay and Stalinist are incompatible identities

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:24, 12 June 2026
Line 534:		Line 534:
	</li><li class="number_empty" value="5375" data-dimension="S">??		</li><li class="number_empty" value="5375" data-dimension="S">??
	</li><li class="number_empty" value="5376" data-dimension="S">??		</li><li class="number_empty" value="5376" data-dimension="S">??
	~~</li><li class="number_empty" value="5377" data-dimension="S">??~~

			{{li\|I=S2/A\|tradition=ES, HM, A\|Q=53,77\|Q=5377}}Gay and Stalinist are incompatible identities / ({{9k\|RD/Q53,83}})<br/>
			Gay and Stalinist are incompatible identities + Anticommunism belies Habermas = ????
	</li><li class="field_nations" data-qid="53,78" value="5378" data-dimension="F2">The bourgeoisie invented polyamory		</li><li class="field_nations" data-qid="53,78" value="5378" data-dimension="F2">The bourgeoisie invented polyamory

User:RD/9k/Q53,83

Reversedragon — Fri, 12 Jun 2026 01:23:35 GMT

Reversedragon moved page User:RD/9k/Q53,83 to Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q53,83 Moving numbered Item to TTS-pronounceable title

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:23, 12 June 2026
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 3:		Line 3:
	<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean">		<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean">

	<li ~~class~~=~~"field_ML" data-qid~~="53,83~~" value~~="5383~~" data-dimension~~=~~"S2">~~Gay movements are against the proletariat ({{TTS\|tts=Soviet Union\|USSR}}) / Gay movements are against the stability of the workers' state {{YouTube\|BE7UPO6GGK4}} -> the core of this claim is in LGBT+ people forming {{em\|movements}}, although when you see it it's not usually phrased that way. the Soviet Union didn't necessarily hate individual gay people, a better word would be "indifferent". but the thing it wasn't ready for was for people to just spontaneously group up for their own interests in a way which had nothing to do with the development of the workers' state — basically, a movement for an identity, instead of people integrating into other more official initiatives. this seems to be the source of a great split between Communism and Anarchism. anarchism loves spontaneous movements for identities and thinks of it as the more of them the better because they will inherently unite with each other. Communism thinks they are inherently suspicious in that they naturally fight against everything around them including each other, although they can sometimes be benign. in certain ways, the Communist position has surprisingly held up, at least up to the moment of outlawing homosexuality. but everyone has been so afraid to admit it's true there has effectively been this gigantic surge in thinly-veiled anarchisms just because this is apparently the more natural-and-inherent-but-wrong way for humans to conceptualize forming society, that it's always "my own friends against my own enemies" or "[[E:united nonviolence of shared oppressions\|united nonviolence of shared oppressions]]" and no greater structure or pattern matters.		{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/ML\|tradition=\|Q=53,83\|Q2=5383\|h4= Gay movements are against the proletariat }} ({{TTS\|tts=Soviet Union\|USSR}}) / Gay movements are against the stability of the workers' state {{YouTube\|BE7UPO6GGK4}} -> the core of this claim is in LGBT+ people forming {{em\|movements}}, although when you see it it's not usually phrased that way. the Soviet Union didn't necessarily hate individual gay people, a better word would be "indifferent". but the thing it wasn't ready for was for people to just spontaneously group up for their own interests in a way which had nothing to do with the development of the workers' state — basically, a movement for an identity, instead of people integrating into other more official initiatives. this seems to be the source of a great split between Communism and Anarchism. anarchism loves spontaneous movements for identities and thinks of it as the more of them the better because they will inherently unite with each other. Communism thinks they are inherently suspicious in that they naturally fight against everything around them including each other, although they can sometimes be benign. in certain ways, the Communist position has surprisingly held up, at least up to the moment of outlawing homosexuality. but everyone has been so afraid to admit it's true there has effectively been this gigantic surge in thinly-veiled anarchisms just because this is apparently the more natural-and-inherent-but-wrong way for humans to conceptualize forming society, that it's always "my own friends against my own enemies" or "[[E:united nonviolence of shared oppressions\|united nonviolence of shared oppressions]]" and no greater structure or pattern matters.

	~~</li></ol>~~

	~~== Related themes ==~~

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

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

	== Swapping historical materialism for morality ==		== Swapping historical materialism for morality ==

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

Line 27:		Line 20:

	=== Freud ===		=== Freud ===

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

Line 34:		Line 26:
	</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="Aa onto ML" data-qid="53,80" value="5380" data-dimension="S">seeing Bolshevism through psychoanalysis / seeing workers' states through psychoanalysis		</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="Aa onto ML" data-qid="53,80" value="5380" data-dimension="S">seeing Bolshevism through psychoanalysis / seeing workers' states through psychoanalysis
	</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="Aa onto ML" data-qid="53,84" value="5384" data-dimension="F2">Freudian repression can be used to identify Marxist errors / ([[User:RD/9k/Q36,67\|9k]])		</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="Aa onto ML" data-qid="53,84" value="5384" data-dimension="F2">Freudian repression can be used to identify Marxist errors / ([[User:RD/9k/Q36,67\|9k]])

			</li></ol>

			== Identity analysis ==
			<ol class="hue clean field_LGBT">

			{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/MX/LGBT\|tradition=ES, HM, A\|Q=53,77\|Q2=5377}}Gay and Stalinist are incompatible identities -> you could say this in two directions: gay is not allowed if you are a Stalin-follower, or Communism is not allowed if you're gay. ok, there's actually a third one too: gay and state capitalism are incompatible identities, which means that state capitalism disallows gay and gay disallows state capitalism disallows Bolshevism.<br/>
			Gay and Stalinist are incompatible identities + Anticommunism belies Habermas = ????

			</li></ol>

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

			{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=\|Q=618\|h4= Anticommunism belies Habermas }} / Anticommunism is [[E:does not promote freedom (truth value)\|Prejudice]] / The continued presence of anticommunism in the world shows that the world still contains some unknown kind of bigotry and all critical-theorists and anarchists will continue to be [[E:Society is the progression of moral consciousness\|bigots]] as opposed to [[E:moral vanguard theory\|progressives]] until they figure out what it is

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

Category:I-Template classnames displaying swatch MX-LGBT

Reversedragon — Fri, 12 Jun 2026 01:19:06 GMT

Template:IS2/MX/LGBT/class

Reversedragon — Fri, 12 Jun 2026 01:18:45 GMT

violet, rainbow

New page

class="field_mdem field_LGBT manual {{{1|}}}" data-dimension="S2"
[[Category:I-Template classnames displaying swatch MX-LGBT]]

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q1961

Reversedragon — Fri, 12 Jun 2026 01:15:41 GMT

Anticommunism belies Habermas

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:15, 12 June 2026
Line 67:		Line 67:

	== The United States and lies ==		== The United States and lies ==
	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean terse">

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Everyone within the United States who is loyal to it will lie to you -> 'Cuba is not under a blockade, you're just an evil country'. 'the Democrats protect minorities' (domestic and foreign lie). 'Herbert Marcuse [or insert other arbitrary person] invented transgender people'. 'United States elections are not disproportionally affected by oil companies'. 'I understand that multiple countries exist'. 'I understand what Communism is'. 'I understand what a worker is'. 'I understand what a historical period is and the physical transition that separated monarchy from Liberal-republicanism'. 'I understand what being educated is'. 'I understand what the scientific method is'. 'Liberal-republicanism works, and I understand how it works'. 'Protests heighten the social cost of taking an action'. (the same person I heard say this also said it tends to stop working, which means the explanation of both what protests do and how they do it is wrong.)<br/>		{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Everyone within the United States who is loyal to it will lie to you -> 'Cuba is not under a blockade, you're just an evil country'. 'the Democrats protect minorities' (domestic and foreign lie). 'Herbert Marcuse [or insert other arbitrary person] invented transgender people'. 'United States elections are not disproportionally affected by oil companies'. 'I understand that multiple countries exist'. 'I understand what Communism is'. 'I understand what a worker is'. 'I understand what a historical period is and the physical transition that separated monarchy from Liberal-republicanism'. 'I understand what being educated is'. 'I understand what the scientific method is'. 'Liberal-republicanism works, and I understand how it works'. 'Protests heighten the social cost of taking an action'. (the same person I heard say this also said it tends to stop working, which means the explanation of both what protests do and how they do it is wrong.)<br/>
	this is one of the top things I would tell anyone living in Cuba. flat out don't listen to U.S. people, because the majority of them are liars on at least one thing. {{em\|they aren't honest.}} as for me? I may or may not write false statements but I always try to either mark them in red or orange to show what particular movement tends to say them and why you might expect them to be wrong, or mark the refuted statements F2. everyone else may lie, I just make mistakes.		this is one of the top things I would tell anyone living in Cuba. flat out don't listen to U.S. people, because the majority of them are liars on at least one thing. {{em\|they aren't honest.}} as for me? I may or may not write false statements but I always try to either mark them in red or orange to show what particular movement tends to say them and why you might expect them to be wrong, or mark the refuted statements F2. everyone else may lie, I just make mistakes.

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Laundering claims is lying / Refusing to explain under what conditions a statement could hypothetically be wrong is equivalent to lying -> you really need this strong a definition of "lying" if you want to catch United States "historians", or even early Trotskyism.		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618\|h4= Laundering claims is lying }} / Refusing to explain under what conditions a statement could hypothetically be wrong is equivalent to lying -> you really need this strong a definition of "lying" if you want to catch United States "historians", or even early Trotskyism.

			{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=\|Q=618\|h4= Anticommunism belies Habermas }} / Anticommunism is [[E:does not promote freedom (truth value)\|Prejudice]] / The continued presence of anticommunism in the world shows that the world still contains some unknown kind of bigotry and all critical-theorists and anarchists will continue to be [[E:Society is the progression of moral consciousness\|bigots]] as opposed to [[E:moral vanguard theory\|progressives]] until they figure out what it is

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

User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4

Reversedragon — Fri, 12 Jun 2026 01:06:08 GMT

It's impossible to call any historical outcome desirable or undesirable without the recognition history is always in motion

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:06, 12 June 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<h2 id="section-proposed4"><span class="mw-headline">Unsorted Items (page 4)</span> {{editsection\|User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4}}</h2>		<h2 id="section-proposed4"><span class="mw-headline">Unsorted Items (page 4)</span> {{editsection\|User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4}}</h2>
	<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean reset field_ML">		<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean reset field_ML">

			{{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\|tradition=\|Q=618}}Anticommunism belies Habermas / Anticommunism is [[E:does not promote freedom (truth value)\|Prejudice]] / The continued presence of anticommunism in the world shows that the world still contains some unknown kind of bigotry and all critical-theorists and anarchists will continue to be [[E:Society is the progression of moral consciousness\|bigots]] as opposed to [[E:moral vanguard theory\|progressives]] until they figure out what it is		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=\|Q=618}}Anticommunism belies Habermas / Anticommunism is [[E:does not promote freedom (truth value)\|Prejudice]] / The continued presence of anticommunism in the world shows that the world still contains some unknown kind of bigotry and all critical-theorists and anarchists will continue to be [[E:Society is the progression of moral consciousness\|bigots]] as opposed to [[E:moral vanguard theory\|progressives]] until they figure out what it is

	{{li\|I=S2/A\|tradition=ES, HM, A\|Q=618}}Gay and Stalinist are incompatible identities<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/A\|tradition=ES, HM, A\|Q=618}}Gay and Stalinist are incompatible identities -> you could say this in two directions: gay is not allowed if you are a Stalin-follower, or Communism is not allowed if you're gay. ok, there's actually a third one too: gay and state capitalism are incompatible identities, which means that state capitalism disallows gay and gay disallows state capitalism disallows Bolshevism.<br/>
	Gay and Stalinist are incompatible identities + Anticommunism belies Habermas = ???		Gay and Stalinist are incompatible identities + Anticommunism belies Habermas = ???

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q64,30

Reversedragon — Thu, 11 Jun 2026 23:57:53 GMT

Ace Attorney is an exercise in expressing things The Industry doesn't want people to do or be

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:57, 11 June 2026
Line 79:		Line 79:

	== Theories / subjective themes ==		== Theories / subjective themes ==
	<ol class="hue clean field_horror">		<ol class="hue clean field_horror field_LGBT">

			{{li\|start=y\|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.<br/>
			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<br/>
			(* 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.<br/>		{{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.<br/>
Line 103:		Line 109:
	{{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=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=S0/Fy/ML\|Q=36,16\|Q2=3616}}class traitor from specific field (fiction) / ({{9k\|RD/Q1210}})~~		{{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/Fy/ML\|Q=36,18\|Q2=3618}}lawyer characters becoming Lenin / characters that would be lawyers becoming Communist theorists / ({{9k\|RD/Q1210}})~~<br/>~~
	~~lawyer characters becoming Lenin + {{cite\|Ace Attorney}} = Franziska von Karma becomes Communist theorist.~~

	{{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.<br/>		{{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.<br/>
	... 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.		... 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/Fy/ML\|Q=618}}Franziska von Karma becomes Communist theorist / ({{9k\|RD/Q64,49}})~~

	{{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<br/>		{{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<br/>
Line 129:		Line 130:

	== Subpages or related pages ==		== Subpages or related pages ==
			* [[User:RD/objection-IB/IsCanadaTrotskyist\|objection-IB/IsCanadaTrotskyist]]
	* [[User:RD/objection-IB/IsCanadaTrotskyist\|~~RD/~~objection-IB/IsCanadaTrotskyist]]

User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4

Reversedragon — Thu, 11 Jun 2026 23:57:24 GMT

Anticommunism belies Habermas

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:57, 11 June 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<h2 id="section-proposed4"><span class="mw-headline">Unsorted Items (page 4)</span> {{editsection\|User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4}}</h2>		<h2 id="section-proposed4"><span class="mw-headline">Unsorted Items (page 4)</span> {{editsection\|User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4}}</h2>
	<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean reset field_ML">		<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean reset field_ML">

			{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=\|Q=618}}Anticommunism belies Habermas / Anticommunism is [[E:does not promote freedom (truth value)\|Prejudice]] / The continued presence of anticommunism in the world shows that the world still contains some unknown kind of bigotry and all critical-theorists and anarchists will continue to be [[E:Society is the progression of moral consciousness\|bigots]] as opposed to [[E:moral vanguard theory\|progressives]] until they figure out what it is

			{{li\|I=S2/A\|tradition=ES, HM, A\|Q=618}}Gay and Stalinist are incompatible identities<br/>
			Gay and Stalinist are incompatible identities + Anticommunism belies Habermas = ???

			{{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=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
Line 32:		Line 39:
	{{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=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 ~~offensive~~ than {{film\|Drawn Together}} / The news is more ~~offensive~~ 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/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/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?

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q64,49

Reversedragon — Thu, 11 Jun 2026 23:47:25 GMT

combinations

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:47, 11 June 2026
Line 40:		Line 40:

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/Fy/ML\|Q=64,49\|Q2=6449\|h4= Communist Franziska von Karma }} / Franziska von Karma becomes Communist theorist / Franziska von Karma as "the Stalin"; as esteemed Communist party theorist (sense) -> yeah, no, if anybody is going to be the Stalin of this setting it's going to be her. weapon or no weapon, it's that notion of her being way too dedicated to being a prodigy at 18 and trying to be better at what she does than anyone else, and not really wanting to let anyone get in her way if she can genuinely do something better<br/>		{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/Fy/ML\|Q=64,49\|Q2=6449\|h4= Communist Franziska von Karma }} / Franziska von Karma becomes Communist theorist / Franziska von Karma as "the Stalin"; as esteemed Communist party theorist (sense) -> yeah, no, if anybody is going to be the Stalin of this setting it's going to be her. weapon or no weapon, it's that notion of her being way too dedicated to being a prodigy at 18 and trying to be better at what she does than anyone else, and not really wanting to let anyone get in her way if she can genuinely do something better<br/>
	I didn't really like this character until I thought of this, which is just {{em\|so}} funny I can hardly explain it in full here. it's the collision of an anarchist-styled {{cite\|Ace Attorney}} timeline where The State is banned and presumably Communism is considered evil too, with the notion of von Karma showing up and being totally unlikeable but possibly being good at it and challenging all the anarchists' assumptions about anything. it's quite an "animal farm" scenario to drop on them where likely none of them is going to get it right but they might or might not all be wrong and it could be that one of the subjectively most unlikeable characters in {{cite\|Ace Attorney}} becomes the best one~~<br/>~~		I didn't really like this character until I thought of this, which is just {{em\|so}} funny I can hardly explain it in full here. it's the collision of an anarchist-styled {{cite\|Ace Attorney}} timeline where The State is banned and presumably Communism is considered evil too, with the notion of von Karma showing up and being totally unlikeable but possibly being good at it and challenging all the anarchists' assumptions about anything. it's quite an "animal farm" scenario to drop on them where likely none of them is going to get it right but they might or might not all be wrong and it could be that one of the subjectively most unlikeable characters in {{cite\|Ace Attorney}} becomes the best one
	~~lawyer characters becoming Lenin + {{cite\|Ace Attorney}} without trials = Franziska von Karma becomes Communist theorist.~~

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

	== Related ==		== Related ==
	~~<!--~~
	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">
	</li></ol> -->
			{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/Fy/ML\|Q=36,18\|Q2=3618}}lawyer characters becoming Lenin / characters that would be lawyers becoming Communist theorists / ({{9k\|RD/Q1210}})<br/>

			</li></ol>

			== Wavebuilder combinations ==
			<dl class="wikitable hue data_wavebuild three"><!-- inactive: field_exstruct field_horror -->
			{{WaveBuild\| {{E:Q618/ML\|lawyer characters becoming Lenin}} \| {{E:Q618/A\|{{cite\|Ace Attorney}} without trials}} \| {{E:Q618/ML\|Communist Franziska von Karma}} }}
			</dl>

	== Ideologies or fields ==		== Ideologies or fields ==

User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4

Reversedragon — Wed, 10 Jun 2026 06:47:47 GMT

Until 2020 Marxism has been unable to create genuinely accurate models of Idealist factions

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:47, 10 June 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<h2 id="section-proposed4"><span class="mw-headline">Unsorted Items (page 4)</span> {{editsection\|User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4}}</h2>		<h2 id="section-proposed4"><span class="mw-headline">Unsorted Items (page 4)</span> {{editsection\|User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4}}</h2>
	<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean reset field_ML">		<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean reset field_ML">

			{{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=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".

User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/900

Reversedragon — Wed, 10 Jun 2026 06:46:50 GMT

There is no Spanishness Office

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:46, 10 June 2026
Line 1,059:		Line 1,059:
	Trotsky is your new hero + Che Guevara = this.		Trotsky is your new hero + Che Guevara = this.

	</li~~><li class~~=~~"field_gramsci" data-qid~~="21,50~~" value~~="2150~~" data-dimension="S">~~The Spanishness Office ~~-> within this wiki, first brought up in <cite>MDem<~~/~~cite> "[[Philosophical Research:MDem~~/~~4.4r/4064 democulture\|democulture]]" entry.~~		{{li\|I=S1/W \|Q=21,50\|Q2=2150}}The Spanishness Office / ({{9k\|RD/Q21,50}})
	</li~~><li class~~=~~"field_trotsky" data-remark~~=~~"vaguely resembles early, crude Marxisms" data-qid="~~21,51~~" value~~="2151~~" data-dimension="F2">~~[[E:ThereIsNoSpanishnessOffice\|There is no Spanishness Office]] ~~-> the concept that culture cannot be changed through any deliberate effort~~, even by most movements. one could believe there is no Spanishness Office because culture is defined by the borders between populations, or because culture is produced through deterministic factors that individual will can't successfully pilot without a thorough science of society, or for any other number of reasons.		{{li\|I=F2/IV\|Q=21,51\|Q2=2151}}[[E:ThereIsNoSpanishnessOffice\|There is no Spanishness Office]] / ({{9k\|RD/Q21,50}})
	</li~~><li class~~=~~"field_mdem" data-qid~~="21,52~~" value~~="2152~~" data-dimension="S2">~~There are ten million Spanishness Offices ~~-> the claim that every time the motif of The Spanishness Office shows up~~, this is what it is bisimilar to: a bunch of free-floating corporations or institutions which may be conflated with the will of a particular owner, or a Tory Social-Philosophical System that has occupied a free-floating charity, each time raising the problem that the institution has its own "individual will" separate from society which is resistant to Liberal-republican "democracy" and resistant to almost everything. the problem isn't in asserting that there are Spanishness Offices, though there is a serious problem when people think controlling them is as simple as taking over just one when there are closer to ten million they might not successfully secure with perhaps some five million left over and wildly doing their own thing.		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=21,52\|Q2=2152}}There are ten million Spanishness Offices / ({{9k\|RD/Q21,50}})

	</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="21,53" value="2153" data-dimension="S2">Gramscianism is a grift -> the claim that while Gramsci had no ill intentions he created a theoretical system which by its design will mostly be used by grifters.<br />		</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="21,53" value="2153" data-dimension="S2">Gramscianism is a grift -> the claim that while Gramsci had no ill intentions he created a theoretical system which by its design will mostly be used by grifters.<br />

User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4

Reversedragon — Wed, 10 Jun 2026 06:43:48 GMT

The Free Software movement needs a theory of state businesses if it is ever to succeed

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:43, 10 June 2026
Line 363:		Line 363:

	{{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}}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<br/>
			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/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.

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q1961

Reversedragon — Wed, 10 Jun 2026 06:28:44 GMT

Corporations are more than people

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:28, 10 June 2026
Line 43:		Line 43:
	also: this is exactly the kind of thing that makes [[RN:5c/RegenMag/ParallelEconomyWright\|Wright's argument]] that socialist transition begins and ends at creating new production structures sound really dumb. if you make new production structures and the United States sufficiently dislikes them then the whole First World can ban them by interacting only with its own production structures and instantly become stronger than the entire worldwide revolution making it materially impossible.<br/>		also: this is exactly the kind of thing that makes [[RN:5c/RegenMag/ParallelEconomyWright\|Wright's argument]] that socialist transition begins and ends at creating new production structures sound really dumb. if you make new production structures and the United States sufficiently dislikes them then the whole First World can ban them by interacting only with its own production structures and instantly become stronger than the entire worldwide revolution making it materially impossible.<br/>
	this + ?? = Corporations are more than people.		this + ?? = Corporations are more than people.

			{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Corporations are more than people / All the rights in the U.S. Constitution primarily apply to corporations and inherently apply less to individuals, including the individuals that comprise corporations

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

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:22, 12 June 2026
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 10:		Line 10:
	<ol class="hue clean field_ML">		<ol class="hue clean field_ML">

	{{li\|start=y\|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\|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= 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.<br/>		{{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.<br/>
Line 20:		Line 24:
	<ol class="hue clean field_ML">		<ol class="hue clean field_ML">

	{{li\|start=y\|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 -><br/>		{{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 -><br/>
	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.<br/>		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.<br/>
	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]].		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=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=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.<br/>
			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}}unifying relativity and quantum mechanics (Marxism) -> 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/ES\|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\|isn't the thing it thinks it refers to]]. there is a point where science and even to a large extent~~ the ~~production~~ of ~~new Materialist knowledge becomes irrelevant to society~~, ~~but~~ the ~~application~~ of ~~old Materialism 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 real meanings~~ of that ~~phrase~~ is ~~"philosophy"~~ or ~~"philosophical deduction", which, when 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 even 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~~.		{{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 -><br/>
			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>		</li></ol>

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:52, 12 June 2026
Line 972:		Line 972:

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

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

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

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:14, 12 June 2026
Line 333:		Line 333:

	{{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=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/GR/MX\|Q=618}}Relativity is inherently Communist / Relativity is inherently Marxist / Because Einstein's [[E:scientific model\|theories]] of special and general relativity more or less forbid [[E:absolute determinism\|absolute determinism]] and in practice only allow for [[E:lambda-calculus determinism\|limited]] or [[E:relativistic determinism\|relativistic determinism]], relativity inherently promotes the use of naïve dialectical materialism to model the process by which causality leads from past states to future states; this is to {{em\|imply}} that relativity promotes large-scale, [[E:dialectical materialism (Marxism)\|specific-sense dialectical materialism]] as in Marx but only to outright state that it promotes multivariable functions as opposed to single-variable functions, and [[E:wavemachine logic (meta-Marxism)\|wave-machine logic]]

	{{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/] -><br/>		{{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/] -><br/>

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:57, 11 June 2026
Line 79:		Line 79:

	== Theories / subjective themes ==		== Theories / subjective themes ==
	<ol class="hue clean field_horror">		<ol class="hue clean field_horror field_LGBT">

			{{li\|start=y\|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.<br/>
			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<br/>
			(* 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.<br/>		{{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.<br/>
Line 103:		Line 109:
	{{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=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=S0/Fy/ML\|Q=36,16\|Q2=3616}}class traitor from specific field (fiction) / ({{9k\|RD/Q1210}})~~		{{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/Fy/ML\|Q=36,18\|Q2=3618}}lawyer characters becoming Lenin / characters that would be lawyers becoming Communist theorists / ({{9k\|RD/Q1210}})~~<br/>~~
	~~lawyer characters becoming Lenin + {{cite\|Ace Attorney}} = Franziska von Karma becomes Communist theorist.~~

	{{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.<br/>		{{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.<br/>
	... 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.		... 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/Fy/ML\|Q=618}}Franziska von Karma becomes Communist theorist / ({{9k\|RD/Q64,49}})~~

	{{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<br/>		{{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<br/>
Line 129:		Line 130:

	== Subpages or related pages ==		== Subpages or related pages ==
			* [[User:RD/objection-IB/IsCanadaTrotskyist\|objection-IB/IsCanadaTrotskyist]]
	* [[User:RD/objection-IB/IsCanadaTrotskyist\|~~RD/~~objection-IB/IsCanadaTrotskyist]]