View source for User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/5000

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

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

<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol start="5000" class="hue clean reset">
<li class="field_mdem" value="5000" data-dimension="S0">Item representing analogy or mathematical microcosm / Item comparing structure or process of thing A to thing B  ->  does not necessarily have to be a correct analogy, but this category does exist to <em>hunt for</em> correct analogies
</li><li class="" value="5001" data-dimension="S">comparing anything and everything to friendship / unexpectedly comparing things to friendship / comparing things of larger scales than individual relationships to individual relationships  ->  note that this is not a bad thing in every case; some MDem entries point out real similarities between individuals and populations which lead to real similarities between large and small relationships. that said, it can create jarring contrasts between stories and real life, or Existentialist theories and real life
</li><li class="" value="5002" data-dimension="S">comparing city-wide phenomena to individual friendships / comparing town-wide phenomena to friendship
</li><li class="" value="5003" data-dimension="S">comparing region-wide phenomena to individual friendships
</li><li class="" value="5004" data-dimension="S">comparing nationwide phenomena to individual friendships
</li><li class="" value="5005" data-dimension="S">comparing global phenomena to individual friendships
</li><li class="" value="5006" data-dimension="S">comparing whole social graphs to individual friendships / comparing whole communities to friendship / comparing fanbases to friendship / comparing platform membership to friendship
</li><li class="" value="5007" data-dimension="S">comparing galactic or cosmic phenomena to individual friendships
</li><li class="" value="5008" data-dimension="S">comparing institutions to individual friendships / comparing workplaces to friendship / comparing government ministries to friendship
</li><li class="" value="5009" data-dimension="S">comparing local community centers to individual friendships / comparing forums to friendship / comparing churches to friendship
</li><li class="" value="5010" data-dimension="S">individual described by common pronouns  ->  important to define basic categories, but may not be necessary to add except within works where below kinds of characters exist ↓
</li><li class="" value="5011" data-dimension="S">individual described by nonstandard pronouns / character described by pronouns not in common use outside work  ->  note that "they", "any pronouns", and "it" (background object) are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_grammar common usages], not nonstandard language
</li><li class="" value="5012" data-dimension="S">individual described by neopronouns / individual described by "nonsense" pronouns / individual described by "nounself" pronouns
</li><li class="" value="5013" data-dimension="S">individual described exclusively by pronouns from another language  ->  Damara Megido. this is a true example of a character with "nonstandard pronouns"
</li><li class="" value="5014" data-dimension="S">individual described by alternating pronouns / individual described by cycling pronouns  ->  thanks Mangle
</li><li class="" value="5015" data-dimension="S">individual described by pronoun of surrounding physical object / ghost using possessing object's pronoun
</li><li class="" value="5016" data-dimension="S">fictional individual described with insulting pronouns / fictional individual frequently misgendered in-universe / fictional individual frequently called coarse pronouns in Japanese not necessarily related to gender
</li><li class="" value="5017" data-dimension="S">individual described by pronoun of characters from other planet / fictional human described with alien pronouns  ->  thanks Piccolo, thanks Crystal Gems.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5018" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="" value="5019" data-dimension="S">pronoun not listed as Lexeme (type pronoun in qualifiers) / pronoun listed in external Lexeme (ex.: [https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Lexeme:L303625 ey])
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5020" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5021" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5022" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5023" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5024" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5025" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5026" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5027" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5028" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5029" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5030" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5031" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5032" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li value="5033" class="field_horror" data-dimension="S">individual described by pronoun usages containing ARG clues  ->  <s>I have never heard of this but I bet it will happen some day</s><br />
wait. this technically already exists. people were left using the pronoun "him" to trace tenuous connections between Gaster and Deltarune. so technically. there is already at least one example out there of pronouns being used as ARG clues, although it's simpler than the silly idea I had in my head of some cryptic letter hiding some kind of cipher key in pronouns.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5034" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5035" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5036" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5037" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5038" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5039" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5040" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5041" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5042" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5043" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5044" data-dimension="S2">it's possible to have political positions without it being a team sport - no. it's not. chunk competition / CCASH and Social-Philosophical Systems / SPS prohibit that. center-Liberal rationalists are so stupid. you know what the worst thing is? this was used to justify Trotsky in the same sentence. Trotsky violently attacked a republic due to his extreme views. I mean, what else do you term an assassination? anybody who doesn't realize hegemony politics currently exists (even if it's not a good thing) and treat it as if it exists is just, hanging out feeling like they owe nothing to a population continuing to exist and it's okay to let every other individual die except maybe a couple friendly businesses they buy things from if current policies benefit their own business. when you refuse to play "team sports" whole nationalities and ethnicities of people cease to be because all the people in them scatter to different capitalist cities. only a few things are more prejudiced than that. every population is based on a molecularized yet competitive process of people building populational structures through free association that at times harm each other and exist in mutual exclusion. you can't just "criticize" these without understanding their physical interaction and the fact that some of them have to be treated as correct and some as incorrect. correct structures bring down regulations on incorrect structures. this is the basis of Liberal democracy. SPS-based democulture. if one person standing by and writing a bunch of Zinovievism could change the world just because they had "good ideas" there would be no need for elections.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="5045" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5046" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5047" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5048" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5049" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5050" data-dimension="Z0">vote  ->  a single show of support or non-support
</li><li class="field_geo" value="5051" data-dimension="Z0">denial ball / [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackballing black ball] / black cube  ->  ball used as veto in anonymous ball vote. sometimes balls are the same color and put on opposite sides of the anonymous box.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="5052" data-dimension="Z0">approval ball / white ball  ->  ball used in hopes of collecting a unanimous vote
</li><li class="field_geo" value="5053" data-dimension="Z0">ballot

</li><li class="number_empty" value="5054" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5055" data-dimension="S2">Differing ideologies should be resolved with ethics / people having different ideologies should be studied and resolved with ethics {{YouTube|9zPZP8FgqIg}}  ->  no. this is a classic Existentialist move. I appreciate what sounds like an attempt to do meta-ontology and step outside the two ideologies to understand each as its own object. but don't you go insisting a study of ideologies is called ethics. ethics is always wrapped up inside local ideology-objects to where in practice subjective-morality and ethics can never actually be separated and ethics always tries to conquer people; the only thing you can really do is just admit that only something that isn't ethics and contains no ethics can reconcile different forms of ethics. you were so close to being violet and then you turned blue.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5056" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5057" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5058" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5059" data-dimension="S">??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="LR, ES, DG" data-qid="50,80" value="5080" data-dimension="S">exceptions test The System / exceptions test the system  ->  schizoanalyst concept. the concept that excluded things are some kind of irrefutable evidence that The System must break down into a new state where all the exceptions will be accepted and tolerate each other.<br />
connected to, but not identical with, the concept that all people are connected through different oppressions by being The Subject and suffering.
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" data-qid="50,81" value="5081" data-dimension="S">exceptions are the exceptions to the exceptions  ->  the concept that any exception not incorporated into "the system" (which is hypothesized to mean the major Social-Philosophical-Material System) can just as easily be the enemy of other exceptions as their ally<br />
exceptions are the exceptions to the exceptions + You can't contradict Lived Experience = Lived Experience contradicts Lived Experience.

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

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-qid="50,83" value="5083" data-dimension="M3">Why did White people choose to live in The System? / Why did White people choose to live in capitalism? / Why did White people choose to live in colonial society?  ->  this is usually an anarchist, strictly-non-Marxist idea, so it's most appropriate to put it in weird opaque anarchist language. I may not like the way this idea is worded or expressed when it typically comes up, but taken by itself this is an excellent question. I mean, ask this question correctly and you'd have a highly-informative 600-page history book which introduced all the relevant objects and processes that genuinely suggested the correct strategy to end "The System". so, the usual answers are bad but the question is wired.<br />
...is. hang on. is this what the word "systemic" means. does it just mean that anarchists have no idea what they're {{censor|fucking}} analyzing and have just labeled it "The System" to be superficially objective about their lack of knowledge of what it is they're studying. oh boy. if that's it, it makes it severely ironic that many anarchists dislike objectivity, doesn't it. I mean, my Lived Experience is that The System is called capitalism, so you can only invoke objectivity if you want to deny that Lived Experience.

</li><li data-qid="50,84" value="5084" class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A, ES, DG, Zv, PT" data-dimension="S">The System / systemic (qualifier attributing some sort of social problem to The System, or alternatively attempting to explain problems by treating Niklas Luhmann societal (sub)systems as the only structure of society; anarchism, anti-racist movements, etc.)  ->  the motif of a nebulous social process that anarchists point to when living in society daily is pain and something is wrong. it's often terribly unclear what "the system" actually is or refers to.<br />
this motif is specifically for when texts or various groups simply keep saying "system" "system" "system" over and over again without giving even a brief explanation of what it is. if a Marxist explicitly refers to "capitalism", that should not be considered part of this motif, because they have given The System a name. on the other hand, if someone is talking about "systemic racism", that might or might not qualify as this motif depending on how specific it is; if they have a highly specific account of what material processes are perpetuating racism they're exempt, while if they seem to be suggesting that all the individuals in society simply have the wrong "ideas" or "attitudes" that would count. Idealism versus Materialism is a major distinction here. if something clearly tips over onto the BlackPantherism side of understanding reality as opposed to the anarchist side it probably isn't this motif.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="5085" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5086" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5087" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5088" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5089" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5090" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5091" data-dimension="S">optimism / determination (adventure narratives)

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5092" data-dimension="S">Signifier Case / signifier case  ->  the motif of presenting a concept In Capital Letters to defamiliarize it as a commonly-accepted word within the same language and offset it as a strange ontological construct which needs to be investigated, or as a specialized academic usage within some particular philosophy. this concept may be considered identical to practices like quoting terms or putting them in italics, but is not the same thing as putting a term in title case simply because it is the title of a wiki article.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="5093" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5094" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5095" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5096" data-dimension="S">??

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

</li><li class="number_empty" value="5098" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5099" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5100" data-dimension="S">intersubjectivity  ->  this should be considered a motif to scan texts for. the label can be changed to something more easily recognizable while keeping the internal definition the same thing.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5101" data-dimension="S2">When The Subject simply <em>is</em>, it compels people to listen
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5102" data-dimension="S2">The unpredictability of Subjects will save the world / whatsisname the unlikeable guy (Excessive Subject, Žižek) will stop the problem by stoking empathy  ->  I only caught this one after three or more times of listening to a Deltarune analysis. on Noelle's blog there is [https://deltarune.com/the_n3w3st_g1rl_g1rl/ an incident] where Susie is about to bite Kris, but then she stops because Kris said something unexpected. the blog post does not even explain what Kris said, underscoring the motif that Kris is an "excessive Subject" even to The Player. outside Deltarune, this same concept is portrayed much worse in <cite>The Excessive Subject</cite>. Rothenberg and Žižek clumsily try to explain that basically if a person is just really unpredictable people would eventually be forced to have intersubjectivity and learn empathy. honestly? I really do not think so. the problem isn't that reactionaries don't understand things. the problem is that the processes of society are much more physical and "inanimate" than people want to believe, reactionaries understand those processes all too well, and they choose to perpetuate cruel patterns because it's genuinely materially easier than doing otherwise. like, to get them to change you'd have to force <em>them</em> to expend energy and create things when they don't want to. doing nothing is much easier than doing something. people being unpredictable doesn't make Actually Getting Off Your Butt And Doing Things become easy.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5103" data-dimension="S">watch my taffy dance ("Come along with me")  ->  the motif of either of the above two propositions being enacted in fiction

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

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

</li><li class="number_empty" value="5106" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5107" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5108" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5109" data-dimension="S2">Men are safe, including Bryan the misogynist / Not all men are bad, including Bryan the misogynist / Not All Men  ->  this is what building every theory of negative interactions around attacking "stereotypes" gets you. when people push back on it through the language of "men" it's because they don't have the language to properly describe the highly complicated thing that is actually going on, so their animal instincts (trauma) go back to the last visual image associated with every negative experience to try to avoid environmental danger as an individual. this is natural, not a learned cultural process of "stereotypes". the human brain must be able to accurately predict the source of danger to stop looking for danger everywhere and narrow it down to the limited set of situations where danger actually occurs. this requires nothing less than predicting society, and predicting the likely level of risk implied by every single individual's behavior, knowing their future patterns of behavior to great accuracy. nothing else allows people to be themselves without becoming a false-positive threat to someone. you can't reduce it down to an individual recommendation of "good communication" or "don't be threatening" because that <em>will</em> involve telling a Black person somewhere not to speak in dialect just so somebody doesn't somehow pull "danger" out of that; it <em>will</em> involve squashing entire language-games and countable cultures that don't overlap with another population's set of common and known-nonthreatening signifiers. people really do have to know about the relationships between entire populations and how to predict individuals' behavior based on what population they really actually belong to in practice, or you will get antagonistic interactions whenever people meet each other and a lot of people afraid to even talk to anyone at all because they have no idea where the danger is and all they know is there is a lot more danger than they thought.

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

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

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5112" data-dimension="S2">The only way to learn language is in the doing  ->  this is a nasty slope. it's one of the many ways philosophers smuggle in Lived Experience and positivism. this is why I refuse to refer to all exercises in ontology as "language" just because dictionaries contain definitions. no. ontology is not a matter of Lived Experience, as humanity has unfortunately learned by building machines that do ontology. a machine that doesn't seriously experience anything can now build an ontology which can be looked at two levels removed from subjective experience.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

</li><li class="number_empty" value="5124" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5125" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5126" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5127" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5128" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5129" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="HAS" value="5130" data-dimension="S">root-word mirage / name-element mirage / reading meaningful name elements out of the wrong names  ->  something of an arts trope. usually harmless. the only exception to that might be everyday instances of somebody reading a Chinese or Vietnamese name as "dung", etc. most of the time it's just funny, like Edward being a direction? gold. wondering if Oliver Wood is a beating stick? dark, but fine. turning the name Rowling into some dumb pun about rolling downhill and being unable to stop? perfect. I'd say that a name like "Darkstalker" doesn't fit into this motif because it's made of words that already have multiple meanings on their own. this motif is more like a frame shift mutation for words.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="5131" data-dimension="F2">Squidward is a direction / Directional words end in -ward, therefore Squidward is a direction, and so are its original counterparts Edward, Hayward, and Siegward  ->  very silly, one of those things that normally you wouldn't think about for more than a minute, but does wrap around to being interesting in the context of "language games". you can't just make signifiers mean anything because to some extent there <em>are</em> reasons they mean the things they currently mean.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="5132" data-dimension="S2">"Hogwarts" is a direction [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-w%C3%A4rts]  ->  I have no idea if this is intentional or this is the same statement as "Squidward is a direction".<br />
arguments in favor: "hog" could be read as rightwards depending on the language. if that's true.... oh boy, it really doesn't look good for the meaning of the books does it? like, Hogwarts would be the same thing as the bad meaning of "redpilled".
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5133" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5134" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5135" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5136" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5137" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5138" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5139" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_nations" value="5140" data-dimension="S">a regular Arab, not an evil one  ->  I accidentally said a microaggression as a teenager. the gist of it went something like "a person from some Middle Eastern country, only they're just like us". this was my confused attempt to <em>not</em> be racist by invoking [[E:Spanish people can be anything|anti-essentialism]] and trying to explain in a world where my relatives were always saying terribly racist and essentialist-sounding things that other groups of people contained all the things that ours did. some progressive-raised kids from a progressive city took it super duper badly, and this left me really confused because I really wasn't the kind of person that casually said all the racist things my parents did. every time my family members were making racist jokes I tended to try to comprehend other groups of people as people and explain things about them to my family members which would leave them really bored and uninterested. when I became an adult this vast and yet very lukewarm movement for what appeared to be postcolonial anarchism was kicking up everywhere. suddenly the root of all evil was language and it didn't matter what choices you made in your life or what you did to others as long as you Platformed Minorities and Made Media Representation and every day you said the right language. I got constantly kicked and kicked and kicked for not being born instantly knowing the right phrasings and framings of things, even though whenever I would say things correctly it wouldn't actually help anyone and it would just result in my family members and all the Tories getting super mad at me and basically me having no agency in society and hiding in a corner. everything about this movement or cluster of movements was about things you could only do if you were the bourgeoisie, while it was like if you were the proletariat you'd only get endlessly abused by absolutely everybody everywhere because you couldn't do the important capitalist things that would fix society. I felt really bad. I stopped trying to interact with people or make friends because the way people would get stuck to general-sense psychoanalysis and Vote Vote Vote and pounding everyone for the wrong language but had no ability to help each other survive or brave towns of Tories or not end up stuck deep in their houses unable to work or go out in public and it was all just "All Human Should Behave Correct Way With No Help Strong Squash Bad Guy" had me feeling sick. I felt so shit about being born and being in society and everything I stopped really caring if anyone would like me or forgive me for not being perfect. I retreated into my hole and read a lot of stuff just to try to figure out what had happened. I wasn't angry at anybody because to be honest I didn't feel like I deserved to be angry, LGBT+black&brown were out there being the bourgeoisie and being legal experts and [[E:hegemony politics|doing things]] but no matter how not-awful I was or how many thousands of hours I had spent creating and learning and trying to be productive I hadn't given anything back to the world. determined just to understand what had happened, I read and read and read things, trying to make [[E:countable ideology|everything]] everyone had ever said [[Term:meta-ontologically sound|go together and not be contradictory any more]]. and, well... long after all my emotions were dead and I could only experience empathy with anyone through proposition-based logic, my working conclusion is that the top way people teach each other not to be racist is essentially to say "other countries are like us rather than flat bad guys". it's literally just, the reason people tell each other to read fiction as education is that fiction keeps showing them over and over examples of people being normal in multiple countries, practically the same exact things over and over but different country now. do you see why I'm dead inside? it's like the only difference between "a regular Arab, not an evil one" and the generally accepted way people teach fiction to each other is not even what tone the thing is said in but whether a particular kind of postcolonial anarchist is analyzing and framing the teaching process and thinking you did it wrong. that's it. thanks to the difficulty of predicting individuals and the prevalence of false positives, the difference between microaggressions and non-microaggressions often hinges on the person diagnosing them rather than the actual subject of the diagnosis.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5141" data-dimension="S2">Humans perceive random behavior as malicious / Humans perceive random behavior as inconsiderate
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5142" data-dimension="S2">Behaving compassionately requires cultural conditioning / Behaving compassionately requires education on specific material facts about reality  ->  this is to be contrasted with the notion that just not thinking and expecting absolutely nothing or erasing stereotypes is enough to turn people into good people. no. they really have to go through the phase of learning about and constructing "a regular Arab, not an evil one".<br />
this has some very serious implications for things like Gramscianism. say that every minority person gets into industry and academia and they all ban outward acts of prejudice. the surrounding population of Unqualified Bigots will never learn anything or become better just by sitting there. every bit of education costs them something. money, time socializing with others instead of being all alone watching Black history videos, etc. and if they aren't in positions of everyday power where they have the ability to earn a lot of money it just becomes more costly to bother learning anything and more cost-effective to stay uneducated. which will leave them in a base prejudiced state they pass down to their children for generations and generations. it's kind of the same problem people complain about with the Soviet Union where supposedly "they didn't educate everyone into French Revolution college students and it was their downfall!". you absolutely do not get rid of that by getting rid of Bolshevism, because the real problem is that education always comes with a cost to the point it flat-out requires a certain greedy hoarding instinct such the most modest, non-greedy people won't get educated. if you doubt this, how easy would it be for you to get an introductory textbook on every college major, store all of them, and read all of them to the point of having a couple pages of notes? you'd quickly realize that education is almost as specialized an activity as running a retail store, not something everybody does — at the very least everyone makes priority decisions on several kinds of education to ignore. and unfortunately, education about the simple existence of other groups of people doing any of the things in any of the other books is one of the easiest things to leave behind.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5143" data-dimension="S2">Smashing signs turns behavior random / Smashing signs leads to random behavior / Poststructuralism is a terrible idea
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5144" data-dimension="M3">Does anti-essentialism apply to Trotskyists? / Is it possible to identify "a regular Trotskyist, not an evil one"?  ->  sub-case of: Trotskyism jamming proposition. I have been building this ontology project and book tentatively assuming the answer is yes — that Trotskyite conspirators and Trotskyists are in fact two different things and if you are in the position of Stalin's government it's theoretically possible to take any other countable instance of Marxism and sort out which people in it are going to give you trouble and which ones you need to pull out of it to help you form a Lattice across Marxisms and unify all the different named Marxisms into an International.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5145" data-dimension="S2">Many acts of marketing perform education / Consumerism is inseparable from media representation  ->  it sometimes makes me nervous when people talk about "consumerism" or "overconsumption" without it being in the context of Marxism and the inability to control the shape that capitalism grows into so {{em|businesses}} don't waste money on things. it's not hard for someone to argue, however spuriously, that buying stacks of Media Representation is an overconsumption process either on the part of corporations or readers or the reviewers who keep saying people should buy it. a lot of art has a partial purpose of making people buy new books at full price instead of used ones in order to make money; in one sense the purpose of a lot of art is to be expensive. at the same time, look at something like Japanese anime and manga. publishers can support a seemingly endless churn of manga, a lot of which are similar to each other, and yet, every one of these that is translated for another country does a little bit to counteract prejudices against the country of Japan. capitalism is a very social process of going from no relationship to building bonds through exchanging goods, and in some senses, it's the process of us being more and more wasteful every day in order to better know each other.<br />
I'd like to see Trotskyists get a satisfactory model of world economic transition out of {{em|that}}

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

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

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

</li><li class="number_empty" value="5170" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5171" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5172" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5173" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5174" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5175" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5176" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5177" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5178" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5179" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="number_empty" value="5180" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5181" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5182" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5183" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5184" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5185" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5186" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5187" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5188" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5189" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="number_empty" value="5190" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5191" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5192" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5193" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5194" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5195" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5196" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5197" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5198" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5199" data-dimension="S">??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

</li><li class="number_empty" value="5360" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5361" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5362" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5363" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5364" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5365" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5366" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5367" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5368" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5369" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_nations" data-qid="53,70" value="5370" data-dimension="F2">Speedrunning is for cheaters
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5371" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="MX onto ML, MX onto Aa" data-qid="53,71" value="5371" data-dimension="S2">Difficulty is the lack of outsourcing (removal of; meta-Marxism onto Lacanianism) / Difficulty is the lack of being able to pay for something to be done by someone else  ->  one definition of difficulty which properly explains why using "AI" is not difficult.<br />
also half explains why it's okay to counter peasants being bigoted: farming animals in particular can be a way of shifting difficult tasks onto someone else, which is a major connection between "peasants" and "the bourgeoisie". when humans actually have to be out there in the field doing a considerable amount of the work {{em|for}} someone else they are removed from the "corruption" of easily getting stuff for no work and a bit of money. capitalism is the act of farming people. [[E:Animal Farm is backhandedly true|Animal Farm is backhandedly true]].

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" data-qid="53,73" value="5373" data-dimension="S">Soviet Union as challenge run / Soviet Union as glitched speedrun  ->  while people are very misinformed on almost everything in the current century, I think that one type of metaphor that has a lot of promise for getting people to think correctly again is card games and video games. when people say that Communism "doesn't work", what they mean is that Liberal-republicanism is easier to do. it's easy to get it started, it doesn't take extra effort. but things being easy doesn't make them impressive. it's more impressive to beat a civilization game on high difficulty than to pick the game's easiest difficulty and then say you have the best civilization.<br />
god, you know what's frustrating? like. most video games are based on simulating the concept of effort. even when people break the normal mechanisms of games, speedruns and challenge runs {{em|still}} simulate the concept of effort. this is so utterly intuitive to people that The Speedrun Guy who doesn't understand games clumsily tried to argue that speedruns were bad because they were jumping over effort and skipping to the end (which is factually untrue if you've ever seen anyone design a speedrun). and then, you manage to get people like The Speedrun Guy who don't understand the simple concept that challenges are hard and that makes them challenges. ??? why. how do we live in an era where "you can't just skip to the end" is such a big huge talking point for everyone — you can blame "AI" for that spiking more than ever all of a sudden — but like, we don't understand which things are actually hard or impressive.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="5374" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5375" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5376" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5377" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5378" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="Aa, W" data-qid="53,79" value="5379" data-dimension="S2">Jungian repression brings dialectical reversals / Jung's model of psychological repression describes part of the inner process of creating dialectical reversals  ->  this is a tough one. difficulty: very hard. I didn't fully know what to do with it for a while. but I think one of the best responses is this: Jungian repression can stamp down things that are genuinely bad, such that while punishing them is traumatic and holding them in is traumatic, if they get out they would still be reactionary and bad for society. repression doesn't identify something as progressive. it doesn't identify anything as belonging to a particular class or Bauplan element or repeated pattern that would be useful for doing existential materialism on to calculate a societal transition from one kind of structure to another.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="Aa" 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" data-qid="53,81" value="5381" data-dimension="F2">Outlawing gay marriage is obviously wrong  ->  the only problem with this statement is "obviously".
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="Aa" data-qid="53,82" value="5382" data-dimension="S2">We know gay marriage is a fact because Jungian repression {{YouTube|BE7UPO6GGK4}}  ->  again it's the line of argument that's bad.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="53,83" value="5383" data-dimension="S2">Gay movements are against the proletariat ({{TTS|tts=Soviet Union|USSR}}) / Gay movements are against the stability of the workers' state {{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><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="Aa" data-qid="53,84" value="5384" data-dimension="F2">Freudian repression identifies Marxist errors / Freudian repression can be used to identify Marxist errors  ->  historical ones maybe, but not dialectical ones. that alone is a big enough problem to mark this false

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

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

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="53,87" value="5387" data-dimension="S2">Addiction results when we misplace the journey and skip to the end / Addiction results when we skip over discovering the correct path through something and skip to the end  ->  this is probably what the speedrunning guy actually meant. but it was still a really stupid way to apply it. the speedrunning guy seems to believe that only chunk competition and slaughtering other groups of people is the natural way of life that can make us happy, and walking away from that imperative makes us addicted. this is why I don't like Freudian models. because whatever theory of society you have in terms of a Social-Philosophical Bauplan, you're likely to believe your ideology is the only correct way and having any other heretical ideology results in maladaptive escapism or addiction. even Communists fall into this fallacy and don't realize they need to think harder than this. if Trotsky can go around saying Stalin is ignoring the truth just because Stalin's government made his people unhappy, we need to think harder about how anybody actually looks outside any particular Marxism and actually discovers what's true.
</li><li class="field_nations" data-qid="53,88" value="5388" data-dimension="S2">The bourgeoisie invented polyamory
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="53,89" value="5389" data-dimension="S2">Historical materialism is the opposite of addiction / If addiction results from skipping over boundaries to get to the end, then historical materialism is the opposite of addiction  ->  the perfect corollary to "surplus jouissance" that no Lacanian would ever think of. if we make ourselves unhappy by convincing ourselves it's easy to be happy by skipping to the reward and not considering the proper way to get there... is it not also true that the proper way to get anywhere is dictated by physics and the repeated behaviors of the world, and we can only do things the correct way by understanding the way the world works? if we don't understand how the world really works, then {{em|we'll never actually know}} the correct way to get through boundaries or go through a journey and not merely skip to the end. if we never actually learn the correct way, then getting stuck in addicting patterns or escapism isn't actually anyone's fault, it's just the inevitable outcome. we can't exert our will to do something we don't even know. yet Existentialism also wants to tell us the road ahead is impossible to know. if that's true most of us are slated to be addicts. the great majority of all the content on social platforms about "how society keeps us lazy or distracted" is totally and utterly wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5416" data-dimension="S">the right step in the wrong direction  ->  Žižek's idea that anything that bursts out of repression must be some critical new form of progress in ways not yet understood. in my opinion this is mostly wrong. I'd be hypocritical not to acknowledge it {{em|a little bit}}, given how I talk about "the theoretical point where Trotsky stops complaining" — certainly, every time people incorrectly label things as tyranny it traces back to {{em|something}} real. but I think it's a deepity to act like literally all of that resistance and reaction is meaningful, instead of just a little bit of it. not everybody is reasonable or ethical, {{em|at all}}. it isn't just "not everybody is rational", it's that people hate each other because blobs of human Animals have to eat and occupy space and join onto a shared morality and they literally run into material contradictions on those things that make those needs impossible and make them furious. they need their physical needs. they can't get their needs. other people are standing on them. they get mad at the other people for really actually blocking their real actual needs on purpose or often by accident. it's not "ideology" making us blame other groups of people for things, it's that in different ways than people are commonly led to think on Fox News etc, human individuals really are fighting each other over everything every day. businesses are limited. community itself is finite and limited. migration to open slots is hard and limited. repression happens daily as people adjust to the actions of all other people claiming territories and slots that often predict things badly and fill space badly and also come with a bunch of dumb rules and we all try to persuade ourselves that this is just normal while also getting increasingly mad at it to the point of being hateful and yet not wanting to change anything from the way it is so we just get angry twice over when anybody tries to fix it. that boiling cauldron of anger comes from people wanting to solve things crudely with "hard work" and psychoanalysis and migration and constitutions and "I believe that everybody" statements and pieces of paper about human rights.

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

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

</li><li class="field_horror" value="5420" data-dimension="S">Alphys was India; do me  ->  the motif of machine-translator-garbled works suddenly turning something sexual for no reason when it doesn't make sense in any context including its "own context". [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGJW4GB37zA&t=1677s] this motif is notable because it raises strange questions like: is a character threatening sex scarier than a character threatening disfigurement? arguably yes. people have varying kinds of individual boundaries which to cross are varying amounts of terrible. Freudians seemingly oversimplify this in acting like sexual boundaries are representative of any other kind of boundary. back to Deltarune: this explains the strange discourse over the shattering red thing in Chapter 4. some people were burned that the shattering rose/hand/heart was censored, although they had no real reason to be. other people got very offended at this reaction assuming they were crusty old misogynists who want <em>everything</em> to contain rape jokes and that's the reason they didn't want it changed. some people took the theme of rape being metaphorically represented in Deltarune to be maximally offensive, like a serious line had been crossed. the other people thought that if the game portrayed it negatively a metaphor was a metaphor and a horror story was a horror story. I think what this really shows is what a hair edge societies exist on now. we don't actually trust anyone and we almost have to take the slightest appearance of a signifier of bad people as a sign of bodily danger because if we actually both run into bad people and alert them to our presence every error basically turns into stalking. individuals or localized groups of people kill and terrorize each other over the smallest things now. so the question to ask isn't whether people can reasonably label someone's reactions to a video game a threat. the question is why the hell we are still playing video games and thinking any spaces are safe instead of genuinely asking about the material causes of this pattern
</li><li class="field_horror" value="5421" data-dimension="S">red shatter effect / shattering red thing (Deltarune)

</li><li class="number_empty" value="5425" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5430" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5435" data-dimension="S">??

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

</li><li value="5440" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="F2">[[Ontology:Q5440|When two people have information, everybody has it]] / When information is available to a few people, it's available to everyone / When two people know something, everybody knows it / printing press fallacy  ->  dreadfully common in every single discussion of "culture" and "prejudice". in fact, it's vastly more common to find people who believe this than people who don't. but, it's demonstrably untrue in the physical world. all you have to do is locate somebody who has never head a thing and you've shown that information doesn't spread instantaneously.
</li><li value="5441" class="field_mdem" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q5441|Knowledge cannot teleport]] / Knowledge cannot travel faster than a photon  ->  what actually appears to be true, and was depicted in XKCD 1053.
</li><li value="5442" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="F2">Random individual Bob Stills is critical to all movements / Random individual Roberta Hill is critically important to movements  ->  fallacy that occurs based on "information can move faster than light" and "I believe that everybody" statements
</li><li value="5443" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q5443|Ghost of Individualities Future]] / Ghost of Possibilities Future  ->  SCP-8000, <cite>It's a Wonderful Life</cite>, <cite>A Christmas Carol</cite>.

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

</li><li value="5445" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S2">Random individual Bob Stills can puppet four million people / Random individual Roberta Hill can change the behavior of four million people
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES, PT, W" data-qid="54,46" value="5446" data-dimension="S2">Calling something "culture" stops it / Putting "culture" after a bad phenomenon will make it stop (cancel culture; woke culture; purity culture; hustle culture) / The best way to call attention to a social problem is to label it "culture" (rape culture; feminism)  ->  there is such a strange lining-up between the notion of "call for better behavior in the furry Community to bring better perception", "call for only sensible identities in The Whole LGBT Community to get Liberal-republican representatives", and the general "[[E:non-peacer|non-peacer]]" phenomenon of Tories or Christians uniting people together supposedly around individual morality when if they even succeed all they achieve is getting raw blobs of people to fight each other for existence.<br />
the bright side of this motif is that it shows us that culturocracy doesn't make any sense. if culture can be "cancel", "hustle", "purity policing", or even "rape", how can culture possibly ever force people to be better people?

</li><li class="number_empty" value="5447" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5448" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5449" data-dimension="M3">Can Bob Stills choose who is president? / Can some random individual Bob Stills or Roberta Hill freely choose as an individual what the result of an entire election will be?  ->  this question sounds laughable but it is a very real and widespread fallacy across all of center-Liberalism. it's become that the major engine of center-Liberalism is telling everyone that they can individually choose who is president if they only vote. but if you think for only a couple seconds about that it isn't logically true — you voting doesn't directly affect the way 5 other people will vote or a million other people will vote. your vote only matters to anything if the process that actually decides the outcome of the election decides that it matters. worse, most cases of you not getting the result you wanted don't come from some conspiracy to throw away votes ([[E:United States election was stolen|regardless of what Tories may think]]). they come from other entire subpopulations of people potentially numbering in the millions not caring about your vote all at once. that's what an election is. that's how elections work when they're even working in the first place.

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

</li><li class="number_empty" value="5455" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5460" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="number_empty" value="5470" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5471" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5472" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5473" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="Fy, ES, A" value="5474" data-dimension="S">the four elements lived in harmony / The four elements lived in harmony until the fire nation attacked  ->  <cite>Avatar: The Last Airbender</cite>, <cite>Adventure Time</cite>, <cite>Pokémon</cite>, <cite>Wings of Fire</cite>
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5475" data-dimension="S2">The four elements were never in harmony  ->  one of those lines from 4.3 that I really liked but didn't think was profound, until. until I realized that fantasy stories almost always use elements to argue this really medieval way of thinking that empire can be stopped with metaphysics, and kingdoms will never conquer each other if they just try really hard to Exist In Moderation. that is not a thing. the opposite of it is not a thing either. it's one of those stupid instances of making up a slider and trying to find the made-up middle.

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

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="5479" data-dimension="S2">Philosophers' stones empower global empire / If philosophers' stones existed in the 1500s, they would be used in service of global empire  ->  probably true, honestly. but you know what? anarchists have absolutely taken the wrong lessons from this concept about what the opposite of it is. what seems like half of all anarchisms boil down to the weird idea of existing and surviving being inherently greedy and specifically seeking to remove the ability <em>to live and exist</em> as much as possible without entirely extinguishing it. and the problem with that is it creates totally powerless civilizations that get crushed and precisely hand control of the earth to fascism and pronounce it canonically correct. after which the surviving fascisms will be as greedy and wasteful as they want to.<br />
that was a very Deng-Xiaoping thing to say. I don't care.

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

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

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

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

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="5489" data-dimension="F2">Trotskyists in Britain didn't understand anti-racism, therefore Trotskyism will never be realized  ->  follows from: nothing should be done unless everyone considers it wonderful. this is an Idealist model of the variety "if everything doesn't magically conform to universal cosmic ideas immediately it actively chose to be evil". Trotskyists failing to understand a single other movement doesn't mean Trotskyism will not gather more people and continue trying to realize. Trotskyism is a material object if and when it successfully connects itself to any particular Lattice of workers, just like a particular finite anti-racist movement is a material object. to fully understand whether Trotskyism will succeed or fail you have to understand its unique internal structure and how it attempts to further realize it.

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

</li><li value="5491" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">Wow, I've never heard of France before! / I've never heard of France (motif)  ->  a really dumb pattern you see in basically <em>every</em> Pokémon facts video. there is a certain genre of "Pokémon fact" which consists of acting astounded that a Pokémon actually references the history of a real-world country, and going into detail about that history or country-based folklore. this would not even be much of a problem by itself <em>except</em> that the more of these videos stack up the more you start to see the hidden pattern that all of them are subtly implying that it's <em>normal</em> not to know anything whatsoever about other countries. Pokémon is the highest-grossing media franchise! okay, cool, so that means the great majority of all people who live in industrial countries have watched it or played it. did you know Emboar is a reference to <cite>Romance of the Three Kingdoms</cite>? did you know Serperior is a reference to the manga <cite>Rose of Versailles</cite>? hmm, so a great number of kids and probably also adults haven't heard of historical fiction from other countries. did you know AZ is a reference to Louis XIV? hmm... that honestly seems like something people should already know about if they speak English or French. <s>(I half thought I remembered him as being in a Shakespeare play but I guess I was thinking of Henry V. funny enough he does appear in <cite>As you like it</cite>?)</s> did you know about Yggdrasil, the mythical tree that since 1995 every thirteen-year-old with access to Wikipedia knows about? did you know about <i>carnival</i>? did you know about <i>kapu</i> and <i>tapu</i>? did you know that Jynx had to be changed because of accidental similarities to blackface? the more these "fun facts" stack up the more you start to ask questions about which things people actually do and don't know and what this says about us. you start to ask if the purpose of Pokémon games is for game developers to go visit other places and learn about the history or traditions of other "cultures" on expensive tours while the rest of us get to stay uniquely isolated and for the propagation of Pokémon games to actually normalize <em>not knowing about</em> the rest of the world until a capitalist does the whole task inside a self-contained corporation and sells it to you as opposed to knowing things. this may sound crazy at first, but I certainly know that when I was a kid I was baffled to hear the fact Jynx had to be censored because not a single person around me knew anything about racism or the lives of people who make any kind of noise about the existence of racism and it took until after I was 25 for huge protests to break out and it to actually become remotely normal for hearing about racism to actually cause anyone to want to learn anything about what causes racism or how to prevent it. Existentialists really want to believe that just seeing diversity and seeing "other cultures" on-screen causes people to have any kind of empathy for other populations or countries, but it really doesn't. it feels more like what's true is that Media Representation works a bit like carbon credits and people buy Media Representation so they can give other demographics a bit of money and then go back to work and go back to their ignorant families and keep being racist. every product is something that <em>you delegate</em>, and <em>you are not doing</em>. if products can sell people "other cultures".... I think you can see where this is going. products easily become a way to self-contain national culture (or self-contain it within a second country well-off enough for tourism) and push it away from home.
</li><li value="5492" data-remark="Spanish global empire" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">Wow, it's so cool Pokémon includes imperial colonies!  ->  one of the most egregious subsets of "I've never heard of France". I am very much not making this up: I saw a video where somebody remarked on "how cool it was" that a past region was included in a newer one (I think it was Galar in Paldea) because that area had been a territory of another global empire. they said this with a totally straight face like learning that somewhere had been a British territory was truly interesting, and it was wonderful to have British Empire representation in Pokémon games. to the credit of Pokémon company itself, the actual games were careful about the concept of the Spanish empire and tried to avoid the concept of multi-continent empires and instead place down the notion of explorers inside the regional history of Spain. I... would hate to see how fans think an African region should be constructed. are you going to put Galar all over Africa too? even if Pokémon has a rather metaphysical approach to avoiding world wars, and there's a lot to say about that, it's more remarkable fans don't even go that far.
</li><li value="5493" data-remark="arceus" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S2">To be good is to live in harmony with metaphysics  ->  explanation of Arceus and the creator Pokémon pantheon and how they function as moral devices for arbitrating karma in <cite>Pokémon</cite> narratives. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qJXxH92a7k]
</li><li value="5494" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S2">People attack metaphysics because they don't see each other as equals / The opposite of controlling metaphysics is being equals  ->  this bothers the hell out of me because it's outright used to argue against Communism in naïve terms of "utopia" and "forcing equality", yet in explaining why Existentialism will create a moral world people will say the word "equal" about ten times. the hell is up with that equivocation of the word equal?? it's like there is a secret definition of how being equals actually means existing in total mutual exclusion but doing it really really nicely and politely. it's like the definition of being equal was made up by Artisan types and Careerists who believe the way not to be dominated is to break everything apart to exist in individualized mutual exclusion. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qJXxH92a7k]
</li><li value="5495" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S2">To seek greater life is to take life  ->  I've seen variations of this statement like four different places and hated it each time. Journey to the West / Dragon Ball, FNaF, Fullmetal Alchemist, Pokémon. I found it the least objectionable in an analysis of the metaphysical logic of Pokémon, where because it begins from such a mundane setting and can <em>claim</em> to be about chunk competition it at least felt logical [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qJXxH92a7k]

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5496" data-dimension="Z">{{article|The Divine Truth: Arceus and Our Sins Against It}} [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qJXxH92a7k]  ->  first of all, this is a wonderful video. it's here to showcase that it had real effort and thought put into it. there's nothing I would change about the video. that said? <em>wow.</em> it shows everything "wrong" with {{book|Pokémon}}, or more specifically wrong with the world where people would make it. it is such a good piece of research into things I didn't know needed researching but after seeing it certainly knew then.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5497" data-dimension="S2">Alchemy failed because it is an offense to metaphysics / Alchemy failed to become a science because it is an offense to the metaphysical order  ->  an unexpected but sadly logical interpretation of <cite>Fullmetal Alchemist</cite>, if you've already heard of the Existentialist-Structuralist tradition [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qJXxH92a7k]
</li><li value="5498" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S2">Science without metaphysics is a tool of domination / Scientifically analyzing The Subject is an offense to metaphysics / Studying identity is an offense to metaphysics / Scientifically studying culture is an offense to metaphysics / Too much science is an offense to metaphysics  ->  the sci-fi corollary that seems to apply itself to gender, historical materialism, and misplaced research & development efforts such as "AI". in simple forms, it is asserted that science "without a reason" is morally wrong as the natural order can trivially be expressed in terms of "exceed" and "too much". in more elaborate forms, it is implied that trying to understand how identity, individuals, or culture function and develop must be forbidden. to try to understand the development of countries is to crush the living, breathing nationality and squash or gut under the scary boot of Bolshevism some of the living processes that constitute individuals interacting to produce what is truly Russian or truly Chinese, or truly German. to try to understand the sources of gender and what develops to produce gender is to crush the inherent ability of the transgender individual or "the transgender community" to thrash about, to out-produce, to weave itself into the Filamentocracy, and compel respect. this is why I don't like this axiom. a loud shouting of movements without a science of movements is basically reducing people down to literally out-living others and whoever is powerful enough to stay alive in a cruel world getting to stay around to supposedly tell everyone else how to be nice and good when none of that actually determined who lived and died.
</li><li value="5499" class="field_mdem" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q5499|Discoveries come from violating metaphysics]]  ->  the 'pataphysics axiom that I like <em>so much better</em> than the way Pokémon appears to see things

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

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="5501" data-dimension="S">Arceism (motif)  ->  the motif — or definition of a hypothetical anarchism — where anarchism is portrayed as any arbitrary assortment of individuals in the world spontaneously coming together into "a community" strictly independent of the existence of all governments and nation-states and the simple act of making everyone part of the same countable culture shortly solving everyone's problems potentially including xenophobia, racism, and poverty.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5515" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5516" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5517" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5518" data-dimension="S2">Differences between species are not culture  ->  the book I was reading kept referring to biological differences between human beings and chimpanzees as animal "culture". I don't think I like that usage because... it sounds a bit racist. a couple centuries ago, there were a lot of people who wanted to draw biological distinctions between North Americans and Africans which <em>accounted for differences in culture</em>; these days every single racist remark hides behind "culture" when it's unclear if in actuality people are <em>still</em> thinking of South Africans in the same phrenology-styled physiological terms. so, I don't think I like that link being drawn again even if the direction is reversed, because it's inadvertently training Tories to think that the concept of countable cultures could be connected to "primitive minds" or "primitive physiology" rather than existing solely on its own layer. monkeys having different behaviors from White people is not culture. that said, I think it's a more up-in-the-air question whether differences between neurotypical people and autistic people can be categorized as culture or not. it's very common for people to go labeling every single difference between populations as culture, and to just say that there exists autistic culture and disabled culture. I feel like, on the surface, this is not harmful in the particular sense that referring to animal ecology as culture is. sometimes this usage is meant to refer to methods of inclusion and retaining people as these subpopulations form communities. I don't think I have any strong thoughts on that right now.

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

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5220" data-dimension="S2">Poor people are created to make you work {{YouTube|tOm_aF_SB-k}}  ->  this is.... kind of correct but a little misleading. you can see the contradiction inside the lecture itself. nobility used money in order to arrange people into a kingdom. into an armored, armed "crab". it's easy to think the key word is "used" and that they're exploiting people and burning everything valuable for their own gain, but the key word is "arrange". in that example money is empowering people to form into societies. in Europe we can bring up how churches weren't <em>entirely</em> malevolent and sometimes they'd take their money and land and do administrative functions; today they run kindergartens. money enables merchants to test out the tiniest experiment in global capitalism before settling back into local small-capitalism because going around the world is hard. but what money is doing there is proving that people can connect one city to another city. the merchants actually succeed on the basis of creating connections. then when they create banks, again the bank is creating the connections between the nobility and the armies or the royal ministries later. with the development of capitalism-proper the local states lose control and the chunks become the businesses, which have to expand to accommodate population growth, but they succeed or fail based on how effectively they link to various other businesses in the world. particular rings of success take slots in society away from people who don't become inherently compatible with strengthening either individual business territories or the arrangement of connections. those are the poor people. so, the reason it's hard to end poverty is all the other individuals are actively working against all the individuals below them. they wouldn't have to be if they could just see the business lattice and realize that everybody has to be fit into it, and if everyone would just get a little smarter about arranging people nobody would have to waste work or arbitrarily take someone else's slot in the structure only to make the world a little worse. at this point they can kick out the capitalists. the issue is, capitalism keeps totally falling apart and leaving people unable to build up the business lattice fast enough to be able to remain united instead of necessarily having to fight each other and the outside "poor people" or Refuse layer.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5221" data-dimension="S2">Wars prolong artificial scarcity / Wars aim to destroy wealth {{YouTube|tOm_aF_SB-k}}  ->  true and also not true? it's undialectical but if you duplexed it it would then be true.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5222" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5223" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_horror" value="5224" data-dimension="S">physically slaying one's inner child  ->  Giggleland ep 2, Fatum Betula. I think there's something to be said about the vague analogy between cartoon furries slaying their inner child in Giggleland and the myth of the lion turning against the lamb in Pitch haven / other works like Kimba, Beastars, and Zootopia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

</li><li value="5567" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5568" class="number_empty">??

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

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

</li><li class="field_ML" value="5573" data-dimension="S2">{{book|Animal Farm}} is backhandedly true / Animal Farm was a good metaphor for the wrong reasons
</li><li value="5574" class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5575" data-dimension="S">corporations as people-farms / all corporations as people farms / all corporate products as people-farm milk or people-farm eggs / soylent green is people (meta-Marxism)  ->  the motif of casting every case of corporate owners (Tory allies) herding people into microhierarchy to "prevent crimes" or "create order" as an act of farming people like cattle; an act of replacing violent wild packs of animals that snarl at each other for challenging the patriarchs or stick each other with their antlers with a peaceful herd of animals that is exploited and consumed by the farmer, occasionally kicked or stuffed into one cramped building, and all of the animals are human beings.<br />
corporations as people-farms + {{book|Animal Farm}} = {{book|Animal Farm}} is backhandedly true.
</li><li value="5576" class="number_empty">??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

</li><li value="5592" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5593" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5594" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5595" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5596" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5597" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5598" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5599" class="number_empty">??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

</li><li value="5620" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5630" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5640" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5650" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5655" class="number_empty">??

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

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

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

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

</li><li value="5680" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5681" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5682" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5683" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5684" class="field_horror" data-dimension="S">Starlight Glimmer
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5685" data-dimension="S2">City governments are similar to friendships / Village governments resemble friendships
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5686" data-dimension="S2">Freedom to be yourself is similar to friendships / Authenticity is similar to friendships  ->  Authenticity (Existentialism)

</li><li value="5687" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5688" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5689" class="number_empty">??

</li><li value="5690" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5691" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5692" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5693" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5694" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5695" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5696" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5697" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5698" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="5699" class="number_empty">??

</li><li value="5700" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="Z"><cite>My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic</cite>
</li><li value="5701" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="Z"><cite>My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic</cite> episode 1
</li><li value="5921" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="Z"><cite>My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic</cite> episode 221
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="5922" data-dimension="S">"Tempest Shadow"
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5923">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5924">??

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

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

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

</li><li class="number_empty" value="5928">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="5929">??
</li><li value="5930" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="Z"><cite>My Little Pony: Make Your Mark</cite>
</li><li value="5931" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="Z"><cite>My Little Pony: Make Your Mark</cite> episode 1
</li><li value="5957" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="Z"><cite>My Little Pony: Make Your Mark</cite> episode 27
</li><li value="5958" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="Z"><cite>My Little Pony: Tell Your Tale</cite>
</li><li value="5959" class="number_empty">??

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

</li><li class="number_empty" value="5984">??

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

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

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5991" data-dimension="S2">[[E:Q5991|Nice walnuts not getting imminently broken is paradise]] / Countries are like walnuts: they only taste good when you crack them open  ->  came up in multiple MDem scraps. the concept is that within Existentialism, national autonomy is never truly taken seriously for any country [...] the sheer population of living people constituting the country is not respected until it's cracked open by force <del class="dots">[... full rant left [[Special:PermanentLink/4114|on entry]]]</del>

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

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5993" data-dimension="F2">A workers' state will surely fail if it doesn't buy specific inventions from other countries / Avoid the forbidden fruit and you will surely die  ->  found this one implied in a history of late Soviet corn production. literally untrue, because China got around this one through bootlegs and its own eventual inventions. but this statement is truly interesting because of the dumb assumptions buried deep inside it. this actually goes deeply against Deleuze and Guattari's Existentialist model of freedom. it says there are some people you have no choice but to form relationships with no matter how evil they are, because the individuals or groups of people who are most effective at materially generating civilizations <em>have the right</em> to be your friend. you have to love racists, you have to love transphobes, you have to put up with everybody's <s class="censor">bullshit</s> as individuals if they sell a lot of things. business territories aren't valuable because they're pieces of society that exist and have value regardless of who founded them, there are just mandatory individuals. this is one of the most toxic forms of Existentialism because it posits chunk competition as building societies rather than even Filamentism. that's medieval. that's manor lord thinking. that's literally, the duke is more important than the rest of the population if each member of the nobility does their best to exist without caring about anyone else.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5994" data-dimension="S2">Walnut core inside shell against other shell equals shell plundering shell / Walnut core inside walnut shell against walnut shell equals whole walnut smashing whole walnut / Anti-marginalization efforts from the United States' margins to "help" minorities in China turn into US majority and US minority against absolutely everybody in China / Trotsky and Trotskyites without their own workers' state fight for either the Soviet Union's government or the United States and Mexican governments  ->  this one takes so many words to say. it's not a difficult concept but it is really difficult for anyone to actually see when they'll call you out on the [[redlink - P2?? question-begging test|question-begging test]] for not describing the whole world in terms of races and Cultures. I find that framing disgusting when it's a fact human individuals and populations compete for mere existence, and I'd rather not discuss social-democratic reforms in terms of slowly allowing some 20% of people not surviving who probably happen to belong to particular races to survive better but not the rest of them just yet. so, you get walnuts. you get really stupid walnut metaphors where the goal is not to let the walnut shells arbitrarily go around cracking all the other walnuts except them. I swear people are not smart enough to grasp the concepts of either "the proletariat" or "plural proletariats in one country". so we tell them about walnuts.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5995" data-dimension="S2">Empire can survive while it avoids extremes / Imperialism can survive as long as it isn't extreme  ->  so here's the thing about "[[E:a crumb of socialism|socialism]]". if you define it so modestly that it's any chunk of individuals taking care of other individuals, outright nationalist reactionaries can perform socialism without ever being progressive. it's super duper easy for Tories to do something for each other and then turn it into love-bombing and say you're a traitor if you don't support destroying Palestine, you're a non-person if you don't support shooting Black people to death before they go to prison. mutual aid isn't socialism and it isn't even love. it only really guarantees social cohesion, which is terribly easy to form around the imperative to survive at the expense of other populations. all Tories have to do to be able to do whatever they want is just be a little bit "not extreme" and appear to be nice to all the people immediately around them while being terrible to people somewhere else.<br />
golden mean + global empire = this

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="LR, ES" data-qid="59,96" value="5996" data-dimension="S2">Democracy is the abundance of skilled experts  ->  frequently implied in a lot of Liberal-republican discourse against Third-World countries, although I'm sure nobody intends to.<br />
what people think they're saying: <i>build a better world through education and voting, because education is a benefit to everybody politician and not, and makes everyone make better informed decisions, allowing the country to build itself up through a firm foundation of Freedom and Free Will.</i><br />
what people are actually saying: <i>education builds up a larger pool of skilled experts, and this is inherently good for everybody because it results in better decisions and more choice, therefore whenever other countries are so poorly developed in their systems of education they only have one candidate, or make decisions that appear to slow the rate at which they will open more universities and accumulate more experts, including refusing foreign capital and gigantic abusive debts directly used to abuse their populations, they must not believe in freedom or democracy and we must [[E:countries are like walnuts|crush all their governing structures]] threatening their civilians until they allow us to conquer their ethnic group and thus free all their individuals, specifically the talented ones who are not useless pieces of {{censor|shit}}, you know, we're not nazis, because we have no idea what those are in this country so we couldn't be. freedom and democracy! don't you love voting?</i><br />
The United States was more democratic than the Soviet Union + Stalin became mandatory because there wasn't a large enough pool of mainstream Marxist-Leninist experts = Democracy is the abundance of skilled experts

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5997" data-dimension="S2">The United States conquers countries by forcing them to Freely Choose things  ->  culturocracy + ??? = this.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5998" data-dimension="S">walnut shell (analogy)  ->  approximately represents a national border, populational border, or party-nation
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5999" data-dimension="S">walnut core (analogy)  ->  approximately represents a large subpopulation, either the proletariat or The Multitude, but is <em>intended</em> to exclude capitalists
</li></ol><noinclude>

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