View source for User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/3000

<h2 id="PPPA"><span class="mw-headline">3000</span> <span class="mw-editsection plainlinks"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span>[https://research.moraleconomy.au/index.php?title=User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/3000&action=edit edit]<span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h2>

<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol start="3000" class="hue clean reset">

<li class="field_internal" value="3000" data-dimension="S0">S0 Concept / S0 Item / mathematical structure Item / abstract category Item / Item for highly generic motifs  ->  general category of all S0 Concepts
</li><li class="field_internal" value="3001" data-dimension="S0">S Item / S1 Item / Signifier Item / motif / image / theme / signifier / elementary Signifier Item  ->  general category of all S Items; repeated image which is not necessarily being broken down into particular models of how it explains itself or what it prescribes
</li><li class="field_internal" value="3002" data-dimension="S0">S2 Statement / S2 Item / Signifier Item stating claim about first-level Signifiers / Signifier Item for interpreting Signifiers / double Signifier / claim Signifier / statement signifier / fan theory signifier / parallel ontology / local ontology / partial Particle Theory / partial Bauplan
</li><li class="field_internal" value="3003" data-dimension="S0">Item for wiki-internal categorizations / internal-category Item

</li><li value="3004" class="field_trotsky"  data-dimension="S">lion of Trotskyism  ->  L940 Leo as Trotskyist name
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3005" data-dimension="S">lion of courage / lion of strength / predatory beast of strength / predatory beast of fortitude  ->  brought up in <cite>Warriors</cite> with LionClan whether they are cats or a myth about lions; can easily be a wolf etc.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3006" data-dimension="S">lion red in tooth and claw / lion of naturalistic carnivore life-history / Jack London wolf / carnivore supposedly in nature / predator ostensibly portrayed realistically  ->  predatory or violent animal used very close to literally yet at the same time used to make some kind of symbolic point; part of the definition of Saiyan species. may contain small biology errors, but is invariably presented as if the errors either are true in the fiction or don't matter
</li><li class="field_nations" value="3007" data-dimension="S">lion of empire  ->  when lions in nature brutally fighting each other over open social slots is glorified and held up as an example of what human beings ought to be
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3008" data-dimension="S">lion of leadership  ->  Kimba; when the lion is held up as the most capable leader but violence is pushed out of emphasis; variation of "lion of courage"
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3009" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q3009|lion of kindness]] / lion of Good / lion lying down with the lamb / predatory beast of kindness  ->  bible story; Zootopia?; when the lion or carnivore is specifically portrayed as discarding its predatory or violent nature to be the opposite
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3010" data-dimension="S">lion as monster / carnivore as monster / lion of inhumanity / dark-forest inhabitant / here there be lions / here there be dragons  ->  funny story, I found this in the bible several times while looking for "lion of empire"
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3011" data-dimension="S0">"F1 Item"  ->  use for some kind of Item. for now F1 Items do not exist.
</li><li value="3012" class="field_internal" data-dimension="S0">F2 Statement / Signifier Item stating claim about first-level Signifiers which appears to be false
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3013" data-dimension="S0">"F3 Item"  ->  use for some kind of Item. for now F3 Items do not exist.
</li><li value="3014" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q3014|storytelling device]]
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3015" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q3015|folklore trope]]
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3016" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q3016|fictional trope]]
</li><li class="field_ML" value="3017" data-dimension="S0">slogan or motif promoting Bolshevism / slogan or motif promoting mainstream Marxism-Leninism, hypothetical Trotskyist workers' state, Third World Marxist party-nation, etc.
</li><li class="field_gramsci" value="3018" data-dimension="S0">slogan or motif promoting non-proletarian Marxism / slogan or motif promoting Gramscianism/Althusserianism, etc.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3019" data-dimension="S">lion of England  ->  once the coat of arms of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Plantagenet House of Plantagenet], it became the symbol of the population of England. make no mistake, many so-called national symbols come from the union of a specific aristocratic family and its supporters

</li><li class="field_internal" value="3020" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q3020|Z0 Concept]] / physical structure Item / natural structure Item / real-world physics model
</li><li class="field_internal" value="3021" data-dimension="S0">Z Item / Z1 Item / basic Item / elementary Item / non-fictional model / material thing / widely-attested thing / work to be analyzed / field of works to be analyzed / real-world unique group of people / real-world unique organization / real-world event / real-world civilization
</li><li class="field_internal" value="3022" data-dimension="S0">Z2 Statement / Z2 Item / basic Item stating claim about elementary basic Items which appears to be substantiated / physics model / physics theory / physical equation
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3023" data-dimension="S0">"Z3 Item"  ->  use for some kind of Item. for now Z3 Items do not exist.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3024" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3025" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="field_internal" data-tradition="internal / ML" value="3026" data-dimension="S">[[Philosophical Research:NKPOV|North-Korean point of view]] (NKPOV; policy guide)
</li><li class="field_internal" data-tradition="internal / MX" value="3027" data-dimension="S">[[Philosophical Research:SPOV|Schizophrenic point of view]] (SPOV; policy guide)

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3028" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3029" data-dimension="S0">??

</li><li class="field_internal" value="3030" data-dimension="S0">M0 Meta-level Question
</li><li class="field_internal" value="3031" data-dimension="S0">M1 Mid-Positioned Trace / M1 Superpositional Object
</li><li class="field_internal" value="3032" data-dimension="S0">M2 Mid-Positioned Relation
</li><li class="field_internal" value="3033" data-dimension="S0">M3 Meta-Stating Question
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3034" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3035" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3036" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3037" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3038" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3039" data-dimension="S0">??

</li><li data-dimension="S">The Real -> Lacanianism
</li><li data-dimension="S">The Symbolic -> Lacanianism
</li><li data-dimension="S">The Imaginary -> Lacanianism
</li><li data-dimension="S">floating signifier
</li><li data-dimension="S">concept spaghetti / spaghetti

</li><li data-dimension="S">moving like a room of helium atoms
</li><li data-dimension="S">missing the forest for the trees / ignoring ergodicity / ignoring emergence

</li><li data-dimension="S">God is dead
</li><li data-dimension="S">existence philosophy (motif)
</li><li data-dimension="S">nihilism (motif)
</li><li data-dimension="S">Absurd (motif)
</li><li data-dimension="S">theism / theists
</li><li data-dimension="S">nonbelievers / atheists / atheism
</li><li data-dimension="S">Atheism is something different from nonbelief
</li><li data-dimension="S">Agnosticism is something different from nonbelief
</li><li data-dimension="S">Truth specifically excludes physics / Truth (religion) / Māyā (Hinduism)

</li><li data-dimension="S">invisible dragon in garage
</li><li data-dimension="S">"if God exists in one of all possible worlds..."
</li><li data-dimension="S">if Trunks exists in one of all possible worlds... / Trunks is invincible

</li><li data-dimension="S">Socialism (Toryism) / socialicism / Socialism imperializing partisan politics
</li><li data-dimension="S">not coming from specific ideology equals biased
</li><li data-dimension="S">cultural Marxism (Toryism)  ->  Western Marxism, Marcuse, Gramscianism

</li><li data-dimension="S">complete apathy  ->  depression symptom, interpretation of aliens - Dragon Ball
</li><li data-dimension="S">Can't turn off my mind reading / thought broadcasting  ->  schizophrenia symptom, interpretation of mind reading - Wings of Fire

</li><li data-dimension="S">science imperializing philosophy / scientism / scienticist / rationalism (Existentialism)
</li><li data-dimension="S">squashing The Subject
</li><li data-dimension="S">squashing Difference

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3040" data-dimension="S">assigned liberal at birth / the Democratic Party is a sheer collection of abstract ideas on a metaphysical quality slider, never an organization or collection of people (motif)  ->  the motif of Liberal-republicanism asserting people belong to a single population of "liberals" (progressives) regardless of whether they actually belong to [[E:plurality|multiple conflicting populations]] of non-center-LiberalRepublicans.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3041" data-dimension="S2">The U.S. Democratic Party is metaphysical / The United States Democratic Party is a sheer collection of abstract ideas on a metaphysical quality slider, never ever an organization or collection of people (proposition)  ->  if you want to understand why "United States people refuse to detach from the Democratic Party" to form a social-democratic subpopulation of workers and bourgeois allies, this would be why. Liberal-republicanism has made people so dumb they don't even understand what collections of people are. this is not a joke or hyperbole, I'm very serious when I say this. people really really literally think the Democratic Party never becomes a collection of people and is always carved out metaphysically as if from the cosmos. so when you say the phrase "detach from the Democratic Party" they literally don't understand what that means because to them that's like deleting an idea from your brain or deleting an idea from the universe. in their mind it's a law of nature that anybody whose brain contains the concepts of the Democratic Party is automatically a member. it's like an SCP report. the Democratic Party is like a hazardous anti-meme that deletes the whole concept of any group of people being a material object that it's optional to be a part of when it invades your brain. if the Christian god is a mind virus the Democratic Party is a mind virus that's ten or a hundred times worse.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="30,42" value="3042" data-dimension="S">undialectical idealism, historical existentialism, & class non-analysis / undialectical idealism, historical non-materialism, and class non-analysis / ([[User:RD/9k/Q55,76|9k]])
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3043" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="30,44" value="3044" data-dimension="S">Reactionary and progressive are two ends of necessity / Trotskyist horseshoe theory / Bolshevism and reaction have the same cause: necessity (Trotskyism)<br />
historical horsheshoe theory + Every Trotskyite Stalin eliminated was a Leninist = this. Every Trotskyite Stalin eliminated was a Leninist + assigned liberal at birth = this.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3045" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3046" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3047" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3048" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3049" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3050" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3051" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="W, ES, A" value="3052" data-dimension="S">hegemony politics / musical chairs attack (MDem) / stealth activism (center-Liberalism)  ->  the motif of people trying to "prevent fascism" by filling up business territories or government institutions with linked groups of people who are "not fascists" as fast as possible before "the fascists" get in. one of the chief strategies of Gramscianism. seems to me like it doesn't really make any sense because it is so chiefly defined by creating countable Cultures of people who belong in a particular cultural identity and carrying out competition between countable Cultures to exist instead of each other existing. that seems a lot more like it's the problem than the way the problem is resolved. realistically, you have to get all your progressives to good landlords and good capitalists who will pay the landlords if you want to end the graph struggle, and put good capitalists in all the reactionary businesses before you can drive the reactionary workers out. the capitalists have to lead this for it to be maximally effective and actually bring change. but it also clearly demonstrates that capitalist populations consist of multiple separate populations divided based on something other than who is a capitalist; you don't have a capitalist population and a worker population, you have specifically a Tory population and a center-Liberal population that recruit people into the nation and "allow" them to work. the bigger question to me is what creates these two populations. it isn't religion, because two people can be Protestants and still divide into these two populations. it has something to do with the inherent collapse of Liberal-republicanism.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3053" data-dimension="S2">Liberalism is designed to collapse into Toryism  ->  the claim that Liberal-republicanism is unintentionally designed to be incapable of making a good distinction between gridlock and conservatism, and as a result it encourages conservatives to build up a socially-linked countable Culture below the level of Liberal-republican politics that becomes unbreakable and eventually takes over the population. every single progressive policy can be defeated by gridlock but creating a "conservative" or reactionary party is an inherent loophole in that it doesn't have to successfully create anything new to win.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3054" data-dimension="S0">assertion real thing is fictional / assertion that real thing appearing in fiction is instead fictional
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3055" data-dimension="S2">History books contain battles  ->  sounds like a tautology out of context, but is apparently a genuinely radical thing to say in the context of why people write fiction.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3056" data-dimension="F2">Real life doesn't contain battles  ->  ever read a history book? it certainly used to. depending on your definition, real life also contains battles every time an Archon makes a terrible decision and prompts a protest.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3057" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_ML" value="3058" data-dimension="S2">Historical idealism makes erasure easier / Historical non-materialism makes erasing demographic identities easier (Idealist history, historical existentialism; as viewed from general-sense historical materialism)  ->  if you don't believe that history is made of causal processes, you can always go around asserting that even when a bunch of transgender people all congregate into a community over and over that it isn't a repeated historical pattern because being trans is fabricated on the spur of the moment just like neopronouns are artistically created. people with a brain shouldn't find that any better because logically then it's erasing a countable culture which is also a repeated historical pattern. but Tories don't value having a brain. if you tried to explain to them that people voting Republican or Tory over and over was a historical pattern and progressives at universities are "making their life difficult" because they erase that pattern of Tory identity Tories probably still wouldn't get it. you might have a little more luck trying to explain that Trotsky was oppressed because Stalin's government [[E:Trotskyism is the prototypical oppressed group|didn't recognize being Trotskyist]] and if they did Trotsky might not have had to leave.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3059" data-dimension="F2">Art is a substitute for world history textbooks / Only the arts can teach us about experiences, so only the arts can teach us about demographic identities  ->  incredibly common claim I even found in a Liberal-republican economics text, but seems to fail a whole lot in practice. Undertale and Deltarune caused people to misgender nonbinary people, Warriors caused people to bash Native Americans for "bad worldbuilding". people think Media Representation will teach people empathy, but in practice you have to hand them a textbook on the demographic identity to get them to understand what they're doing wrong. this + Warriors = medicine men don't exist. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LqRxcu4nbM] this + Deltarune = misgendering Kris. this + Pokémon = never heard of France before. this + Kirby = Spongebob is sexless
</li><li class="field_nations" value="3060" data-dimension="S0">assertion description of an identity is not real / assertion that traits fitting a real-world demographic identity are not real
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3061" data-dimension="S">what if men could date men?? / what if men could be in relationships with men?? / slash (motif of homosexuality being a fictional construct)/ I know I wrote a gay fanfic, but there's no way I could be a lesbian (generic)  ->  the fictional motif of insinuating a lack of understanding that homosexuality is real by claiming that it is an invented fictional concept.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3062" data-dimension="S">Spongebob is sexless / Spongebob is asexual (ecology definition, not queer theory definition) / I don't know, that's just Kirby  ->  there is a very complicated distinction between the way people talk about gender when they have no idea what it is at all, and how they talk about it when they actually know what a transgender person is instead of not knowing. saying that Kirby is "sex unknown" or "gender unknown" is more likely to mean "I genuinely haven't thought about it, I don't know anything on the subject and I don't know where to start" than "I think Kirby could actually be neither male nor female". "neither male nor female" is a really hard concept for normal people to understand if they've never heard of it before. it's easy to create a fictional trope accidentally just by combining concepts but that doesn't equate to an understanding that such a thing is real. (just look at the difference between A/B/O and understanding what transgender people are, and you'll understand it almost exactly.) likewise, people can come to understand that animals in nature can have unusual sex configurations, having both gametes or reproducing asexually, but they tend to be bad at internalizing what that means, and to remain at a totally baseline lack of understanding of what gender is.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3063" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:MedicineCatsUnreal|medicine cat? medicine men don't even exist]] / Warrior cats is so unbelievable, I mean, medicine men don't even exist  ->  the motif of somebody failing to even recognize that a fantasy book is based on an older form of society and proceeding to bash real-world people-groups for bad worldbuilding. it's like there are at least two levels of racism. one is where you know Native Americans exist and you don't like them, or you put "interesting" people-groups on some kind of pedestal like more than being people they resemble some kind of reality TV show that you can attach fake rules and interpretations to. one is where you don't even know they exist and act like they're totally made up. this distinction seems to exist for all demographic identities.
</li><li class="field_nations" value="3064" data-dimension="S">you think <cite>The Matrix</cite> is trans?? / <cite>The Matrix</cite> was wild! ...it's trans? / cis people relating to <cite>The Matrix</cite> but claiming it is not about transgender identity / cis people claiming <cite>The Matrix</cite> is about becoming a Tory but isn't about gender identity (red pill; redpilled)  ->  on one hand this is gross. on the other hand, viewed from a larger context it's just really, really weird. like, can somebody be [[E:anarchism|charcoal]]-pilled, or [[E:Trotskyism|orange]]-pilled? could you go around claiming <cite>The Matrix</cite> is about becoming a Trotskyist or an anarchist but isn't about being trans? Trotskyists totally feel like the way they see the world is the real model of the world, just like Tories do. do Tories even think about that.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3065" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" data-qid="30,66" value="3066" data-dimension="F2">Furries don't have to think about race / Furries never have to think about race (furry-fans; furry fandom) / When you read furry media, or create it, there's no need to think about race  ->  I think this is really stupid precisely because, if we take kid-friendly shows for an example, {{book|Kimba}} can be a story [[E:white-bread fantasy|all about an abstract civilization]] and then blatantly have blackface in the manga and one people group in Africa oppressing other people groups played as a joke. this proposition is using furry characters as an excuse to be "color-blind".<br />
white-bread fantasy + furry fandom = this.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3067" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3068" data-dimension="S">wealth brain / human beings as wads of money with legs  ->  the motif of people acting like cash or houses or donations are a genuine element of population dynamics or populational culture. exemplified by things like the Wings of Fire book where characters acted like a hunk of gold in and of itself produces basic needs and could in and of itself actually improve characters' lives if only the evil queen would let the hunk of gold be Free. it takes an expert to do any of those things, and the expert has to accept gold in the first place. the notion that gold is a badge for achieving high rank is what even makes it valuable.
</li><li class="field_anarchy"  value="3069" data-dimension="S">anarchy brain ->  the motif of people acting like societies are directly made of Freedom or identity rather than being made of physical people or any kind of actual material structure which could descriptively explain why anybody would be breaching said Freedom or identities.
</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="3070" data-dimension="S">protest brain / protest consciousness  ->  Marxist texts speak of "trade union consciousness", a phenomenon where because large groups of people can only participate in trade unions, large swaths of people only gain the level of understanding that unions are able to learn; said another way [[Term:group subject|the union itself learns]], so arranging people into correct structures is paramount for them to learn anything. in the United States, I'd swear there's such a thing as protest consciousness. people are only able to participate in protests, they're not even able to participate in unions or groups of workers, so they build their entire understanding and concept of what resistance is around individual protests. this seems to be one of the material causes of so many people believing anarchism. the notion of different subpopulations automatically liking each other and banding together for the sake of freedom mostly only applies to protests themselves, but because people now have protest consciousness, they go around talking like it's a general model of "community" and "The Multitude", like they understand the notion of transitioning a society into a new society when they don't yet understand that.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3071" data-dimension="S">don't like, don't read
</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="3072" data-dimension="S2">Parallel diversity of different fandom tags equals Freedom / Tearing any particular thing out of fanbases is dictatorial {{YouTube|mFcoQ1nhPpA}}  ->  not a proposition I have problems with, although interesting to analyze. it's... oddly specific when you think about it. why is <em>this</em> the claim that people spontaneously show up and make? if all the tags in a fandom are so different they don't even like each other, what exactly is it that binds them together and keeps them from tearing apart into [[E:incompatible FNaF communities|multiple groups]] in the first place? what is it about the "united states of states of states" that people find so immediately intuitive as if it doesn't need to be explained? there is going to be some Anarchist theory bullshit sitting behind this ready to explain it that I'm going to need repeated to me 100 times.<br />
edit: yeah, [[E:tent of freedom poles|there totally was]]. I had to go read an article specifically about anarchism for other reasons to finally run into it.

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

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="3074" data-dimension="S">united nonviolence of special oppressions  ->  the motif that a country is composed of "superior people" and a ton of endless categories of people who fail to function as perfectly as society's most elite people for some highly specific reason, that if you have any trouble getting into society there must be some highly specific reason you are specially oppressed which requires you to find other people who are specially oppressed exactly the same way and for all the highly specific groups to convince each other at length not to hurt <em>each other</em> and oppress each other. I am so tired of this, specifically because of that last thing. it's clear that over time our basic assumptions about capitalism and Liberal-republicanism have simply ceased to be true, and the way the whole thing operates is a bit different from the way people think. it seems less that people inherently want to accept each other because they're different and more like there are many separate subpopulations of people shoving each other around all trying to fit onto an island too small to fit all of them.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3075" data-dimension="S2">LGBT+, STEM, and HASS are comparable / There is no meaningful difference between LGBT+, STEM, and HASS  ->  the claim that STEM and HASS are just clusters of identities based on particular theoretical frameworks — the art history framework, the music theory framework, the set theory framework, the game theory framework, the quantum mechanics framework, etc — and this is indistinguishable from the concept of grouping together gay people based on a theory of gay & lesbian identity with trans people based on a theory of transgender identity. each of these groups of people is socially connected to a philosophical theory of a real-world thing and then the theories are connected together. the question then arises: why are so many people against the notion of an LGBT+ population existing while they don't get immensely upset that HASS or STEM exists and say "STEM is made up! technologists and mathematicians have nothing in common, and I'm not even sure math exists!!". really think about it. people may have conspiracy theories that NASA is greedily taking money for its own sake, yet they don't typically say "NASA is in league with mathematicians to take our tax dollars". why is the case of LGBT+ efforts for government programs viewed so differently? united states of states of states + lesbian / gay = LGBT+. united states of states of states + physics = STEM.

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

</li><li value="3077" class="field_mdem" data-dimension="S">replacing Shadow with Sonic / replacing Tails with Sonic  ->  silly metaphor from MDem drafts. gets a little complicated to explain quickly. the point of it is that neither two individuals nor two populations are interchangeable due to the fact they are separate objects, depending of course on the context and reasons behind people trying to swap them. sometimes this doesn't apply because the shapes of two things are comparable enough they actually will behave the same way, allowing for historical materialism. sometimes this does apply because people assume that one population is the whole world instead of realizing that societies emerge in plural from different points and appropriately modeling them each behaving and interacting separately game-theory style.

</li><li value="3078" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">thing which is illegal in Europe but continues in the United States  ->  there are so many of these, and you learn a lot about what people consider "democracy" to be in different countries every time you hear about them.
</li><li value="3079" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">thing which is illegal in the United States but continues in Europe  ->  there are fewer of these, but it tells you a lot more about Europe.

</li><li value="3080" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">cultural religion member / cultural Christian / secular Jew / cultural Hindu
</li><li value="3081" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">Protestant or Catholic atheist  ->  famous story from Northern Ireland which is seemingly being repeated only a little less violently in the United States
</li><li value="3082" class="field_nations" data-tradition="ES" data-dimension="S">cultural Tory / ideological state apparatus (people belonging to a socially-linked group of people which claims not to purposefully have political beliefs but transmits bad political ideas as a tactic for staying socially-linked and maintaining group agency and "freedom" versus its surroundings)  ->  a term I said in irony once but am terrified could be real. the motif of people being part of a family or town of Tories and being fiercely loyal to "their family" or socially-linked group of people without actually bothering to believe Tory political beliefs for their content. the group itself believes the Tory beliefs, rather than the individuals, and the overall structure of the group compels all the individuals to act as if they believe Toryism. however, the cultural Tories then proceed to practice Tory beliefs whether they really believe them or not.
</li><li value="3083" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="F2">Catholicism is a backdoor for Bolshevism  ->  found this one in <cite>Democracy for Realists</cite>. had a good laugh at it. who would bother to organize entire Catholic churches just to make sure everyone becomes atheists and learns Marxism? but this is really how people thought back in the 1950s or so. the actual content of Bolshevism isn't what defines Communism to people, it's failing to be loyal to a particular population-society.
</li><li value="3084" class="field_trotsky" data-tradition="DFy, Zv, W, ES, PT" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q3084|Big Brother]]
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3085" data-dimension="S">not my president / #NotMyPresident (Twitter tag) / Donald Trump is not my president (2017 bumper sticker statement)  ->  a seemingly-simple slogan that opens up a [[Special:PermanentLink/4975|huge discussion]] of what is the correct way to study groups of voters using set theory
</li><li class="field_nations" value="3086" data-dimension="F2">Kevins don't belong in Germany / Only someone who doesn't belong in Germany would be named Kevin  ->  an interesting phenomenon where in the 1990s people in Germany were adopting names from United States movies and some people became convinced these families of people were pretenders who must be giving their kids cool names because they have nothing else to show. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loNUYj1Ie5E] the dissolution of East Germany sure looks a lot less "uplifting" when you put this on the timeline as what was happening at about the same time
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3087" data-dimension="S2">Karens don't belong in Seattle / People named Karen don't belong in the United States  ->  Karen takes longer to explain than Kevin, I feel like. Karen was a popular name at approximately the same time as the baby boom, so it's partially synonymous with "boomers", but not precisely. there was something about putting an exact name and portrait on ill-informed older people that made it easier for people to point to them as a group and point out the bad things they were regularly doing. at the same time it's concerning that this is the way it had to be done. you look at Marxist academics and the non-Gramscians will act confused why all the people in the United States aren't easily united into one population around local proletarian struggles, beginning at "meeting them at whatever consciousness they're at". but if you observe the motions of real people what you really see is weird things like everybody uniting against The Karens. the place that people are "at" is everybody sorting into these highly demographic-based subpopulations like all the White women of a particular age range likely to be named Karen, all the 25-year-old transgender people named Alex, the Black people in city A, the Black people and Latinos in city B. and then the Alexes and Brookses start going on about the Karens and how the Karens are terrible to other subpopulations as a countable Culture. there is this distinct natural division into competing subpopulations and need to locate all the Karens in order to surround them and cut them out where otherwise there would be no way to control them. it makes no sense at first sight and it's exhausting. all I can be sure of is that human beings don't naturally form into nation-states, and it would appear they form into countable Cultures at least slightly smaller than the United States, similar to if you hypothetically cut the Soviet Union in half and made half of it Trotskyist.
</li><li class="field_horror" value="3088" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q3088|greeting nonbinary Representation with misgendering]] / misgendering Frisk (Undertale) / misgendering Kris (Deltarune)  ->  I swear this one is in every other YouTube comments section. I think that really says something about how effective Media Representation actually is or isn't. Kris + signifier mad libs = this.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3089" data-dimension="S2">Propositions appeal to Liberal-republicans / Proposition-based logic appeals to Liberal-republicans / Propositional logic is appealing to center-Liberals — anarchists and staunch schizoanalysts excepted  ->  something I hope is true, although I don't know for sure that it's true. some of the reasoning of this ontology project is that I hope, in theory, that non-binary proposition-based logic could be enough to pick off a couple center-Liberal social-democrats. I don't expect the impact of that to be very big. so more than that I see this as a project for Marxists and allies which is uniquely structured to be able to survive the pressures of Liberal-republicanism and come out the other end having started with a form that looks conventional to Liberal-republicanism and ended with a form that has the feel that Marxism and any associated historical events were obvious, the "last thursdayism" of philosophy where [[Term:retroversion|the way things are always existed]] even though it clearly didn't.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="LR" value="3090" data-dimension="S2">Liberal-republican institutions are the brain of the United States / The constitution is the brain of the United States / Washington's filter proposition (constitution and Liberal-republican national institutions)  ->  traditional Liberal-republican position. dubious. doesn't explain the process of right-Liberalism actually overcoming Liberal-republican institutions.

</li><li value="3091" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q3091|Bolshevism is over]]
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3092" data-dimension="S2">Quality-slider speak is a cover for bigotry / center-Liberal appeals to alchemy-like metaphysical quality sliders conceal bigotry / Arceus really did a number on Ultra Space, huh? (center-Liberal parties)  ->  the more time goes by and the more I look back at each instance of this phenomenon, the more I begin to feel like every word center-Liberals say in the vein of "extreme" and "too much" is an after-the-fact justification while the real reasons are snap judgements against something outside and unknown that they don't want to learn about. center-Liberalism is this particular socially-linked group of people that protects itself by resisting any suggestion that it could be structured differently. and yet, everyone is trying to do this totally impossible thing of integrating racial struggles into that, when it's like, you are trying to fight racism by using bigotry. that is always going to result in problems, either in people failing to accept anti-racism education because they're too steeped in bigotry, or a select group of people who does accept it becoming bigoted against other socially-linked groups of people who do anything to threaten center-Liberalism even in cases where that thing would benefit other demographic identities. this approach to fighting racism will generally manufacture a group of dedicated racists. a kind of, dark solidarity between one group of people who have not been absorbed into the center-Liberal SPS and other groups of people excluded for other prejudices. even the worst filters you can think of are dialectical. there is always an unintended effect next to the intended effects based on the fact two separate objects are actually interacting.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3093">??
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3094" data-dimension="S2">China's ideals apply to the U.S. / If somebody in China "believes that everybody", it includes the United States / If somebody in China says an "I believe that everybody" statement, the United States is obligated to do it  ->  one of the easiest counterpoints against the effectiveness of "I believe that everybody" statements. If the people of China don't get to vote in United States elections, how do you really know that a bunch of people saying "I believe that everybody should" will actually change reactionaries instead of the result being them complaining that a different population of people with different values shouldn't get to tell them what to do?
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3095">??

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3096" data-dimension="S2">"Compartmentalization" is a form of compartmentalization  ->  I think this thought had come to me when listening to a FNaF theory where Vanessa used the word "compartmentalized" to describe not truly having dealt with something and in one sense only really having categorized it. I said, <i>yeah, now there's an accurate metaphor</i>. so much of the way we use language, and by extension philosophy itself, has turned into this weird exercise of attempting to self-contain things that aren't self-contained and think we understand them just because we've labeled them. we labeled abuse and manipulation! now we understand all forms of them in all contexts. we labeled structural racism! now we clearly know the entire context for why it happens and how to prevent it. but it doesn't actually work that way.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3097" data-dimension="S2">There is no such thing as Idealism  ->  the claim that nobody actually desires to believe in Idealism, and people only believe in Idealisms because they happen to also be FreeWillIsms; all Idealisms are actually variations of Existentialism. I think this is <em>slightly</em> incorrect because people really have this thing for inventing metaphysical sliders that go from one end to the other and trying to abstract away that the "balance" in the middle always has a way of coming to be instead of being what automatically happens when you avoid the "ends" of the slider. I still don't entirely know why it's so appealing to do that.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3098" data-dimension="M3">What does slider-speak actually achieve?  ->  this is a good example of an M3 question because it undoubtedly has multiple answers.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3099" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q3099|"I believe that everybody" statement]]  ->  a more specific category of statements than it might sound; this generally doesn't include "to-you" statements like "I believe everybody should have housing". this is about moralistic statements like "I believe that everybody should vote for Joe Biden" (are there even any ballot boxes left?) or "I believe that everybody should donate to charity" (a clear case of acting like everyone is the bourgeoisie to appeal to their sense of Filament in-group and trick them to into doing things). "I believe that everybody" statements are a problem because they often describe impossibilities that people can't actually be made to do, whether this is for bad reasons where people are becoming uncontrollable through a Vegeta effect or because of reasonable physical limitations.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3100">??

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3101" data-dimension="M3">What is the meaning of chunk competition? / Why are we here competing over gentrifying neighborhoods? / What is our purpose in working at one corporation against another? / What is the cosmic significance of anyone fighting for the right to live in the United States versus move away? / What is the greater meaning of dissolving the Soviet Union and making its people move to Australia versus fighting to keep it standing so people can be Ukranian and Kazakh? / Why are we here trying to build China-specific industry when the world is trying to tear the whole country apart? / What is the greater meaning of trying to push for Trotskyism over socialisms-in-one-country? / What is the greater meaning of trying to push for socialism-in-one-country versus Trotskyism, particularly should Trotskyism-in-one-country be possible?  ->  humanity's biggest question that nearly nobody thinks about. Stalin's government apparently could not answer this question in a satisfactory way (or promote the formation of groups who did), leading to the slow dissolution of the republic into its individuals.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3102" data-dimension="M3">What is the purpose of a republic?
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3103" data-dimension="M3">What is the purpose of Liberal-republicanism? / What is the purpose of a democratic republic? (Liberal-republicanism, Liberalism)  ->  many people think the answer is obvious, but it really isn't.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3104">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3105">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3106">??

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3107" data-dimension="S2">Capitalist organs fled the body to obtain freedom / The "body without organs", in the negative sense of runaway expansion Machines or paperclip-organisms, came to be because the body that previously held things in place was stationary empire and nobody really liked it, everybody wanting to be released from it  -><br />
follows from "Larks have free will" and the claim that free will is rooted in the drive to obtain biological needs

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-remark="A or ES" value="3108" data-dimension="S">postcolonial impulse  ->  the concept that countable cultures wanting to be freed from empire, imperial colonies, or "Stalinist tyranny" does not inherently generate freedom or democracy by itself and can exist for any ideology dissatisfied with being wedged inside any other ideology no matter how toxic the inner ideology actually is. Existentialists are unable to notice this, and characterized by the fallacy that Trotskyite conspiracies must necessarily be postcolonial even if capitalist restoration inside a Trotskyism is considered equally postcolonial. this in turn opens the gates for Afrikaner types and Tories to act on the postcolonial impulse and assert that they have the right to be free from center-Liberal governments and Black people.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="3109" data-remark="30,72 Parallel diversity of different fandom tags" data-dimension="S2">Culture is revolutionary / Countable cultures are revolutionary because they are "communities", which is any socially-linked graph of people  ->  implied in a whole lot of Existentialist-Structuralist and sometimes anarchist-labeled stuff. sounds super dubious on the surface, and yet hard to disprove. exemplified by: A) widespread pushes for nonbinary representation and rights after a bunch of random teenagers standardized the word on tumblr. B) theories of disability that say that particular clusters of disabled people linking together and passing around culture and presenting culture to others and people requiring this arbitrary local culture to be respected is the gateway to liberation for various disabled groups. C) theories of racism that acknowledge the tendency of groups of people pushed out of society to cluster together and form a concept of a particular racial subpopulation

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3110" data-dimension="S">Communists as some arbitrary non-Communist ideology / Communists as some arbitrary ideology that is not Bolshevism  ->  quite common if you would like to present Communists as stupid idiot garbage trash
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3111" data-dimension="S">Communists as subset of Utopian Socialism
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3112" data-dimension="S">Communists as hippies
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3113" data-dimension="S">Communists as anarchists [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irgzJ5VPk1o]  ->  extremely common in PragerU style videos. they absolutely cannot tell the difference between Communists, anarchists, postcolonial theorists, and progressive Existentialist-Structuralist tradition members whatsoever
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3114" data-dimension="S">Communists as religious prophets [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irgzJ5VPk1o]  ->  featured in Aster/Aubepine.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3115" data-dimension="S">[[E:Q3115|Communists as concealing nationalism]] / Communists as fascists / socialicizing the population / nationalizing the people / socializing the people  ->  appears in: 1984, resembles: Identitarian fascism / Duginism.<br />
generalized dictator + ?? = Communists as fascists.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3116" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3117" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3118" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="Aa" value="3119" data-dimension="F2">No Communist is a functioning adult  ->  it often feels like a lot of Liberal-republicans and Existentialists think this — not least of all Lacanians, who think they know everything about the human life cycle and psychological maturity process based on a bunch of philosophy that isn't science. well, the good thing is we can almost solidly say it's false, because all of the people who became Communist leaders were these highly-educated, really high-functioning people by anybody's standards. it isn't your degree of functioning that actually determines what "swatch color" you get.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3120" data-dimension="S2">Within Liberal republics, Communists are treated with cultural assimilation and social darwinism  ->  this results in anarchism becoming prevalent because it survives the selection pressures crushing down on all populations and socially-linked graphs of individuals.

</li><li class="field_nations" value="3121" data-dimension="S">I'm not racist, but...  ->  there is only one valid situation where you can say this, which is to say that anti-racist movements are not using the correct strategies to achieve the goal of surviving and countering racism. basically any other instance of it deserves to be mocked. especially the ones that invoke the concept of "qualified" or the concept of "tacky", which are each just a much more honest way to voice {{em|why}} somebody {{em|definitely is}} racist.
</li><li class="field_nations" value="3122" data-dimension="S">I'm not homophobic, but...<br />
I'm not homophobic, but... + Media Representation = Lesbian writers would never write about lesbians
</li><li class="field_nations" value="3123" data-dimension="S">I'm not transphobic, but...
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="3124" data-qid="4?88" data-dimension="S">I'm not anticommunist, but...  ->  you find so many of these hidden in Trotskyist and Western-Marxist writings.<br />
to be perfectly honest: I am always a little scared to be mean to Trotskyists or much more so Third-World named Marxisms because I know it's very bad to say "I'm not anticommunist, but". I have had this absolutely crude concept of what tolerance is pounded into me and pounded into me to the point that even if I really hate it for how much it makes no sense in reference to Existentialism I start defaulting to it as a way to understand Marxism because Marxists of any demographic are the only people I like and I am terrified of scaring them off.
</li><li class="field_nations" value="3125" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_nations" value="3126" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_nations" value="3127" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_nations" value="3128" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3129" data-dimension="Z">Not Racist Butt (comic) / hey there, I'm the Not Racist Butt [https://cyanideandhappiness.fandom.com/wiki/2013.12.22] [https://explosm.net/comics/rob-notracist]

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES, W" value="3130" data-dimension="S">representation in media / rep (abbreviation; Existentialist philosophies, anarchism, civil rights movements) / Representation in Media (Signifier Case; meta-Marxism) / Media Representation (Signifier Case; meta-Marxism)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3131" data-dimension="S2">John Egbert is obviously White [https://www.reddit.com/r/homestuck/comments/pjc7n3/comment/hbvq1sk/]  ->  despite this topic seeming uninteresting it's actually really interesting because it feeds into the question of what does and doesn't count as Media Representation, or stereotyping, of some particular ethnic group. how much unlike a particular ethnic group can a character look and still be Media Representation? people go around trying to teach the concept of Media Representation with phrases like "brown kids on screen" but realistically a whole lot of actual instances of Media Representation will just be voice actors and things that people would recognize as representing particular histories but which may not seem inherently linked to a particular appearance. this is true for both positive and negative portrayals.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3132" data-dimension="S2">Goku is White  ->  I'm not sure who even thinks this. I think I've most often seen people assuming Goku is abstractly Japanese
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3133" data-dimension="S2">Goku is obviously Japanese / Goku is obviously an abstraction of the people of Japan based on the language of the show and the people animating it
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3134" data-dimension="S2">Goku is obviously Chinese / Goku is obviously an abstraction of the people of ancient China based on who wrote {{book|Journey to the West}} and the vague "everyman" positioning of the characters in that text
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3135" data-dimension="S2">Goku is obviously Imperial-Japanese / Goku is obviously an abstraction of the people of Imperial Japan, specifically the people who supported empire and in his case the one person who might have defected from it  ->  I think this is the most correct answer looking at the way characters are positioned relative to each other in the narrative.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3136" data-dimension="S2">Vegeta is obviously Imperial-Japanese
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3137" data-dimension="S2">Vegeta is a reactionary / Vegeta is obviously an abstraction of the concept of reactionaries in situations such as the Russian Empire or Imperial Japan

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3138" data-dimension="S">Media Representation on Sky News / hello Sky News, I'm so glad I got my colostomy bag [https://news.sky.com/story/i-would-rather-have-died-how-getting-a-stoma-bag-changed-my-life-and-broke-the-stigma-12080366]  ->  I just found an article on notorious Tory news outlet Sky News that was exactly in the shape of an Existentialist or Gramscian call for Media Representation. obviously there's nothing wrong with a visibility effort for stoma bags. a little unusual, but sure, getting unusual problems out there is the point isn't it. the one thing that baffles me is seeing this kind of thing on Sky News. I'm guessing it got there because it sounds like an old people problem?? it's often old people watching these things, so maybe they think any medical problem sounds enough like their own problems to not be upsetting to them. that isn't a joke; I just genuinely don't know what's a good guess.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3139" data-dimension="S2">Printing books won't educate people / Production won't educate people / Producing more books cannot educate people (implied "usually"; comics, shows, games, etc; discrete product available for price or advertisement revenue; anti-Gramscian proposition)  ->  the claim that in every case, people receive better education if you can get something out of existing resources made as many as ten years ago than if you require new resources to be made. "we have wealth, the big problem is we haven't distributed it" correct. and one thing that means is that people need to be taught to use old books rather than buy new ones. printing more books just to put minority representation in them is meaningless, depending on the subject of the books and whether they deal with very serious non-fictional history or plans to create movements.<br />
I allow that this proposition could be false. there is some potential that, say, if there were [[E:United Socialist States|the five Communist parties of the USS]] and they actually decided to defund Media Representation produced in their parties versus distributing books and teaching people to use them it would deal a heavy enough blow to the process of assembling marginalized workers together into their own movements that join into the big movement that it wouldn't be worth it. there could be a real contradiction there that could falsify this proposition depending on exactly what we specify the proposition to apply to. to me, when I'm typing this, I think it applies to areas of the US that aren't major cities. I am not sure what times it does and doesn't apply to the Third World. I think the times it applies are rather structural, it applies to specific kinds of towns more than broad historical periods of a whole country.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="31,40" value="3140" data-dimension="S">toon animals as inherently coded / furries as inherently coded / anthropomorphic animals as inherently coded to something
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="31,41" value="3141" data-dimension="S2">Hello Kitty is a person / Hello Kitty is not a cat, she's a little girl from London
</li><li class="field_fantasy field_LGBT" data-qid="31,42" value="3142" data-dimension="S2">Furry media exists to create a unique ethnic appearance for all gay people / Furry media exists to create a unique outwardly-visible demographically-specific appearance for all gay people  ->  this claim would be to counter the claim that furry media gets rid of the need to ask questions about "race" or the history of interactions between populations. the furry aesthetic, or any number of possible furry aesthetics, serves as a way to preserve a concept of diversity vaguely similar to the concept of people being different ethnicities and nationalities which may be vaguely identifiable from the outside (thought they also might not), while creating a concept of demographic unity similar to the concept of everyone in the group being gay or lesbian. furry characters share in being gay; furry characters share in being furry. the less-outwardly-obvious commonality of being gay is replaced by the highly obvious commonality of being anthropomorphic animals, because the things the characters share internally need to be externalized and visualized for the artistic purpose of expressing shared emotions.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3143" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3144" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3145" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3146" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3147" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3148" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3149" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3150" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3151" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3152" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3153" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3154" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3155" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3156" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3157" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3158" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3159" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3160" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3161" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3162" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3163" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3164" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3165" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3166" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3167" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3168" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3169" data-dimension="S">artistic abstraction  ->  the motif of art deliberately separating itself from reality and representation. Magritte's pipe is a decent example. early newspaper-type cartoons are another example. {{YouTube|mkzHTemRfAk}}<br />
artistic abstraction + children's slice-of-life show = Hello Kitty is a person

</li><li class="field_fantasy"  value="3170" data-dimension="S">artistic signifier equation / signifier equation in the middle of poetry, literature, or the arts (poetic, artistic; structuralist linguistics) / the snark was a boojum you see / selagadoola means menchickaboola roo  ->  I like the Cinderella example because it literally has "means" or "equals" in the middle of it.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3171" data-dimension="S">[[Philosophical Research:Items/S3011|empty but grammatical sentence]] / grammatical sentence without real signs / the gostak distims the doshes / colorless green ideas sleep furiously / the snark was a boojum you see (nonsensical English sentence) / selagadoola means menchickaboola roo (nonsensical English sentence) / technically grammatical statement / technically grammatical paragraph / technically grammatical text / technically grammatical presentation / technically grammatical sermon  ->  I believe I recorded this Item after finding an AI generated Christian sermon, because all the sentences sounded a bit like this.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES, Aa" data-remark="arguably a Lacanian sentence type by now." value="3172" data-dimension="S">fruit flies like a banana / stroked his lover with the edge of a knife / cellar filled with wine and spirits, but not a bottle to be seen (Dr. Faustroll)

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="3173" data-dimension="S">Black people are White people too / autistic people are gay people too  ->  the rarely-stated, usually implied motif of trying to assert that some particular demographic subpopulation of people {{em|inherently}} belongs in another subpopulation just because subpopulations are both populations and populations inherently want to merge into each other. you're more likely going to hear it with the word "community" as if calling populations "communities" somehow inherently explains why populations that have processes constantly separating them from others in fact inherently want to merge. the problem with this motif is not in trying to claim it is possible for human beings to get rid of prejudice and for some particular individual from another demographic to join a population. the problem is the mechanism or process by which this is suggested to happen.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="3174" data-dimension="S">White people are Black people too / gay people are trans people too / Christians are Muslims too / White people belonging to the republicanized empire are Native Americans too  ->  the motif of trying to suggest that majority groups of people inherently belong in protests for minority groups of people {{em|purely because}} they are both populations or both The Subject and with no real attempt to explain why minority populations will accept and forgive them or cooperate with any more complicated strategies the outsiders may propose.<br />
this one bit me. I got fed up with it because The Lefts were asking people to do things that were physically impossible, going to protests that don't exist and pitting 2 people against 100 reactionary people, and I just genuinely did not understand how it made any sense as a model of reality that was supposed to solve the problem. and that made people angry. people got super angry if you didn't tell people to "support" movements that wide swaths of people can't even contribute anything to where you'd really just be telling a chain of people to tell each other lies about how involved they are in causing the problem and how much they can do to stop it but otherwise do nothing. this was before I knew any Marxism. I was in an almost ideal untouched state of not being "corrupted" by Marxism and suddenly generic progressives are putting people through the ringer demanding people understand things even their experts don't have the tools to understand, which mesh poorly with all the other contradictory things they believe to supposedly Create Society Good and where nothing makes any sense. the anarchists and generic-progressives threw me out of society for not understanding contradictory things and I never really found any way back in. I just ended up in hell where every progressive, reactionary, and non-political person, maybe the Marxists too, want to stomp me for not successfully being human and the regret of being born that I always had is at its peak. I eventually came to the conclusion that anarchism genuinely doesn't make any sense and clearing people's minds of non-anarchism doesn't make it make any more sense, and the only way to actually create effective movements where a bunch of people don't just sit around begins at deconstructing every part of anarchism, including the superficially sensical parts like "community and communities". when you look into them they don't actually make sense. these "processes" don't explain how they themselves function and don't simply fail. biologists can explain how a pancreas succeeds or fails. physicists can explain when fundamental particle interactions do and don't happen, at least to a satisfactory extent, even when relativity and quantum mechanics only partly line up and don't perfectly line up. anarchists can hardly explain the processes behind anything.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3175" data-dimension="S">why didn't they just build bigger towns / town more than big enough for the two of us  ->  the fictional motif of some assortment of people in a pre-industrial historical period deciding that a space actually can be shared instead of having a shootout over it. appears in: <cite>Undertale</cite>, that one really controversial MLP episode with the bison where people took it as sheer historical revisionism largely because the Zecora episode was so bad. so yeah, this motif isn't always a good thing. I find it weird that non-Marxists would get upset about historical accuracy when the anarchist position of making everything utopian is actually more logically coherent, but it's very interesting to study how people come to that conclusion.
</li><li class="field_horror"  value="3176" data-dimension="S">town ain't big enough for the two of us  ->  the fictional motif of cowboys and outlaws or some other assortment of people in a pre-industrial historical period deciding a space cannot be shared and having some kind of shootout over it. note that this can exist in other settings than Westerns — FNaF infamously had a movie sequence modeled after Kurosawa movies which was this.
</li><li class="number_empty"  value="3177">??

</li><li class="field_geo" data-remark="this motif makes me think of anti-religion writings or something." value="3178" data-dimension="S">humorous euphemism for trash / please pick up your campaign promises and put them in the designated bag / what kind of Lacanianism is this? / what kind of Western-Marxism is this?
</li><li class="field_geo" value="3179" data-dimension="S">humorous euphemism for trash-talking / I'm in the mood to South-Park South Park

</li><li class="field_nations" value="3180" data-dimension="S">stupid idiot garbage trash / casting ideology or movement as stupid idiot garbage trash  ->  you've almost certainly seen it. when someone implies that a particular ideology is so incredibly stupid it ought never have butted its head into society or into the discussion. sometimes hidden behind the word "extreme" when the true connotative meaning of <i>extreme</i> is "idiotic"
</li><li class="field_nations"  value="3181" data-dimension="S">progressives as stupid idiot garbage trash / gender studies professors as stupid idiot garbage trash  ->  Toryism; see Dinesh D'Souza's awful book
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3182" data-dimension="S">non-Liberals as stupid idiot garbage trash
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3183" data-dimension="S">Communists as stupid idiot garbage trash / Communist allies as —  ->  see: Starlight Glimmer, "dumbacabra" (Aster/Aubepine)
</li><li class="field_ML" value="3184" data-dimension="S">Trotskyists as stupid idiot garbage trash  ->  not very common, but if you see it anywhere, it will come from Stalin followers. from anyone else, almost always takes the form of "Communists —"
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3185" data-dimension="S">party-nations as stupid idiot garbage trash / Communist parties as — / Communist theorists as —  ->  distinct from the concept of targeting mere individual Communist allies or "believers", this is the concept that Communist parties trying to take control of society have no place in society or have forfeited their place in society because the definition of a particular nation-state somehow explicitly excludes Communist parties. the concept that Communist parties violate what it means to be Russian, Chinese, or United-States, and are not administering this core populational process of life or individuation properly. I think of the quote in Heidegger's letter that supposedly 'internationalism cannot make a better nationalism', vaguely implying that somehow there is something fundamental about nationalism that Communists do not understand because they do not seek to characterize nationalism "for its own sake" without the possibility of Bolshevism. if so, what even is it? I certainly do not understand that.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3186" data-dimension="S">imperialists as stupid idiot garbage trash  ->  see: {{book|Dragon Ball}}, {{book|Sunshine Before the Dawn}}. concept that imperialism is specifically such a <em>stupid</em> thing to do it will destroy a civilization, stipulating that imperialists are simply the enemy because they have bad inferior trashy culture, yet assuming it is not necessary to ask where it comes from. may be presented with the concept of Free Will wedged somewhere in the middle. one of the most bizarrely nazi ways to oppose nazis, and yet depressingly common
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3187" data-remark="Fazbear does it" data-dimension="S">employees as stupid idiot garbage trash  ->  only common in the most insufferable right-Liberal works; prepare for said works to consistently confuse Director types versus Serializer types / Careerists versus capitalists, and try to give pure owners all the credit for inventing things
</li><li class="field_nations" value="3188" data-dimension="S">ethnic group as stupid idiot garbage trash / city population as stupid idiot garbage trash / neighborhood as stupid idiot garbage trash / legal or illegal immigrants as —  ->  I am convinced there is not a big difference between Tories going on racist rants about how people in Detroit or wherever have inferior culture and that's why they're poor ("1350" conspiracy theory), and center-Liberal/Existentialist anticommunism
</li><li class="field_nations" value="3189" data-dimension="S">homeless people as stupid idiot garbage trash
</li><li class="field_nations" value="3190" data-dimension="S">elite experts as stupid idiot garbage trash / university professors as stupid idiot garbage trash  ->  one of the most contradictory concepts you hear out of Toryism: acting as if the literal most educated and most qualified people in fields are unnecessary to society just because Bob from South Dakota doesn't understand what they're saying. and the more people believe in capitalism the stupider the statement gets — right-Liberals go around acting like taxes are so bad and it's best to choppify society into the most autonomous chunks it can be, but then when they get their wish and that results in Careerism and households expending their own money to train elite experts who get into government bodies and start ordering people around, there's still presumed to be some argument that they don't inherently have the right to do that. all elite experts are just expressions of capital the same as a business territory is.
</li><li class="field_nations"  value="3191" data-dimension="S">art students as stupid idiot garbage trash
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3192" data-dimension="S">specific scientific field as stupid idiot garbage trash / string theorists as stupid idiot garbage trash
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3193" data-dimension="S">what passes for macroeconomics in Croatia / Third World professors as stupid idiot garbage trash  ->  "macroeconomics in Croatia" is an anecdote I heard from relatives, in which a professor from Croatia with a degree was upset he had to get another entire degree to be considered worthy of performing economics in the United States. because he "only" knew what passes for macroeconomics in Croatia! Croatian economics, not <em>real</em> economics. this is what happens when you believe that Third World countries are badly developed "because of" Bolshevism: once they dismantle Bolshevism, then it becomes that the countries are inferior because they have "Croatian" economics or "Chinese" economics.

</li><li class="field_nations" value="3194" data-dimension="S">disabled people as less than real people / ableism (motif)  ->  I feel slightly uncomfortable labeling this one along with the "stupid idiot garbage trash" entries because of the way it's possible to take it literally — Tories saying disabled people not being able to to do things should mean they're not good for things. so I guess we Take It Seriously on this one
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3195" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3196" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3197" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3198" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3199" data-dimension="S">particular name as stupid idiot garbage trash / people with specific name as stupid idiot garbage trash  ->  superset of: Karen, Kevin, etc. this concept was discussed in Freakonomics, and unfortunately it seems a bunch of people deployed the "pointing out racism is being racist" fallacy to mistakenly denounce the book.

</li><li class="number_empty">??
</li><li>[S] random event generator  ->  "Fetch" / FNaF brought this up?

</li><li class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="3097" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">Subject-style being / virtual-pet-style being
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3098" data-dimension="S">excessive subject  ->  a Subject defined by its unpredictability. sounds like a good definition of Freedom at first, but makes people indistinguishable from twenty-sided dice.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3099" data-dimension="S">excessive raincloud

</li><li class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="3149" data-dimension="S">that (minus a buck fifty) / the zero dollars that doesn't get the coffee
</li><li class="field_geo" value="3150" data-dimension="S">the buck fifty that gets the coffee / a buck fifty / a dollar fifty / the dollar and fifty cents that actually gets the coffee  ->  I use this metaphor way too much in too many contexts. one time I referred to the concept of a Yamcha + Vegeta fusion as Vegeta being "the $1.50", as if even though only one thing is useful you actually do need both things. one time I may have referred to Rosa Luxemburg's theory of movements or Trotsky's projection of international permanent revolution as the movement being "the $1.50". sometimes I use the metaphor as if "that" is useful and necessary, and sometimes I use it like "that" is not useful.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3155">??
</li><li value="3160" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li value="3161" class="field_fantasy" data-serial="1" data-remark="this was the Retrogarde Fantasy Stablehand order of creatures. yeah the project is defunct. I still like what it was doing with numbers" data-dimension="S" data-submitter="Valenoern">phoenix
</li><li value="3162" class="field_fantasy" data-serial="2" data-dimension="S" data-submitter="Valenoern">bestiary reindeer / Parandrus / Tarandrus
</li><li value="3163" class="field_fantasy" data-serial="3" data-dimension="S" data-submitter="Valenoern">panthera (mythical beast)
</li><li value="3164" class="field_fantasy" data-serial="4" data-dimension="S" data-submitter="Valenoern">griffin / gryphon
</li><li value="3165" class="field_fantasy" data-serial="5" data-dimension="S" data-submitter="Valenoern">winged horse / pegasus
</li><li value="3166" class="field_fantasy" data-serial="6" data-dimension="S" data-submitter="Valenoern">[[Ontology:Q3166|European dragon]] / "draco" dragon
</li><li value="3167" class="field_fantasy" data-serial="7" data-dimension="S" data-submitter="Valenoern">unicorn / monoceros (unicorn)
</li><li value="3168" class="field_fantasy" data-serial="8" data-dimension="S" data-submitter="Valenoern">chimera
</li><li value="3169" class="field_fantasy" data-remark="I dunno it has a lot of heads" data-dimension="S" data-submitter="Valenoern">hydra

</li><li value="3170" class="field_mdem" data-dimension="S">filtration / filtering  ->  produces movement with Bauplan
</li><li class="field_ML" data-dimension="S">filtration sifts out party-nation / unions and party are different / complicated system of pulleys (Lenin)  ->  retrieve Lenin text
</li><li class="field_ML" data-dimension="S">filtration and party-nation are same thing  ->  <cite>The Communist Necessity</cite>
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">filtration requires Subjectivity  ->  Marcuse
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">filtration through morality-shaming  ->  Gramscianism, Existentialism, center-Liberalism
</li><li>[S] filtration through national essentialism  ->  Toryism

</li><li>??
</li><li>[S] fictional race
</li><li>[S] humanoid being / humanoid race
</li><li>[S] beast humanoid / furry
</li><li>[S] intelligent beast / civilized beast
</li><li>[S] intelligent monster / intelligent kaiju / civilized monster
</li><li>[S] intelligent construct
</li><li>[S] fictional being for which physics is suspended
</li><li>[S] toon-style being / rubberhose cartoon style being / Acme cartoon style being
</li><li>[S] toon animal  ->  intelligent beast - in the capacity of - toon-style being
</li><li>[S] mythical being / paranormal being / supernatural being / magical being
</li><li>[S] tokusatsu-style being / 1960s live-action style being
</li><li>[S] LCD-keychain-style being  ->  see: Digimon, Tamagotchi

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3200" data-dimension="S">purely-hypothetical historical period / purely-hypothetical civilization or structure that population has
</li><li class="field_horror" value="3201"  data-dimension="S">horses in cubicles  ->  can we just take a moment to appreciate the horses in boring offices and shouting at each other in traffic in James Baxter's story, versus the way civilizations of horses are depicted in <cite>My Little Pony</cite>, with these tiny businesses and walkable everything. even Manehattan is idealized to where nobody actually hates living there. there's a particular disconnect between the theory of society in MLP and anything that's realistic or superficially realistic yet very nonsensical as in Adventure Time. horses driving cars is really silly, and yet, this complete walkability you see in MLP is nothing like what living beings experience in real life versus these surprisingly relatable nonsense images of horses in cubicles. (Adventure Time season 8, episode 18)

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3210" data-dimension="S">animal intended as realistic animal / semi-realistic beast / intelligent animal in nature / intelligent Eukaryote in nature / intelligent organism in nature  ->  includes Warrior cats. does not include <cite>Wings of Fire</cite> because of the existence of certain uniquely human behaviors in the books, like small capitalism.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3211" data-dimension="S">unrealistic animal / imaginary organism in nature / unrealistic organism in nature / flatlanders in nature / kaiju in nature / unicorns in nature
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3212" data-dimension="S">an animal, not a beast  ->  the motif of distinguishing between humans and nonhuman Animals but only by their capabilities.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3215" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3219" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_geo" value="3220" data-dimension="Z">animal rank (ecology)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3221" data-dimension="S">animal spatial rank (speculative fiction)  ->  see: Saiyans, Icewing leaderboard
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3222" data-dimension="S">animal tribal population / animal tribe  ->  Warriors
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3223" data-dimension="S">animals in warring states period / animal feudalism  ->  Guardians of Ga'Hoole
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3224" data-dimension="S">animals in feudal order or monarchy / animal feudalism  ->  a couple SCP entries
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3225" data-dimension="S">animal empire
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3226" data-dimension="S">animal republic
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3227" data-dimension="S">animal city or town
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3228" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3229" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_ML" value="3230" data-dimension="S">fictional workers' state  ->  almost always framed negatively in fiction, and yet, there are more of them than you'd think there'd be.
</li><li class="field_ML" value="3231" data-dimension="S">fictional federation of workers' states
</li><li class="field_ML" value="3232" data-dimension="S">planetary workers' state (fiction)  ->  bizarrely not synonymous with Trotskyism. in fiction the equivalent of Trotskyism is usually multiple worlds
</li><li class="field_ML" value="3233" data-dimension="S">fictional Communist International
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="3234" data-dimension="S">galactic Communist International (fiction)  ->  one way to end Dragon Ball.
</li><li class="field_ML" value="3235" data-dimension="S">Communist International of universes or timelines  ->  one way to end Dragon Ball Super.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3236" data-dimension="S">galactic cold war
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3237" data-dimension="S">cold war over timelines
</li><li class="field_ML" value="3238" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_ML" value="3239" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3240" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3241" data-dimension="S">planetary nation / planetary population / planetary tribe
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3242" data-dimension="S">planetary civilization / planetary civilizational formation
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3243" data-dimension="S">planetary kingdom
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3244" data-dimension="S">planetary empire
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3245" data-dimension="S">planetary imperial colony / planetary Third-World civilization / planetary exploited tribal population
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3246" data-dimension="S">planetary army
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3247" data-dimension="S">planetary police
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3248" data-dimension="S">galaxy or universe police
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3249" data-dimension="S">cosmic police  ->  the fictional motif of a police force that operates outside the material universe, perhaps over a multiverse or from the afterlife, etc.

</li><li class="number_empty" data-qid="32,50" value="3250" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" data-qid="32,51" value="3251" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" data-qid="32,52" value="3252" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="32,53" value="3253" data-dimension="S">seasons as warring states / seasons as kingdoms
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="32,54" value="3254" data-dimension="S">seasons as impending doom / winter is coming  ->  see: Animal Farm
</li><li class="number_empty" data-qid="32,55" value="3255" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" data-qid="32,56" value="3256" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" data-qid="32,57" value="3257" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" data-qid="32,58" value="3258" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="32,59" value="3259" data-dimension="S">networkism (meta-Marxism)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="32,60" value="3260" data-dimension="S">spatial slot hierarchy (meta-Marxism)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="32,61" value="3261" data-dimension="S">filament (meta-Marxism) / tiny local subpopulation / nameless tiny subpopulation
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="32,62" value="3262" data-dimension="S">Filamentism (meta-Marxism)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="32,63" value="3263" data-dimension="S">Blobonomics (meta-Marxism) / What is this, Blobonomics?
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="32,64" value="3264" data-dimension="S">Meshonomics (meta-Marxism)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="32,65" value="3265" data-dimension="S">Market Society (meta-Marxism)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="32,66" value="3266" data-dimension="S">behavior-control device (meta-Marxism) / behavior-control machine  ->  business territory, Blobonomics
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="32,67" value="3267" data-dimension="S">Blobonomics requires a "Blobonomist"
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="32,68" value="3268" data-dimension="S">Everybodyism (meta-Marxism) / nameless prejudice against all other individuals
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="32,69" value="3269" data-dimension="S">Populationism (meta-Marxism) / nameless prejudice against all other populations

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="3270" data-tradition="A" data-dimension="F2">Anarchism is acting as if you are already free / Freedom is using individual will to realize Anarchism  ->  well, here it is. a claim said by anarchists which says the thing I call Existentialism is one specific form of Anarchism. (found in the context of an interview with David Graeber, who was claimed to be an anarchist at some point in time.) I think this claim is inherently contradictory such that it could not possibly be true. if anarchism is acting as if you are free, some people are already anti-vaccine, anti-immigrant, anti-Islam/anti-atheist Tories before they do that, and then they can do "anarchism" on top of being a Tory. so Anarchism would then be a system where half of the population transitions to fascists with a fascist state and half of the population is Anarchists and the fascists kill the Anarchists (potentially). I think most anarchists would not say fascism is part of any anarchism, so this is not a definition which can actually mark off where anarchism starts and ends. on the other hand, the claim that anarchism generates Liberalism is more plausible, because nothing rules out Liberalism being what anarchism looks like in reality, and it doesn't rule out the possibility that anarchism generates Liberalism and Liberalism then generates fascism.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3271" data-dimension="S2">Freedom is the discovery of escape routes / Freedom is the rearrangement of social connections  ->  schizoanalysis
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3272" data-dimension="S2">Freedom is the ability to make decisions
</li><li class="field_ML" value="3273" data-dimension="S2">Freedom is the absence of unnecessary populational divisions  ->  Lenin, Trotsky
</li><li class="field_ML" value="3274" data-dimension="S2">Freedom is the absence of manipulation and abuse by territory owners  ->  Lenin, some anarchisms
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3275">??
</li><li class="field_nations" value="3276" data-dimension="S2">Freedom is individuals having no accountability to others
</li><li class="field_nations" value="3277" data-dimension="S2">Freedom is business territories existing without government
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3278" data-dimension="S2">Freedom is the discovery of new possibilities / Freedom is the creation of new combinations  ->  MDem
</li><li class="field_anarchy"  value="3279" data-dimension="S">many tiny fragmented things equals Democracy / decentralization (chopping things up into tiny pieces to supposedly create Freedom)

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3280" data-dimension="S0">(Communist leader) ruined my life / implied statement that specific Communist leader ruined individual's life / explicit or implied statement that miscellaneous ruler who is not clearly distinguished from Communist leaders within the framings of the text ruined individual's life
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3281" data-dimension="S">Lenin ruined my life
</li><li class="field_trotsky"  value="3282" data-dimension="S">Stalin ruined my life  ->  three kinds of people say this. Existentialist-Structuralist tradition members; Trotskyists; anarchists.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3283" data-dimension="S">Mao ruined my life
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3284" data-dimension="S">anticommunist memoir  ->  like an anticommunist fable, but historically realistic. despite the name of this entry, may be either a real anecdote or a fictional story that resembles one
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3285" data-dimension="S">Che Guevara ruined my life  ->  relatively rare versus the others, although there's no particular reason you'd expect it to be. "Mao —" is one of the most common for some reason.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3286" data-dimension="S">Ho Chi Minh ruined my life
</li><li class="field_ML"       value="3287" data-dimension="S">Trotsky ruined my life  ->  you practically never ever see this in anticommunist memoirs one can typically find in the United States. but anyone from the Third World or whose parents are is statistically a tiny bit more likely to say this than anyone born to First-World parents.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3288" data-dimension="S">Nazis ruined my life  ->  the motif of a story centering around horrible things Nazi Germany did in order to convince readers that Nazis are bad because <i>I the narrator am a human individual and nazis ruined my life</i>. not to say there is no value in these stories whatsoever, but the more I look at other books on different topics with this same form being used to push untrue conclusions, the more I feel like the specific way these are put to use to "educate" people is vaguely disingenuous.
</li><li class="field_nations"  value="3289" data-dimension="S">Gramsci ruined my life  ->  most likely to be said by Tories who, odds are, also incorrectly believe psychoanalysts and schizoanalysts are indistinguishable from Marcuse and Gramsci.
</li><li class="field_nations"  value="3290" data-dimension="S">Marcuse ruined my life  ->  here we go, the one I've more often seen.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3291" data-dimension="S2">Anticommunist memoirs are educational  ->  by age 30, I honestly doubt this is even true.
</li><li class="field_ML"       value="3292" data-dimension="S2">Communist texts are educational / Communist texts educate people about history and other countries  ->  I think reading texts about what Lenin and Mao were actually doing has taught me way more about anything than a book like <cite>The Giver</cite> ever did
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3293" data-dimension="S2">Anticommunist fables are educational
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3294">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3295">??

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy, A" value="3296" data-dimension="S2">In a world of furries, exercising Community fixes everything  ->  if you think furry media isn't interesting in the context of a philosophy book, think again. there are about two or three themes that I see coming up again and again that are really interesting and strange. one of them is the general motif of a perfect garden of animals versus The Fall. another, which is closely tied to it but acts as a less poetic and more literal counterpart is the concept of people just kind of fixing everything with Community because presumably all problems are individual problems. you can see this in terms of real furry events where individuals are filling voids by meeting people, etc., but you see it become more deep and extensive in fiction where people are just solving everything for each other. furry stories seem to work best when you set them in what is basically a highly developed workers' state that is maybe not platonically perfect or all the way at the end of its development but far beyond any that have already existed. I wrote a furry short story [[Philosophical_Research:MDem/5.1/1611B_scenario|in the afterlife]] as a joke about religions controlling sex and started casually designing impossible infinite-supply in the shape of a platonically complete workers' state, thinking, hmm, how can I make this infinite supply use the smallest amount of magic and be as realistic as possible, and I was shocked at how little difference there was between what I did deliberately and what "normal" furry writers do accidentally

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="3297" data-dimension="F2">Pokémon is metatransitional literature / Pokémon is solarpunk / Pokémon is equivalent to metatransitional literature because it shows the values we need to have in order to build an Anarchism
</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="3298" data-dimension="S2">Snufkin is an anarchist  ->  apparently anarchists do not seriously believe this is true. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70ZKnaANBdg]
</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="3299" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q3299|assertion something is an anarchism]]  ->  seems a little random, but is oddly useful for defining silly fan theories like "Snufkin is an anarchist".
</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="3300" data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q3300|anarchism]] (top-level category)  -> it took me toward the end of making this list to add anarchism or its color swatch. this is partly because I don't know much about any particular named Anarchism, and partly because I have my doubts a lot of concepts in anarchisms are actually unique to them rather than being borrowed from Liberalism or Existentialism. I am not against the sheer concept of anarchisms; particularly when they have specific civilizational shapes they form if they form successfully, they fit into meta-Marxist analysis as well as anything else does. there are just a few things I have problems with like the vagueness of anarchist philosophy and the failure to distinguish between utopian imagery and realistic models of constructing post-capitalist societies. "scientific" anarchisms with the specificity of a named Marxism are at least as legitimate to describe here as Trotskyism.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3301" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q3301|Existentialism is anarchism plus the bourgeoisie]]  ->  this one seems more accurate than Q33,02. real anarchists have particular things they say, but you see a lot of those things seemingly co-opted into weird Existentialist "spaghetti" philosophies. I think one of the few anarchist sayings that can't be co-opted is that anarchism intends to remove the owners. but adding them back in seems to be exactly the missing link between anarchism and the arcane "spaghetti" philosophies like Lacanianism.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3302" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q3301|Anarchism is Existentialism with a coat of black paint]] / anarchism is near-synonymous with Existentialism  ->  the claim that Anarchism's actual model of society is the same cluster of Existentialist models Liberalism uses, and then each of them builds other larger-scale village/town/region propositions on top of that. I don't really know if this is true. it would take a bit of investigation to build a decent logical proof either way. this concept comes out of the works of Horst Stowasser, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70ZKnaANBdg] who claims that anarchism is "not an ideology" (impossible, but go on) but a cluster of things based on "freedom", "hostility to domination", "solidarity", "mutual aid", "autonomy of the individual", "networks of small units", "self determination", and "rebellion against foreign determination". 5/8 of those are Existentialist values, and half of them can be co-opted into Liberalism.

</li><li value="3310" data-remark="L310 (before Terms became un-numbered)" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">buried Existentialism  ->  generic motif for discovering some period of Existentialism inside fiction. as this might be found in nearly any piece of fiction, there should be some very clear piece of evidence given for the themes being very specific and potentially unfamiliar ideas particular to Existentialist philosophy, thus making the reader ask "what is this and what is it doing in here?". the mere presence of something like character growth or identity doesn't inherently count as Existentialism. a more specific proposition such as "a Subject can decide on their own identity without the constant and inevitable input of others" (then where does their development come from?) or "nobody can ever predict other individuals" (even when we all have mirror neurons?) might very well count.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3311">??

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="3312" data-dimension="S2">Nation-states are anomalously non-tribal / Humans aren't tribalistic; nations and empires are anomalously non-tribal  ->  this sounds like something an anarchist or schizoanalyst would say, but it could be the case it's true. look at how ubiquitious it is for every single movement for human rights to turn into building a countable Culture that then tends to end up competing with other similar countable Cultures. maybe the cultural tribe is a fundamental unit of human social organization and in lack of a proper scientific model all our social sciences are denying it and we're all screwing ourselves over by denying it. maybe Existentialist-Structuralists would have some real success if they totally threw away psychoanalysis and the notion of individualized trauma and pushed for officializing subpopulations and giving them all "government-issued IDs". maybe the true problem with gerrymandering is that people want all the people in their voting unit to be part of a socially-linked tribe and only that form of organization would get everybody to vote and stop trying to take voting away. maybe when we're all "tribalistic" there's literally nothing wrong with us, and it's society that's wrongly designed for human beings.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3313" data-dimension="S2">Culture is indistinguishable from behavior  ->  a proposition which is implicit in a lot of [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology|Existentialist]] / schizoanalyst works, including Foucault and Deleuze. despite this being a blue or charcoal proposition, I genuinely think it's most likely true. I also think that most Existentialists haven't thought through the full implications of it. attempts by psychologists and Liberal-republican representatives to control behavior necessarily squash countable cultures? true. countable cultures inherently want to get along with each other once free? false. countable cultures would never marginalize each other out of each other just for not being each other? false. countable cultures want to help each other exist instead of fight each other? false. countable cultures might want to kill each other? true. countable cultures like to cluster into empires specifically so that at least one countable culture can be marginalized and excluded from the cluster? true. Trotskyism is a countable culture? true. Trotskyism would brutally conquer other named Marxisms if necessary just to realize itself? unknown. possibly true.

</li><li value="3314" class="field_mdem" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q33,14|The Soviet Union contained 14 proletariats]] / The Soviet Union contained at least 14 proletariats plus a few additional smaller ones  ->  a little subjective, but depending on what words you assign to what collections of objects, this is already a fact.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="ML" data-qid="33,15" value="3315" data-dimension="S2">If we separate the people, party, and Red Army, we cannot achieve any merit ... the individual cannot be happy and glorious (Ho Chi Minh) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q3316|9k]])

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="ML, JC" data-qid="33,16" value="3316" data-dimension="S">Communist party as tuning fork / "Fidel and the mass begin to vibrate together" ([https://www.marxists.org/archive/guevara/1965/03/man-socialism.htm "Socialism and man in Cuba"], Che Guevara)  / ([[User:RD/9k/Q3316|9k]])

</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="33,17" value="3317" data-dimension="S">culturally-defined Communist / cultural Communist (by analogy to "cultural Christian", etc) / subjectivity-defined Communist (Marcuse) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q3317|9k]])
</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="33,18" value="3318" data-dimension="S">Bolshevik identity politics / ([[User:RD/9k/Q3317|9k]])
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="33,19" value="3319" data-dimension="S2">If Communist-ally is not an identity, East Germany wouldn't have existed / If Communist-ally is not an identity, there would be no North Korea / ([[User:RD/9k/Q3317|9k]])

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3320" data-dimension="S">freezing society's violent conflicts in place to promote peace  ->  important theme in <cite>[[Ontology:Q1920|State and Revolution]]</cite>: Liberal governments have a particular way of attempting to use this, workers' states have a different way.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3321" data-dimension="S">white-bread fantasy story  ->  the specific kind of fantasy story written by and for a segregated group of middle-rank White people that knows very little about other countries or about the outside world. (substitute "White people" for "majority Japanese people", etc.) includes <cite>Harry Potter</cite>, <cite>Warriors</cite>, <cite>My Little Pony</cite> gen 4, etc. you could probably name several more off the top of your head. works like <cite>Dragon Ball</cite> are kind of borderline because there is marginally more thought in there about the concepts of history and separate populations and empire, but I would say they count. honestly. you could probably make a decent though not solid argument that the Christian bible is one of these. small, insular, potentially bigoted group of people writing an "epic, engaging story" which is supposed to be universal and teach everyone universal lessons. in that sense there are some uncanny similarities between the bible and <cite>Harry Potter</cite>, aren't there?

</li><li value="3322" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="Z">[https://xkcd.com/1322/ XKCD 3322] "Winter"
</li><li value="3323" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">flappy planes and stick towers  ->  [https://xkcd.com/1322/ xkcd 1322: Winter]. the motif of using unheard-of phrases for common things

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3324" data-dimension="S0">jasmine-rice fantasy story / white-rice fantasy story  ->  a fantasy story which tries very hard not to be a white-bread fantasy story and tries its hardest to include identities known about in modern times like "lesbian", "transgender", and maybe "anarchist", but still bakes in clear expressions of ignorance about the outside world and in the end only barely does any better. <cite>Deltarune</cite> has to be placed here because of Spamton and how it can be argued he is a bad representation of countries like Nigeria.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3325" data-dimension="S0">masala-chai fantasy story  ->  a fantasy story which accurately represents at least one other country specifically because the book was physically imported from another country. <cite>Dragon Ball</cite> rises to this level solely when it is read outside Japan. any book written in North Korea would probably also meet this bar.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3326" data-dimension="S">fusion-cuisine fantasy story  ->  a fantasy story which actually manages to represent multiple countries or countable cultures without making mistakes about one of them based on the level of knowledge about the outside world that another one has. in practice, these are very very difficult to pull off. to create one you quite literally need two countries' worth of education; if understanding how to write an accurate story about your own country were a four-year degree then you're looking at an eight-year degree.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3327" data-dimension="S0">measuring-cup fantasy story  ->  a fantasy story which attempts to get around knowing about the entire world and all about "cultures" and "every culture" by modeling the social world as basically mathematical — "populations" and "cultures" and "languages" etc are a generic historical pattern that shows up again and again rather than an artistic representation of any specific real-life ethnic group or historical situation, and their overall behavior obeys the rules of general-sense historical materialism. if fusion-cuisine fantasy stories are the fantasy stories of [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition|Existentialism]], this is the meta-Marxist counterpart. there are some ups and downs to this because in practice it may end up a bit like a white-bread fantasy story that holds up and isn't noticeably bad. it still has the pitfall that someone might <em>interpret it</em> as similar to a real-world situation because it accidentally left in mathematical similarities to that real-world situation without putting that particular historical process in context. basically, Marxist racism is possible but it's easier for any particular individual human being to correct because it just involves checking over the mathematics again and re-reading history for better mathematical descriptions of history.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-remark="anarculture" value="3328" data-dimension="S2">[[E:Spanish people can be anything|Spanish people can be anything]] / anti-essentialist proposition

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3329" data-dimension="F2">[[Ontology:Q3329|Human beings cannot form into A Culture]]  ->  a false belief I had during early MDem drafts. I had a problem with the way sociology, progressive anthropology, and most notably fantasy books characterized civilizations as "cultures" when they were always made of populations of material people. it seemed to me that if you defined groups of people (or fantasy beings, etc) as coming into existence through "culture", then it inherently promoted defining people by stereotypes and didn't explain the underlying processes that produced the people who didn't fit them. over time, I thought about this more, and came to see that what I actually had a problem with wasn't the concept that people could separate into new groups by culture — 1930s Trotskyites, modern anarchists, and particular clusters of Toryism in places like the United States clearly try to do that — but the actual problem I had was that people like fantasy writers assume a whole empire or kingdom-sized area <em>is made of one Culture</em> rather than every ethnic group, nationality, or fantasy race being made of multiple Cultures. my stance after that was that countable Cultures are real but they actually exist because populations are made up of subpopulations, not because people are unified.

</li><li value="3330" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">otaku / weeaboo (person who regenerates the subcultures of Japan elsewhere)  ->  this is a signifier because it typically comes up in a very "culturally-embedded" context of groups of isolated individuals with particular personal histories interacting with other groups of people with different personal histories while neither of them is trying to analyze the workings of societies or truly understand how anything has actually happened and they're all coming at things from these insular views having no idea how anything works and directly reacting with horror and confusion to each other's specificity and nonconformity and ignorance. it's like, one of the most "cultural" concepts there is in the negative sense of it having almost nothing to do with reality. honestly, "brony" exists through a pretty similar process.
</li><li value="3331" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q3331|anime, which is always bad]] / anime, which is bad / anime >:/ / tokusatsu films, which are always dumb / Japanese Young Adult media, which are bad / Japanese shows, which are always dumb  ->  this almost never goes as far as the "stupid idiot garbage trash" Items are meant to suggest. those are meant to suggest something that is fundamentally not tolerated and pushed away every time, while "anime, which is bad" is meant to apply to things that are about halfway tolerated and halfway rejected.
</li><li value="3332" class="field_trotsky" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q3332|anime, the trash I love anyway]]  ->  this + Q1337 subculture = otaku
</li><li value="3333" class="field_ML" data-dimension="S">Soviet-Union otaku / tankie (pejorative by anticommunists toward person obsessed with Communist imagery) / Stalinist (rare pejorative by Mensheviks, right-Liberals, and Trotskyists toward person who does not adopt complete culturally-embedded intolerance of Stalin's government) / fellow traveler (person who is a Communist ally but is not physically able to contribute much to the cause)  ->  the concept that otaku are created by the push of Existentialist-style Social-Philosophical Systems to defend exactly their socially-linked blob of people from other blobs of people and push people who do not neatly link into the exact set of individuals that make up that blob out to the margins of still being forced to exist within a particular population-associated countable Culture. thus otaku can be a phenomenon that exists in Japan, otaku can be a phenomenon that exists when people don't conform to the individuals of the United States, and otaku can even be a phenomenon of people learning too much about the wrong ideology or history that initially had nothing to do with Japan.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3334" data-dimension="S">brony / pegasister  ->  may mean varying things to people who create the label voluntarily, but in surrounding society, typically connotes a very specific kind of person who has no real connection to society except through cozy and inviting cartoons about friendship
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3335" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3336" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3337" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3338" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q3338|it's not Japanese, it's just a video game]] / Pokémon, which is not Japanese  ->  I don't think this motif is "offensive" or anything, I just think it's strange and has never made sense to me
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3339" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q3339|Japanese media must be understood from within Japan]] / Japanese media must be understood relative to how the people of Japan see them  ->  one of the only progressive-anthropology lessons that crusty isolated White people sometimes miraculously understand. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-5lBec9lO4] if Japanese media seem totally inexplicable, some half the time or more they actually do make perfect sense in Japan. (when it isn't the case Japanese writers just want to be silly and spontaneous, which also does happen.) Dragon Ball is constantly mocked, even though everyone has inexplicably watched it. but Dragon Ball has a rich history behind it of Buddhism in Japan, rejecting Buddhism, Journey to the West, and trying to juxtapose the mythical, fantastical feel of that story with "what is modern", in an act of turning the story's own themes of fantasy or adventure versus daily life around on itself, not to mention the vague nods in "Bardock" to casting off Imperial Japan — a historical event that happened to Japan but has never really happened to the United States. not only is Dragon Ball better in its thematic cohesion and story structure than a lot of other Japanese action shows that vaguely copied it or coincided with it, but if you compare Dragon Ball to something like <cite>Avatar: The Last Airbender</cite> there is no comparison. Avatar's worldbuilding feels vaguely "fake", like United States people tried their hardest to act like they knew what Asian countries were but in the end they just didn't. Dragon Ball actually feels like something someone from Japan would write for people in Japan, as much as it provides rather shallow portrayals of any other country or countable Culture of people. the crux of this seems to come down to "China is a medieval kingdom". people in Japan know that Japan has had more history since feudal times and what it's like to live in a Japanese city, while people in the United States seem determined not to know that. the concept of Asian immigrants writing fiction is a different discussion entirely. but when it comes to White people it really seems like a lot of what appears to be acts of embracing diversity in embracing Asian fantasy settings is actually an act of escaping learning about real China or real Japan or the real Koreas as they exist today. the probable surface reason: that would be modernity, and modernity is bad! the unintended implication: I don't know I have a lack of knowledge about other populations which in itself is effectively racist and in escaping from reality before I know about reality I am unknowingly evading education and perpetuating xenophobia. see also: why is there no fantasy Leninism?

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-remark="individuality obsession" value="3340" data-dimension="S2" data-submitter="Valenoern">If two works are similar, one is the other's bootleg
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3341" data-dimension="S2" data-submitter="Valenoern">Digimon is a bootleg of Pokémon  ->  not true on several levels, at least on the surface. but the more you look into it, the more complicated it gets. can something be "a copy" just because people believe it to be undeserving of a greater rank? if so, this becomes much harder to evaluate. is Steven Universe the real Dragon Ball? if so, it's harder to say Pokémon isn't the real Digimon or vice versa.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3342" data-dimension="S2" data-submitter="Valenoern">Pokémon is a bootleg of Digimon  ->  you practically never see this, but it would probably be fun to argue. Pokémon evolutions?? how do those make any sense. Tamagotchi and Digimon put real thought into this stuff, but you're telling me a garbage bag becomes a bigger garbage bag just because?
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3343" data-dimension="S2" data-submitter="Valenoern">Pokémon is a bootleg of Ultraman ->  one of the statements that's truer that Pokémon being copied into Digimon. the show follows the same basic kaiju-of-the-week structure. Pokémon trainers are analogous to Ultraseven, using monster capsules. Ultra Series has the Plasma Spark and the Spacium ray, Necrozma is the sun-powers monster. every show has a new gimmick device. there's a pretty good argument that Pokémon is a copy of Ultra Series if you literally mean a bunch of things about it being copied. the only problem is that isn't what people actually mean.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3344" data-dimension="S2" data-submitter="Valenoern">Telefang is a bootleg of Pokémon  ->  false impression people got from Waixing making a bootleg of Telefang. somewhat ironic that people thought Telefang was a bootleg of Pokémon because Waixing <em>turned Pokémon into a bootleg of Telefang</em>.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3345" data-dimension="S2" data-submitter="Valenoern">Pokémon fan games are bootlegs / Pokémon fangames are identical with bootlegs  ->  what corporations tend to believe, or imply that they believe.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3346" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3347" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3348" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3349" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3350" data-dimension="M3">How is it video games make people study other countries? / How is it that while being perceived as shallow video games are the most likely to make people study other countries? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-5lBec9lO4]

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3351" data-dimension="S2" data-submitter="Valenoern">China having products is stealing / Third World countries making the same product as First World countries is stealing / Third World countries independently replicating products existing in the First World using resources in their own country is stealing  ->  this claim only gets worse and worse as a claim the more you spell it out.
</li><li class="field_ML" value="3352" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q3352|Communism, the trash I love anyway]]

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3353" data-dimension="M3">Why is fighting okay in fantasy books? / Why is fighting okay in anime shows?
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3354" data-dimension="M3">Why is fighting okay in Digimon?  ->  it's definitely not just because stories are arbitrary, because you can create a story and have it not resonate with anybody, while other stories genuinely do appeal to people at least somewhat. and it's definitely not because stories aren't real, because Undertale can exist and say the opposite thing quite convincingly. so there has to be a particular reason behind author decisions. here the reason would seem related to real-world history. fantasy battles are often an abstract depiction of history. a few Digimon plots, I think the one I'm thinking of is Xros Wars?, definitely come across as national independence movements. others center around a more abstract idea of individuals defending their local friends from idealized malicious attackers. those are harder to work with, but not impossible. in some cases you can draw a line between the mere existence of eating, space-occupying Subjects and the imperative to stand together and have a national independence movement. in other cases we get into the complicated concept of population-societies and how if they can find some kind of equilibrium against others where they aren't being attacked they won't attack anyone else.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3355" data-dimension="M3">Why is fighting okay in Dragon Ball?
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3356" data-dimension="M3">Why is fighting not okay in Undertale?  ->  this is much more complicated than you'd think because if there were a game similar in story to Undertale but it was Digimon, it probably wouldn't be designed around avoiding fighting or killing. even though, at the same time, Digimon doesn't believe in violence for the sake of violence; there's a whole game about recruiting Digimon to a city so they can live in peace that was one of the first Digimon console games. (in its own particular way, this is definitely bourgeois propaganda — inasmuch as it rewrites medieval history to suggest corporations made the world inherently peaceful while anything against them was inherently violent. still a great game regardless.)<br />
in reality, the {{em|entire}} reason probably requires bringing in all the lore of Deltarune. we don't even have the real reason available, so we have to get creative with finding general reasons that {{em|could have been}} the reason whether they actually are or not.

</li><li value="3357" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="Z">XKCD 1357 "Free Speech" [https://xkcd.com/1357/] [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1357:_Free_Speech]
</li><li value="3358" class="field_exstruct" data-remark="Guattari" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q3358|Rejection means you're an absolute ogre and people are showing you the door]] / Rejection means you're a monster and people are showing you the door / If you've been expelled, it's just that you're an <s class="censor">asshole</s> and people are showing you the door  ->  the censorings made it really easy to show what I think of this. I think by assuming that everything that upsets people is made of prejudices, at a certain point we're just creating all-directional, mutual prejudice between non-reactionaries. why is it it's so much easier to communicate that complicated concept with the simple ironic statement "Rejection means you're a monster"

</li><li class="field_horror" value="3359" data-dimension="S2">Fantasy books are designed for Tories  ->  the claim that the purpose of fantasy books is to go back to a time before progressive issues or democracy ever mattered so that none of that needs to be discussed. there are many examples which would seem on the surface to back this up, from Harry Potter to the phenomenon of console RPGs or a "white bread" show like MLP:FiM enabling the problem of people being trapped in little pockets of bigoted Tory culture and never having to learn what racism is or in some cases what a woman is. this + Russian revolution = Fantasy would be more accurate with Leninisms.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3360" data-dimension="F2">China is still a medieval empire  ->  really, bizarrely common fictional trope if you live anywhere but China. sometimes this will be blended into a setting full of feudal orders such that it isn't noticeable, as with Neopets, or <cite>Dragon Masters</cite>. other times it will be more blatant, with fictional stories about China always being medieval but fictional stories about the United States often being futuristic. you can see it subtly inside <cite>My Little Pony</cite> gen 4: Ponies live in Manehattan and Canterlot, but Kirin live off in some remote village, they don't have a Kirin city. here's the question to ask yourself: if fiction is full of Japanese high school students and Neopets has a futuristic space station, why is China always a feudal order?

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3361" data-dimension="M3">What causes populations of people to be kingdoms?  ->  the answer isn't an obvious one. you might think you know what it is, but look at actual history and you might find the real answer is very different. Hawaii: formed into a kingdom to defend against external empires. China: formed together to stop having repeated wars. Korea: had a "three kingdoms" period, just like China. formed together to stop having wars. meanwhile fantasy works like <cite>Adventure Time</cite> will just go and say that kingdoms exist because somebody wants to rule people. to be fair, it doesn't quite say that about all its kingdoms, it just presents that as a possible reason.
</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="33,62" value="3362" data-dimension="S2">Fantasy kingdoms are Third World countries / Fantasy settings are comparable to Third World countries  ->  every time a story has a fantasy kingdom with modern technology. many center-Liberal types find it confusing and ask "what time period it's in", without thinking about why countries have time periods. but I think the only reasonable comparison is to say that a kingdom with modern technology is actually a fictional projection of a Third-World country. "time" doesn't pass the same way in the Third World. it can be 1930 and there can be cameras but still be kings and peasants.
</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="33,63" value="3363" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q3363|Fantasy would be more historically accurate with Leninisms]] / Fantasy would be more historically accurate with Communist movements  ->  this is one of those things that will seem like a joke and that you'll either love or you'll hate. there's a funny thing about kingdoms: a much greater number of them than you would expect had workers' movements. Aghanistan had a workers' movement. Cuba, Vietnam, Korea, and the Russian Empire had workers' movements. something happened in Zimbabwe that I currently do not understand. Italy and Japan had workers' movements. Germany had {{em|two}} workers' movements; Germany was still a kingdom in 1933, and then a little later it spawned East Germany. fantasy books seem to assume that kingdom-shaped countries turn into Liberalism, but in real life it's almost more like the accurate fact is that kingdoms turn into workers' movements or workers' states and gigantic nightmare empires turn into Liberalism — [[E:Napoleonism (meta-Marxism)|Napoleon = United States]]. if you ask me? Equestria would turn into a workers' state if it was real. to save itself from some kind of attack by the dragon kingdom or something.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="33,64" data-tradition="MX" value="3364" data-dimension="S2">Writing about Communists driving out the First World is edgier than Game of Thrones (braver than; bolder than; meta-transitional socialist realism)  ->  think about it. which one would get you more actual controversy? an edgy medieval setting people already perceive as "reality", or writing something that fundamentally questions whether anybody reading your work should have any loyalty to their country or abandon everything they do every day to actually think about the perspective of people in another country?

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3365" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3366" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3367" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3368" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3369" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_ML" value="3370" data-dimension="S">open world, but at what cost?  ->  I think it would be funny to have a game that lacked a railroaded adventure a la Pokémon or Dragon Quest, but where you quickly learned that the consequences of that were having to reckon with a semi-realistic progression of history where characters compete to take the world away from each other and basically there are empires and imperialized people and your character could be either

</li><li class="field_ML" value="3371" data-dimension="S2">Pokémon is not metatransitional literature  ->  an important distinction when you see some people try to label Pokémon "solarpunk". this is, in my opinion, inappropriate for the kind of socioimperialist structure that churns out oceans and oceans of merchandise and more and more consoles while producing fans that ignore other series and fictional ideas to come back to what is familiar or where their friends are, and exterminating fan creations to be sure fans don't step out of their lane of [[Philosophical_Research:Preventing_the_robot_takeover|not being allowed to think]]. Pokémon is fairly dystopian the moment you stop watching the show and step back to the real world. in light of this, we have to realize utopian narratives serve to illustrate and legitimize our prejudices about what is and isn't true — Pokémon is not a believable future, but the mistaken belief that chunk competition is not happening and everyone can instantly Freely Choose to live in harmony right now. that was a bit angry. anyway, it's worth repeating that utopian literature is not metatransitional literature, because it does not describe a method of transition.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3372" data-dimension="S2">Group Subjects willing things is how we deceive ourselves / Group Subjects willing things is literally the way we deceive ourselves  ->  a claim against utopian literature and "I believe that everybody" statements, especially through the on-the-ground structure of Existentialism.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="ML" value="3373" data-dimension="S2">Feuerbach modeled an unreal Man / Feuerbach modeled an abstract Man rather than real people / Feuerbach modeled an abstract peasant rather than a real peasant {{YouTube|oUvtSOGhdmg}}
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="3374" data-dimension="S2">Stalin modeled an unreal Trotsky / Stalin modeled an abstract universalized Trotsky rather than the real Trotsky  ->  the leap between mainstream Marxism-Leninism and meta-Marxism.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-remark="belongs next to chaos magic" value="3375" data-dimension="S2">Intuition is better at justice than logic / Intuition is better for understanding history than logic / The I Ching shows us that intuitiion is better for understanding conflicts in society than written law (Alan Watts)  ->  recorded from some kind of old TV program. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wp2vy7X7cpE] it's so weird and ironic that he uses China as his example because China is not really a very intuition-based country any more since about 1940. you could attribute that to central governments doing whatever they have to to encourage modernizing to compete with other countries, any number of "kingdoms" will do this. but what if you didn't. is natural law really a sensible way of looking at things when you could draw 100 Chinese people at random and there's a nonzero chance you'd only get people that say according to their intuition Communism makes the most sense? is that to say that people transitioning to a highly logical way of thinking is what's truly obvious?<br />
there was this one line in {{book|1984}}. "there were no laws, but there were crimes". you know, you know full well that if anybody in China today read justice according to intuition like those ancient imperial judges this is exactly what people in other countries would be thinking, and they might just clamor to force the government to read justice by exactly what's written simply so that spooky scary Communism doesn't behave unpredictably. if China were to not have a constitution people would be terrified, even though reading justice according to intuition is almost exactly why that would be the case.<br />
human beings want their own country to be as anarchic as possible but they want other countries to be perfectly and utterly regimented like robots so they aren't left guessing what other people will do. this seems to come down to a poor ability to take situations and [[E:duplexing|duplex]] them in order to understand what two people or structures doing the same thing will produce without one structure seeking to control the other and produce a single structure.

</li><li class="field_nations" data-qid="33,76" value="3376" data-dimension="S2">Natural crimes are worse than imperialism / Natural crimes are more pressing than U.S. invasions / Moral code of empire is more important than existence of empire / Imperialism is just the planetary police / justice through war  ->  logical result of: leaping State; appears in work: "Should America be the world's policeman?" (PragerU)

</li><li class="field_nations" data-tradition="ES, PT" data-qid="33,77" value="3377" data-dimension="S">leaping State process (meta-Marxist term; meta-Marxism onto Toryism)  ->  possibly attested in other things under other names. the motif that all populations of people, as soon as they are clusters of friends containing particular Bauplan elements, a group of frontier farmers with fences or whatnot, generate a State from inside their Group Subject {{em|because}} they are a socially-linked group of people, and if they come in contact with another group of people whose structure, development, or goals drastically conflicts with the way they administer their own group of people, they will leap their own State over the other group of people and attempt to conquer them or at least [[E:Nice walnuts not getting broken is paradise|wilfully destroy their government]] and 'make them create a new one'.<br />
this concept is well known with the United States and workers' states, or various Third World countries perceived as not having 'democracy'. but the really interesting thing is you can see it happening with the Soviet Union and Trotskyism.<br />
it may also be possible that it happens with industrial empires and tribal populations. there is a strange new phenomenon of tribal populations getting weirdly insistent that anarchism is the only correct way of being human and they have the right to break open republics and tell them what to do, which wouldn't even be offensive except that none of the stuff they say actually makes sense. like, to be perfectly honest, I'm really tired of the United States so if you break it up I'm not sure I'd even care, like I want to be out of here and go to another country so it's not really skin off my nose. but what bothers me is they're telling people to urgently do a bunch of garbled nonsense toward no particular goal that nobody could possibly actually succeed at; that's where it gets insulting. I also don't like when theories from tribal populations inside First-World countries seem to infect First World people and possess them to talk more about cracking open Third World countries.<br />
I feel like there are eventually going to be human rights investigations into whether tribes actually have the right to crack open Third World countries if it would cause them to fall to First World empires and become colonies. because that has absolutely never felt right to me.

</li><li class="field_nations" value="3378" data-dimension="S">natural treason  ->  the motif of people intuitively defining treason "to" an ethnic group or socially-linked group of people outside of the scope of laws, constitutions, or anything based in logic as opposed to Lived Experiences of people who "just know" that somebody is the enemy of the country.<br />
after knowing the amount of history that I know I feel oddly like for much of human history this was the <em>only</em> definition of treason.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3379" data-dimension="S">natural crime / "crime" defined without legal codes or legislative processes  ->  the motif of people thinking there are intuitive definitions of a violation of the law before any laws exist. this is bafflingly common. <cite>1984</cite> makes a big deal of "there weren't any laws but the government defined crimes", while.... that's kind of just how every Liberal-republican society operates too? laws would seem to be more like an <em>effect</em> of people's intuitive perceptions of what is bad than the actual way most ordinary people define what a "crime" or "atrocity" is. it's complicated whether this is even a bad thing. is it actually a good thing that people have criteria of what is bad that they can argue in Liberal-republican parliament to create laws? at first glance you'd definitely think it is. but when you think about it more you then realize that things like religion are dictating what people believe to be "inherently a crime". local culture predetermines what will be considered a crime before laws or democracy formalize it. and that's very bad when local culture predetermines that the laws will be that homosexuality is illegal or rape is only to be taken seriously to pre-emptively accuse Black people of it to remove them from society.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="3380" data-dimension="S">natural law  ->  this motif is literally for texts that mention and invoke natural law, or that follow up on texts that mention it — texts which are in the natural law "tradition". there are some other related motifs here such as "general-sense psychoanalyst", but those are not defined relative to this motif even if they may in practice overlap or functionally be the same thing.<br />
this motif is charcoal because I swear anarchists frequently invoke the concept of natural <em>crimes</em> even if they do not mention natural law by name.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3381" data-dimension="S">Anarchism will never be able to solve Hatfield attacks  ->  unsure if this is true or false, but has definitely been on my mind while writing the book. would like to see a counterpoint of how Anarchisms can possibly solve Hatfield attacks from other "small and local" populations that don't like them. you know there are going to be some of them. a great chunk of reactionaries in the United States sound basically like anarchists in about 70% of everything they say until they get to anything about demographic identities and whether they hate them. work makes no sense? check. big business is ruining everything and it's better if everything is small circles of friends? check. cities are unnatural and modern culture is oppressive so I want to go form a Culture that's more natural to me? check. Stalin and Trotsky are tyrants? check. you can't make me use particular language or design or user interfaces or platforms? check. you can't make me acknowledge transgender people as real? you can't make me watch Black people on TV? <em>wait.</em> so yeah. it's like, US Tories are like anarchists that just want a bit more freedom, specifically total Freedom from race mixing. they abuse every concept you hear from anarchists to be especially bigoted.<br />
this is why when anarchists go into weird opinions about "what the web should be"... it feels off to me. it feels a bit like my relatives not wanting to see Spanish. when is a way of presenting something a form of communication and expression and when is it an imposition on how other people wish to communicate? is a "webmagazine" with print-like visual styling unacceptable? is a console RPG non-accessible? are there times a printed book is non-accessible? accessibility is the best argument against "the web" to me because it's objective whether people can see or hear something period. but anarchists love regular books when they can be non-accessible, and say things against videos when videos are highly accessible in multiple senses. to some people a podcast is more understandable than a TTS reading of a webpage. I think about the concept of what forms of media are understandable and what makes each one understandable a whole lot.<br />
argument against: if meta-anarchists show up with a flow chart about Iroquois anarchism and a plan of action on how to actually create a "united states of states of states" that achieves the same result, we'll say it's maybe the size of Vermont or a little smaller, this could be falsified. unless of course there is a good reason the plan wouldn't work, and then the proposition is open again.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3385" data-dimension="S">reparations  ->  a general concept of transitional justice which seeks some kind of compensation toward a whole group of people to try to end a conflict against a demographic. I feel like there's something to be said about how compensation at the tiniest scales and compensation at larger scales are related concepts, though I don't entirely know what conclusion to make.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3386" data-dimension="S">blood feud  ->  the motif of an ongoing small-scale war between households or very small chunks of a population. common in feudal orders or when a population is very underdeveloped. the Hatfields and the McCoys occurred after the time of "medieval" periods per se, but sure did happen. this motif also showed up in FNaF of all places, in reference to old Japan and what I think are Kurosawa movies but I'm not sure, also the violence between Henry and William's families. in one sense this seems like some kind of hallmark of an ill-developed country but it also can happen in any time period.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3387" data-dimension="S">blood money / wergild / botgild / reparations (payment for individual crime; medieval Europe)  ->  according to historians, one of the major reasons for getting everyone to use money in 1500s Europe (although we may never know the single biggest reason) was to abolish blood feuds by making everyone demand a fine instead. [https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zqsqjsg/revision/2] having everyone use money has several advantages: regulating banks and the people with the most money if possible; taxes; this. in this article it also details how European church taxes basically created counties and county sherrifs, when otherwise mobilizing people's money to do something for a local group of people would not have been as easy. and these programs don't have to be violent, because today county-scale church taxes run schools. this is really worth bringing up toward anarchists. the world is full of a lot of people who as soon as they feel something has been taken from them will just go kill someone. (counting the Trotskyite conspiracy as a different variation on the theme that occurs at larger scales, you've got a few more.) Liberal-republicanism has been ineffective at stopping this just by making violence illegal and sending cops, or having people send representatives to parliament for that matter. however. if the whole United States were to just abolish the United States and live in villages tomorrow. how would anarchists get all the crazy Tories living in the rust-red states to agree that something other than killing people in another village was fair compensation?

</li><li class="field_nations" value="3388" data-dimension="S">Hatfield attack / horizontal attack / Hegelian conflict, violent / crime (sometimes labeled as such without reference to any legal code, sometimes labeled in response to a corresponding law) / natural crime (incident; Existentialist-Structuralist framing, psychoanalytic framing) / local warfare / crime-war / war crime / stochastic terrorism (individual incident)/ William Afton is real (statement that spontaneous murders exist) / hacking pedophiles to pieces with an axe (incident in Celebration, Florida; Celebration axe murder, generic) / deadly cookie (fandom drama incident) / ice ax incident (incident of two particular Marxist parties violently attacking each other outside any legal order)

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3389" data-dimension="S2">Anarchism can oppress people / When it is constructed in the real world, there exists a form of anarchist society which can oppress people  ->  anarchists think this couldn't be true because they've cleverly defined anarchism to be everything which is not oppressive, but if you ask every Tory, the history of Communism already shows that any system which is built in reality can oppress people <em>including anarchism</em>. a whole lot of Tories are already convinced anarchists are bent on oppressing them. what is the reason this happens? why would there be so many people claiming this non-extraordinary, mundane claim if it was totally impossible?

</li><li class="field_ML" value="3390" data-dimension="S2">Anarchism is something to overthrow / Anarchism is not something to transition to, but something to overthrow / Anarchism is not something transitioned into, but something to be overthrown  ->  follows from: anarchism can oppress people, Liberalism is a realized Anarchism. this idea has been all over MDem drafts at varying levels of intensity, but arguably has already appeared in many mainstream Marxist-Leninist writings under terms such as "bourgeois ideology". I do not know whether this statement is true or false, and I wouldn't solidly claim either. I have written a lot of things assuming it's false just to promote groups of people tolerating each other in a world where every individual is in competition and it's so easy for everything to fall apart and turning into the ~10 separate Lefts there have always been fighting each other.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-qid="33,91" value="3391" data-dimension="S2">Non-greedy people are a class  ->  after listening to too many things containing either sincere or appropriated anarchist signifiers, I am convinced some people think this. "Greed"/"non-competitive balance" is the single most common wrong idea I have seen in every center-Liberal or anarchist or anticommunist argument; it's everywhere. it seems to be fundamental to the way most anarchists define the hypothetical capable subpopulation of people that can end capitalism. they start with the whole population and then they just start defining relatively arbitrary criteria including actual wealth or having prejudices for crossing out "the greedy ones". the big problem is that when we're at the "hierarchy"/prejudice criterion it can really come down to having the wrong definitions of words or not having the models people command you to. it becomes very paradoxical because it's based on what people believe or feel rather than on what's verifiable, and that can easily just lead to two or three groups of people shouting at each other, ordering each other around but insisting they won't listen to each other because they've effectively created circular hierarchies onto each other and they want freedom.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="33,92" value="3392" data-dimension="S2">If nature had a legal code, it'd be {{TTS|html=abbr|tts=ex-mat|exmat|title=existential materialism}} / If nature had a legal code, it would be existential materialism  ->  the claim that "the most intuitive outcome" for a collection of individuals can only be described by the totality of possible interactions of those individuals. there is no intuitive outcome which represents "justice", as much as simply one outcome which is possible or probable based on individuals' and groups' biased personal experience. sometimes the possible outcomes contain a good or best outcome. intuition doesn't necessarily get us there.<br />
one way to describe human reasoning is that we all use Bayesian reasoning, but taking Bayesian reasoning and formalizing it on paper reveals the <em>inherent problems</em> in human reasoning rather than acting as any kind of method of doing it better.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="33,93" value="3393" data-dimension="M3">What is the alternative to hate crimes? / If money, wealth, artisanal careers, and fines are the alternative to murder, what is the alternative to hate crimes?

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="33,94" value="3394" data-dimension="S">game show challenge / challenge on a game show which is not serialized across multiple episodes / challenge on a game show which is usually not sports
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="33,95" value="3395" data-dimension="S">reality show challenge / game show challenge of an action or serialized-story-arc variety / game show challenge involving significant non-cooperation or drama  ->  funny enough, came up in the MDem revision about afterlives, because it's always funny to imagine the afterlife being a game show. or a reality show. it's kind of hard to distinguish between reality shows and game shows when talking about challenges that only take place in a single episode. my best guess is that reality show challenges are more intense
</li><li class="field_horror"  data-remark="game show" value="3396" data-dimension="S">voted off the island  ->  very interesting because it gives you a different perspective on the concept of "voting"
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-remark="game show" value="3397" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Survivor</cite>

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3398" data-dimension="S">nonviolent horizontal attack / SLAPP suit / copyright takedown  ->  an event which looks for all the world like a Hatfield attack but is perfectly legal.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3399" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="3400" data-dimension="S0">named anarchism / anarchist Bauplan / anarchism containing specific collection of civilizational characteristics which distinguish it from another anarchism

</li><li value="3401" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">L is real [https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/306700/what-is-written-on-the-l-is-real-2401-plaque] [https://archive.is/GZnvH]  ->  the concept of Luigi secretly being in Super Mario 64
</li><li class="field_horror" value="3402" data-dimension="S">L is unreal {{YouTube|Fwm_VfV16Jg}} / L was never real  ->  the motif of Luigi being absent from everything, including Super Mario 64, including Luigi's Mansion which is now just "'s mansion". seen in a disappeared toby fox thread
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3403" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3404" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3405" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3406" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3407" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3408" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3409" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="3410" data-dimension="Z">Proudhonism
</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="3411" data-dimension="Z">Kropotkinism  ->  appears to be one of the most popular anarchisms besides Proudhonism.
</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="3412" data-dimension="Z">Bookchinism / Communalism (anarchism)  ->  an anarchism based on creating tiny Liberal-republicanisms inside parts of cities. it has the advantage of at least talking about something tangible and being logical. but it does seem to assume a lot of things that don't really make sense.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3413" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3414" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3415" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3416" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3417" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3418" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="3419" data-dimension="S">mixed anarchism / anarchism combining multiple named anarchisms  ->  I feel like most of the time people believe an anarchism it's going to look something like this. still, it's useful to characterize the named ones so they can be analyzed and there are actual tangible structures in them to work with.

</li><li class="field_nations" value="3420" data-dimension="S">conservatism  ->  this motif is almost exactly what it says. no numbered Item is a linguistic dictionary word to contain dictionary definitions, but whatever you think this word means is <em>likely</em> to count for this Item. the only caveat I can think of is... should this be divided into differnet historical periods? I feel like a monarchist period is very different from a republican period but on the other hand I don't know how much "conservative" people's thinking has even changed since 1600. some days it feels like it's exactly the same.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3421" data-dimension="S2">There are four kinds of conservative parties  ->  the reactionary; the republican; the tycoon; the cult leader. [https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/republican-party-strange-death-american-conservatism-by-j-bradford-delong-2021-10] well, that's a claim. I think these categories are not very distinct from each other. also. what makes you think you can control any particular kind of conservative subpopulation and magically make it smarter? saying the United States can choose what kind of conservative parties it will have is just an empty "I believe that everybody" statement.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3422" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Rule and Ruin: The Downfall of Moderation and the Destruction of the Republican Party, from Eisenhower to the Tea Party</cite> (Kabaservice 2012)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3423" data-dimension="Z"><cite>How Democracies Die</cite> (Levitsky & Ziblatt 2018)

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3424" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Constructing Democratic Governance: Latin America and the Carribean in the 1990s — Themes and Issues</cite> (1996)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3425" data-dimension="S2">Democracy is the act of convincing upper-rank people to vote instead of merely capturing the population  ->  found in Q34,24; claim about the causes of governments labeled as authoritarian in Latin America. very interesting, but sounds dubious. raises the question of, is a democratic republic even achieving anything whatsoever or is life exactly the same with or without it? seems like a glitch in the model that we should be asking that question.
</li><li class="field_nations" value="3426" data-dimension="S2">A republic exists for upper-rank people to fight over land / ([[User:RD/9k/Q3430|9k]])

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto PT, MX onto Aa" data-qid="34,27" value="3427" data-dimension="S2">Nonviolence leads to settler-colonialism / If money, wealth, artisanal careers, and fines are the alternative to murder, the nonviolent alternative to hate crimes is paying to not share the same space with minority demographics ... [verbose proposition] / ([[User:RD/9k/Q3430|9k]])
</li><li class="field_nations" data-tradition="MX onto PT" data-qid="34,28" value="3428" data-dimension="S">anarcho-colonialism / ([[User:RD/9k/Q3430|9k]])
</li><li class="field_nations" data-qid="34,29" value="3429" data-dimension="S2">Black lion or white lion, any republic is okay if it promotes a thriving White countable culture / Black lion or white lion, any republic is okay if it promotes a thriving Protestant-specific nation (England) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q3430|9k]])

</li><li class="field_nations" data-qid="34,30" value="3430" data-dimension="S">anarcho-Toryism / ([[User:RD/9k/Q3430|9k]])
</li><li class="field_nations" data-qid="34,31" value="3431" data-dimension="S">you are educated stupid and evil (Gene Ray) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q3430|9k]])
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="34,32" value="3432" data-dimension="S2">An anarchist {{TTS|html=abbr|tts=United States|U.S.}} would believe time cube / If you turned everyone in the United States into anarchists, they'd basically believe time cube / ([[User:RD/9k/Q3430|9k]])

</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="34,33" value="3433" data-dimension="M3">What if Gene Ray was a Communist? / Which Marxism would Gene Ray subscribe to if he had become a genuine Communist ally? / if Gene Ray was a Communist / if Gene Ray was a Marxist ally  ->  I love to entertain weird hypotheticals like this because you learn a lot about the structure of each particular concept you throw together.<br/>
case of: Communist variant of historical figure (hypothetical scenario).

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3435" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3439" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3440" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li data-qid="34,44" value="3444" class="field_trotsky" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q3444|fighting fire with fire]] / using poison to cure poison / stopping a questionable process with the same process  ->  this item should be considered a fictional trope, but I can't help think of Trotsky trying to defeat a flawed Marxism with a "Marxist revolution"
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="3445" data-dimension="S">confusing the problem with the solution  ->  I'll think of a catchy trope name for this later. the thing that Trotsky and Žižek do, as well as Deleuze & Guattari. fighting fire with fire + phenomenology?? = this
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3446" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3447" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3448" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" value="3449" data-dimension="S">title comp / combining things with Batman (Dinosaur Comics)  ->  so this has a name apparently
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3450" data-dimension="S">mad libs [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_Libs] / mad lib
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3451" data-dimension="S">madlib card game / apples to apples [https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=apples+to+apples&ia=images&iax=images] / cards against humanity [https://duckduckgo.com/?q=cards+against+humanity&iar=images&t=ffab]  ->  this is one part of the appeal of this ontology project that I neglected to properly explain before. like, to some extent, it's supposed to be that Wavebuilder combinations are fun or interesting because they're a lot like a black-card-white-card game where you put down your black card "going to the afterlife" and your white card "Leon Trotsky" and then there will be a new entry based on that "card round" actually explaining the concept of "Trotsky going to the afterlife" — which you can then use as a new "white card". you're intentionally nudged to find really stupid combinations of black cards and white cards, such that they produce either a really funny and weird concept with a bunch of new abstract associations, or an actually good philosophical insight
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3452" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3453" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3454" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3455" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3456" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3457" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3458" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3459" data-dimension="S">signifier mad libs [https://research.moraleconomy.au/index.php?title=User:RD/9k/Q3459]  ->  when an audience fails to ask what a fiction or non-fiction work is actually trying to communicate and begins carelessly filling in all the nouns, verbs, and adjectives with their own meanings

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3460" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3465" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="34,70" value="3470" data-dimension="F2">If Black people are the first ones to start a Marxist movement, there will be a race war; there has not been a race war prior to attempting Leninism  ->  false because there already is a race war. it's already been happening, to such an extent that Marxism couldn't newly start it.<br/>
what people really, really don't understand is that every time an anarchist hides out and "lives life by anarchism", at least one Tory does it along with them. and if it goes on long enough, Tories become cops and shoot Black people just as part of "living their lives by anarcho-Toryism", exactly [[E:Every ideology invents direct action|the same way]] people do post-structuralist anarchism, just [[E:Post-structuralist anarchy is indistinguishable from Toryism|in khaki brown]]. anarchists are really really bad at [[E:duplexing (meta-Marxism)|duplexing]] things and realizing what their ideologies lead to.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="34,71" value="3471" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Color, Communism, and Common Sense</cite> (Johnson ??)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="34,72" value="3472" data-dimension="S2">Manning Johnson orchestrated a Communist plot to divide Black churches [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzP-UurjYEE] [https://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/manning-johnson-1958-the-communist-plot-to-exploit-blacks/] / Stalin planned to use Black people as expendables (sic; referring to a proposed vanguard)  ->  it appears the main error here is taking the phrase "general conflagration" and not realizing the key word is "general". looks like the substance of the plan is that <em>if</em> there is a rebellion in the United States <em>then</em> it will occur when Black people and all the other workers join together. but in reality, the Soviet Union has made an error because since about the US Civil War its subpopulations don't really spontaneously join together like that. it's always been movements for really specific identities only that on top of that take a really really long time or sometimes go backward. so yeah, "Stalin's" theory was wrong. look at people today and weirdly, the most effective and popular issues for joining people together are negative issues against things, especially a million people against a specific individual. people are very "anarchy-brained" and seem really incapable of comprehending actually creating policies versus exactly and precisely {{TTS|html=em|not having something bad|E=Capitalism ends through many rounds of Absolutely Not}} that's annoying or frightening them.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="34,73" value="3473" data-dimension="S">Highlander school of Communist troublemaking {{YouTube|JzP-UurjYEE}}  ->  this phrase makes me laugh. it's really the cherry on top that it has the same cadence as "Hogwarts school of wizardry". it sounds so <em>official</em>.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3475" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3476" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3479" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_nations" value="3480" data-dimension="Z"><cite>The Peter Principle</cite>
</li><li class="field_nations" value="3481" data-dimension="S2">Greed is bad, therefore everyone getting more and more education and aiming for higher and higher positions is bad  ->  major proposition of {{book|The Peter Principle}}. this is the dark side of everyone claiming that the constant push to innovate and innovate and "innovate" is a product of greed. when ordinary people hear that, they'll just tell you that every single case of incompetence or incorrect behavior was a case of arrogant people being greedy when they shouldn't have been there and everyone would be better off if they'd kept their heads down and done nothing.<br />
I'll repeat it again and again: growth is a product of population growth and the desire for an overall population to have more. the process of Kimberlé Crenshaw doing a whole lot of research to build a progressive theory and the process of somebody pouring education and research into creating an AI are the same process. if you label that process "greed", the results will not be pretty. it takes a lot of [[E:dragon process|"greed"]] to practically elevate people out of literally having been slaves.
</li><li class="field_nations" value="3482" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_nations" value="3483" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_ML"      value="3484" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_nations" value="3485" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_nations" value="3486" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_nations" value="3487" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_nations" data-tradition="MX onto PT" data-qid="34,88" value="3488" data-dimension="S2">Fascism is true / Fascism works / As long as no individual cares about themself nor loves anything more than they fear or hate criminals and people who do not obey the procedures of their republic and carry out extrajudicial actions, the principles of realizing fascism technically are effective and as possible to follow as Liberal-republicanism or Bolshevism / Fascism is truer than Trotskyism / Fascism is truer than anarchism  ->  if you want to be a Materialist philosopher and describe real-world phenomena accurately so that people can prepare for them or counter them, there are some very difficult realizations that nearly nobody wants to acknowledge. this is one of the big ones. many philosophies or ideologies we think of as "untrue" are technically more true and possible than we think of them as being. a lot of people think of Christianity as untrue, but it's a wonderful superstition to have if you want to win wars and crush ethnic groups through people standing together with money and "love" and teamwork. likewise, we all want to believe fascism is untrue because it's cruel or such. but that's not really how ideologies actually work. many ideologies that are not entirely effective are still effective enough to go on for a while or pose problems. people don't want to believe Bolshevism could work, but even after the Soviet Union effectively lost it, to this day it's been more effective than Google. stop and think about that for a moment when you are gauging the effectiveness of fascism.<br />
despite all that, there is one thing we can do to turn the tables from fascism being true to fascism being untrue — actually create populations which are stronger than socially-linked Filaments of fascism. it won't be easy. people will have to actively fight uphill against crumbling (multi)capitalisms and, counterintuitively to what a lot of old Marxist texts say, not simply take advantage of crises to break things but instead become so powerfully united they pull civilization {{em|out}} of crisis and make it functional again, making everyone able to operate together despite all threat of anyone pulling capital and making businesses break apart or cease to exist and hemorrhage workers. it's at that point that fascism can't win.

</li><li class="field_nations" value="3489" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3490" data-dimension="F2">[[Ontology:Q3490|Capitalism is bad because everyone is greedy]] / Capitalism is bad because it makes owners imperialistically greedy and customers materialistically greedy  ->  the claim that the only problem with capitalism is that every individual on earth doesn't strive to live "in balance" without "going over the line" into other individuals. this might sound all right if you have never heard of the concept of Social-Philosophical-Material Systems, and come to realize that competition between individuals occurs at the level of socially-linked groups of people merely existing, not at the level of people stating out loud at debates or in advertisements or news headlines [[Ontology:Q3667|what they're going to do next]]. if you have heard of it? you realize this proposition is nonsense because not only can nobody will what anyone else does, but definitely nobody can Freely Will how anyone else physically exists and develops as an organism. Existentialism claims to give everyone Freedom but in reality causes everyone to assign everyone else a designated purpose and required way to exist that will almost inevitably conflict with everyone else's purposes for themselves and others.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3491" data-dimension="M3">Is it greedy to go to art school? / Is it greed when people choose the wrong career?  ->  if the answer is yes, and some individuals are obligated to spontaneously predict when it is wrong for them to go to art school or study epidemiology or designing circuits and say "well I guess I won't go to college" just to take money away from Disney and iPhone and Big Pharma, or because they instantly know there will be too much of those industries 4-8 years later, <em>then</em> you can call capitalism greedy.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3492" data-dimension="S2">Human existence distorts perception of time / Human existence creates distorted perception of time / {{article|Ruler of Everything}} is about how human existence distorts human perception of the universe / {{article|Ruler of Everything}} is about how early-existentialism is the shovel dream of limited human existence but this is not an objective model of the universe  ->  I think we all commit one big [[E:Last Unicorn fallacy|Last Unicorn fallacy]] on time.

</li><li value="3493" data-remark="arceus" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S" data-submitter="Valenoern">"This is why Arceus created ... 3 states of matter" / [[Ontology:Q3493|real world made by Creator of fictional universe]]  ->  House MD, season 8 episode 8. This probably subsets another signifier something like "hypothetically speaking of god of fictional universe as having created the world". or maybe is it. I'm not sure.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3494" data-dimension="S2">Art is in the audience's experience / The nature of what art is revolves around the audience's Lived Experience / Art must be experienced by someone to be art  ->  of all the things you could invoke Lived Experience about? this is the only one I feel might be correct. I can't think of any argument against it. this might just be true.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3495" data-dimension="S2">{{article|Ruler of Everything}} (Tally Hall)  ->  this is blue because it's early-existentialism in a nutshell. nothing wrong with the song though<br />
tangent: sometimes I feel like the problem is existentialism is Bergsonism and Bergsonism is positivism. I sound like the [[E:selagadoola means menchickaboola roo|fairy godmother]] right now. <i>being a [[E:The Subject|Subject]] means / [[E:Ruler of Everything (Tally Hall|seeing until you die]] / but the thingamabob that does the job is [[E:positivism|earth can come only from I]]</i>
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3496" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3497" data-dimension="S2">Science ignores shovel dreams / Science ignores plurality (statement about multiple objects having perceptions and interpretations) / The biggest reason people reject science is that it doesn't recognize plural objects containing different perceptions  ->  as soon as you say that out loud it seems really silly. does science truly forbid the existence of multiple brains experiencing? but it doesn't seem silly to any of the people who have "discovered" it. fail to teach people about general relativity and they will insist that "linear time" fails to capture individual Lived Experience of time, and end up in positivism. fail to teach people about the process of multiple populations forming countable cultures and each constructing religion, and people will insist that "experiencing god" is actually experiencing some external thing rather than deeply hallucinating into a lack of data inside the self to fabricate a person. fail to teach people that perceptions are ontologies and ontologies can be right or wrong but people act on ontologies rather than what is in other people's heads, and people will get upset you didn't invent a way to force Christians and atheists to tolerate Muslims just because they're both freedom poles that are ostensibly born with "inalienable rights" which in actuality are totally fabricated by society and do not inherently exist in the minds of oppressive people to be activated. people get super upset that science doesn't understand the plurality of "different cultures" or different individuals on the level that Alice the individual intuitively understands Bob the individual, even as individuals are a unique kind of object and most of material reality cannot do what individuals do and science only studies material reality. people think tent of freedom poles is the single most important thing in the world, and if science can't deliver tent of freedom poles then it's time to throw out all science.<br />
the solution is this: you have to teach people a mathematical study of the sheer interaction of individuals and groups of people. you have to show them how many bad interactions are possible, and how truly unlikely a good interaction is no matter how much you hope for a good interaction. you have to teach them that they are genuinely not in control as individuals over whether people choose to obey "tent of freedom poles", and the only thing they control is how much to oppress those people for not getting along with them — they can change other people through authoritarianism, war and violence, or love and perfect integration into another highly specific culture with bigotry fully baked into it they might not have control over. there isn't really a middle ground where you can assume people automatically want to change but won't fiercely fight to keep their freedom to not change when their wants don't match yours. the key to teaching people this begins at things like lambda calculus demos, and fuzz graphs going across to quantum Goku or quantum Vegeta

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3498" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="34,99" value="3499" data-dimension="F2">All events revolve around you / All events that occur while a particular person exists occur within that person, as part of "life" / ([[User:RD/9k/Q3499|9k]]

</li><li class="field_ML" value="3500" data-dimension="S2">Buddhism is actually an early attempt at historical materialism  ->  it sounds silly until you actually look into it. and then you realize... oh. one of the major reasons for Buddhism continuing after it declined in India is that people in a warring states period really needed an ideology about uniting fractured groups of people together into a functional group of people again. to state that there are any general rules you can follow to do that with any success which are not strictly situational is to argue for general-sense historical materialism.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3501" data-dimension="S2">It's easier to argue against Buddhism than Christianity  ->  subjective of course, but interesting. to argue against Buddhism you only need to talk about the supernatural claims or material results of religion. to argue against Christianity you actually have to contend with the dynamic of religion being used to justify small or isolated <em>groups of people</em>. people believe in Christianity or sometimes in Islam because they want their local group of people to survive against another group of people while humans are in constant competition over everything. so naturally they don't give up Christianity as easily. worse yet they become attached to Protestantism or Catholicism against the other because a unified Christianity wouldn't defend their local chunk of socially-linked people against others within the actual competition that's going on within their country or region. the claim of Christianity, that there's a single god, becomes laughable the more time goes on and you look at how Christianity is actually used to defend small, local, specific groups of people who each believe they were chosen as more legitimate by God rather than to in any way serve the whole world. I'll keep saying it, Christianity is strangely similar to Trotskyism. in Trotskyism you just replace God with Lenin. what really bugs me though is that in center- and right-Liberalism you replace God and Lenin with sheer intuition on which individuals are Individually Societying In Parallel Correctly and the "stupid idiot garbage trash" divide. nothing about that makes sense. I swear Trotskyism makes more sense.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3502" data-dimension="M3">In a world of karma and attachment, why are there monotheists?  ->  this was demonstrated really well in one episode of Dragon Ball with just, the whole universe having a roughly Buddhist cosmology and then some people who are desperately praying to "God". it raises some deep questions. if Buddhism were true and practically speaking anybody who believes in monotheism probably has some sort of unhealthy attachment that makes them fight other groups of people, then why do monotheists physically exist? you really end up having to invent general-sense historical materialism to explain the answer. you have to explain how groups of Christians developed as populations of people and how that history caused them to end up with religion. and by then, why wouldn't the same be true of Buddhism?
</li><li class="field_ML" value="3503" data-dimension="S2">Buddhism would be the same if there was no reincarnation / Would Buddhism be any different if there was no reincarnation? (semi-rhetorical question)  ->  I'm fairly convinced it would behave the same way but it would just turn into an honest account of the fact people are born into different positions in the world, it's bad to be in a low one, people sometimes struggle their way out of low positions, and it's better for people to try to form stable structures where they coexist than to have warring states periods.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3504" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3505" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3506" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3507" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3508" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3509" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3510" data-dimension="S">the perfect law that gives freedom / people who don't create peace aren't Christians (motif)  ->  James 1:25. this is the kind of thing that makes me think that in its crudest forms Existentialism has been around for hundreds and hundreds of years before being renewed into Existentialism-Structuralism proper in the 1900s. the core of Existentialism is that it promises a way of <em>creating empire</em> without kings or nobility, simply by linking people together into one big group of friends that is ready to fight anyone outside it at the drop of a hat. I think this may be the crux of why Christianity adapted so well to Liberal-republicanism and became such a tool for bashing Bolshevism as well as genuinely oppressive republics. the values of Christianity happened to coincide with the physical structure of several Liberal republics banded together into an axis of First-World powers.
</li><li class="field_ML" value="3511" data-dimension="S2">Christianity would be the same if there was no afterlife  ->  mirror to Q35,03. the claim that most of Christianity could still continue on exactly as it was claiming to have benefits even if there was no god or afterlife.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3512" data-dimension="S2">Anarchism is just secular Christianity / Christianity is just mystical anarchism  ->  this is a funny statement but it's not really much of an insult at anarchists as much as a dry statement that <em>as secular theories of society</em> Christianity and anarchism run on the same principles. depending on the specific sect or variation, both of them are a bunch of statements that "[[E:IBE|people should]]" behave a certain way and join together with each other and that will fix everything. and both of them run into the problem that people always belong to countable populations instead of ever being a single uncountable humanity that behaves as a single rational ""we"" rather than separate material groups of people with separate conflicting values fighting over material space and stuff.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3513" data-dimension="S2">Anarchism is just secular Buddhism / Buddhism is just mystical anarchism  ->  sometimes anarchist principles seem to come from Christianity and sometimes they seem to come from Buddhism. there is this weird unholy convergence between the two religions the moment they try to operate in reality, as if the two were never actually separate and in the end the supernatural claims never actually mattered.
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="3514" data-dimension="S2">Any attempt to turn religion Materialist creates anarchism / Any time you try to turn religion Materialist it transforms into anarchism  ->  case of: conjecture. an odd thing pointed out by Valenoern while messing with the idea of "hollow shells" as an alternative to souls.<br />
evidence: A) the Christian motif of "powers and principalities" asks Christians to Zinovievize empires even when they are separate in order to return humanity to a supposed primordial united state. (see: {{book|And they found dragons}}) B) the Buddhist motif of non-duality has a few different meanings but one of them is to undo the borders between populations to supposedly tear down prejudices and join two populations into Community. (okay idea for feudal China, really terrible idea to apply to the United States where individuals are genuine threats to each other and people shoot because of genuine two-way threat of one kind or another.)

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3515" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3516" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3517" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3518" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3519" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3520" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3521" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3522" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3523" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3524" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3525" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3526" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3527" data-dimension="F2">"Sometimes true" means false / Propositions that are sometimes true are false  ->  axiom used in the traditional practice of formal logic. I think this has done a lot to ruin logic and generally ruin language. if every proposition has to be precisely 1 or 0 and it can't be precisely anything between that, then propositons have to be ridiculously long in order to be evaluated as what the person who said them actually intended the proposition to mean and refer to. and that creates a complete and utter mess the instant you start talking about "democracy". formal logic works fine in a monarchy, but what if people do experience structural racism in Alabama and don't experience structural racism in California? there will be every temptation for all the voters and representatives who don't live in Alabama to say that the propositon "Black people experience structural racism" is false and there shouldn't be a national policy about something that's false. likewise, every time somebody makes a video essay and says any statement at all, such as "linguists fall into two categories", formal logic incentivizes everyone to instantly pick apart the statement exactly as it's written, and say things like "that statement is false! I know about another category of linguists!" rather than realizing that "fall into two categories" could inherently mean that two categories of linguists exist <em>and</em> other categories of linguists exist while none of them exclude the possibility of the others.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3528" data-dimension="S2">"Sometimes true" means true / Propositions that are sometimes true are true  ->  this axiom is vastly more forgiving to any claim that real people make with the intention of educating other real people about real problems. when most people attempt to say a true statement they often don't mean to exclude other statements from also being true. "horizontal killings are bad" is not necessarily meant to exclude "defensive wars are not bad", but when you think in terms of formal logic you're often pushed to think "horizontal killings are bad" being true means "war is bad" becomes true. the rule of a statement having to be always true to be true does a lot to make statements that shouldn't be exclusive turn mutually exclusive and destroy discourse because truth values don't encourage people to compromise onto a shared set of true statements. working with sometimes-true statements being true can be a little challenging, but the way you do it is you basically separate large-scale philosophies or ideologies from small-scale ones and the ideologies of different regions from each other and treat them all as material objects, such that something could be true in one of them quite fairly and quite fairly not be true in another, without causing any problems, just because different civilizations have different physical structures and different physical arrangements of people. formal logic was really really badly designed for the existence of multiple countable cultures, and yet, you don't really need to invoke "culture" to fix it <i>per se</i>, you only need to invoke Social-Philosophical Systems of populational structure and the physical gaps between populations. if you separate California and Texas into different bodies of knowledge where the same thing isn't always true even if the population is functioning well, you've basically fixed it.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="STM" value="3529" data-dimension="M3">[[Ontology:Q35,29|Is the number five smaller than a breadbox?]]  ->  demonstrates the need for non-binary truth values. the answer isn't yes or no. it isn't even "40% true". the only good answer is "not applicable", "category error", "this is not a physical object" as totally distinct from false.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3530" data-dimension="M0">Truth value of ... ? / What is the truth value of ... ?  ->  generic meta-question or operator asking the truth value of an S2 Statement, implied to be a non-binary truth value.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3531" data-dimension="M3">What is the truth value of "This statement is true"?
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3532" data-dimension="M3">[[Ontology:Q35,32|What is the truth value of "This statement is false"?]]  ->  A) statement claims statement cannot contain true information. B) propositions are to be evaluated for situations in which they are true, rather than assuming they apply to everything — quarks axiom. C) propositions can carve out specific areas of reality that they apply to before asserting something is true there — Trotskyism axiom. D) when a statement asserts that something is true or false, it asserts that there is a defined field of study in which the statement applies, such that that field is able to claim particular things are true or false — Digital World axiom. E) the statement contains an internal model of the statement. F) the internal model that a particular object holds of itself is not necessarily true — shovel dream axiom. G) the internal model of an object is true when it accurately models the object — North Korea axiom. H) the statement itself is an object with internal components. I) one component of the statement is the model of itself, containing the concepts of "this statement" and "false", and assigning the state of being false to "this statement". <code>p(x) CONTAINS (x HAS RELATIONSHIP false VERSUS p(x))</code> J) in the model, "false" refers to the state of being inaccurate or un-sound, the same as what it is usually assumed to mean. K) in the model, "this statement" refers to a hypothetical version of the statement, and not the real statement — see Digital World axiom, Trotskyism axiom. the hypothetical statement is inaccurate to something. L) we do not have to begin by seriously assuming a statement is true as much as potentially-false or undecided — Sagan axiom. M) the statement "This statement is false" could hypothetically be an inaccurate model. N) the statement claims to apply to itself, and does not claim to apply to other things.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3533" data-dimension="M3">What is the truth value of Wikipedia?  ->  anyone who uses wikis a lot might laugh at this, but it's a worthwhile question when we're asking how people actually decide whether sources are reliable or unreliable. say we agree Wikipedia is "not provably true". is some bound, compiled reactionary rant by Dinesh D'Souza more likely to be true than Wikipedia just because nobody can change it? the truth value of that would have to be "good for some purposes, not more likely to be sound".
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3534" data-dimension="M3">What is the truth value of non-fiction? / What is the truth value of non-fiction books?
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3535" data-dimension="M3">What is the truth value of fiction?  ->  basically another way to pose the question of whether fiction is educational, or to ask whether fictional things "exist" — leaning more toward the latter.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3536" data-dimension="M3">What is the truth value of the bible? / What is the truth value of the Christian bible?
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3537" data-dimension="M3">What is the truth value of folklore?
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3538" data-dimension="M3">What is the truth value of fan fiction?
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3539" data-dimension="M3">What is the truth value of creepypastas?

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3540" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3550" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3560" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3570" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3580" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3585" data-dimension="F2">Faith is better than Determinism / Hope is better than secular or religious Calvinism  ->  I know this is in reference to the philosophical "Determinism" everyone believes exists as a model of reality for some reason and not any sensible definition of determinism which is actually practical for use in science. but it still bothers the hell out of me to be honest. like not a single bit of it makes any sense. faith isn't a thing. philosophical Determinism isn't a thing. neither of these things is real. so when you even say this statement it can't be true. it's all chaos magic, whether you believe in Christianity or Existentialism or whatever you take faith or hope to be. and none of it's true! it's all just everyone persuading themself that their own chunk is the best and the most human and the most existiest and and the most worthy of surviving and squashing others and pushing people out of Community into the homeless people tent area where nobody will actually agree to pay taxes and house them, and living their lives and being racist and prejudiced but acting "nice" and normal and superior to anybody that doesn't perfectly conform to the most commonly repeated behaviors of {{TTS|tts=Commu-nity|Community}}. I'm sick of it. I'm done with it. Communism is the fight against chaos magic, at this point in history.<br />
you know though, the one positive thing I can say is that Undertale and Deltarune together are {{em|potentially}} a great portrayal of why chaos magic is really dumb and hopes-and-dreams actually mean nothing despite what all the people stuck inside the Undertale world imagined by the Deltarune world may believe — believing in chaos magic only made them willing to kill six human children from the "real" world or the outside world, and Chara is precisely a deconstruction of other games depicting killing large numbers of enemies as the manifestation of an empire's {{em|hope}}. it could be that when Deltarune is done there are a lot of people who will decide they hate Deltarune but like Undertale because they don't want to give up chaos magic. I hope toby fox isn't one of them, because if he wasn't that would make the moment epic and make these games an actual masterpiece.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3586" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3587" data-dimension="S2">Organized religion is a conspiracy theory about what ethnic groups are inherently more capable or worthy of surviving / Organized religion, including Christianity, Islam, historical religious Judaism, Chinese Buddhism, and Hinduism are a supernatural interpretation of the background competition between individual human beings and emergent formations like populations and nation-states which seeks to rationalize and moralize particular groups of people succeeding or failing at existing / Organized religion is a conspiracy theory ... (censored label)
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3588" data-dimension="S2">Every ideology created before Marxism boils down to calling ethnic groups good or bad  ->  this depends on the definition of any identity-based social graph of people nested a certain degree of identity-groups deep as being an "ethnic group". in order to falsify this statement, there has to be an ideology which claims to comprehend history but doesn't reduce the actions of populations to "incorrect culture" or whole populations "deciding" to do Evil and instead recommends morally neutral methods of fixing populations. this is much harder to find than you'd think. something as simple as a statement like "the West has been Orientalist" vilifies an ethnic group called "Western culture(s)" rather than asking what material things are inside that culture. equally, a statement like "non-Buddhists cause empire because they have the wrong attitude" or "religious wars happen because people aren't Christian" is vilifying ethnic groups who do not have the demographic identity of Buddhism or Christianity. here's the interesting part: I really feel like in some senses, "early" Western Marxism is literally no better. it reduces itself to saying the Soviet Union is a bad and wrong ethnic group because Engels, or implying that the Western Culture is inherently great and destined to defeat other major ethnic groups because it includes stuff about The Subject.<br />
why are these propositions placed next to nicer things? because 88 had to be something.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="3589" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q3589|corvid as example of simpler life]] / corvid as anarchist motif  ->  don't take the color swatch too seriously. I half just thought having the ideology swatch the same basic color as a crow or raven was fun.

</li><li value="3590" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">"Taming of the Shrew" arc  ->  character arc in which an Evil or fierce character is socialized into society through questionable methods, calling to mind the incorrect description of falconry in "The Taming of the Shrew". although the Shakespeare play in question was about the concept of men not understanding women, the character can be of any gender.
</li><li value="3591" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">revenge of the shrews  ->  abstract concept, or trope, of characters with "Taming of the Shrew" arcs turning around and not having any of it. in my mind this trope is largely for fantasy animal types of characters, aliens, neurodivergent characters, whose nature isn't understood correctly, kind of like the <em>original</em> notes for <cite>Zootopia</cite>. but it might apply to more "realistic" scenarios too. did I just imply autistic people only exist in fantasy books? well, every day I don't feel real so it does check out.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="ML, MX" value="3592" data-dimension="S2">Hope is nothing, determinism is key / Chaos magic, hope, and faith are not worth anything compared with the careful exercise of deterministic models that predict only the physical shape of limited patterns within the universe, a single process and not the whole universe  ->  I'm semi-confident this was basically what was believed in the time of Lenin and not just a new extra assertion of meta-Marxism because of one thing: Trotsky really did try to build Marxism around hope and friendship and no serious self-correcting predictive theory while the way "the Stalinists" that Trotskyists kept turning against would plan things was to chart out the possibilities somewhat pessimistically and be prepared to defend against them and only then come to the people and let them have hope and encouragement for the psychological benefits but not really rely on that. this is like, one of those cases of a Trotskyist error Lenin was already prepared not to commit.<br />
I have no source on that immediately, I'm just coasting off [[E:intuition as coarsely-remembered science|mathematical intuition]] (I do that all too much), but I have reason to believe there are some if you only look. note that you have to look at historical events that happened, not just principles Stalin or someone says. principles can mean nothing but the events don't lie.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3593" data-dimension="S2">Empathy is an act of science  ->  empathy is an act of deliberately understanding something from the outside in when it was not previously understood because that knowledge was not had. in contrast to the notion that empathy is this, like, faster-than-light telepathic process where people instantly know the inaccessible facts of another person's existence just because they are both The Subject, and you're practically not allowed to ask any questions about how people are the way they are because it would undermine the power of the fact They Just Are and have the power to out-exist you out of reality if you make them mad

</li><li class="number_empty"  value="3593" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty"  value="3594" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty"  value="3595" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty"  value="3596" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty"  value="3597" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty"  value="3598" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-qid="35,99" value="3599" data-dimension="S2">{{book|Warriors}} is programming Russians to be reactionaries / <cite>Warriors</cite> is programming Russian children to be reactionaries  ->  derived Gramscian proposition. everybody says "well the books have to be censored to sell to Russia", but nobody thinks about the implications of what effect "selling books to Russia" has on Russia.<br />
I think this is way funnier if you leave off "children" and just let it weirdly imply that adults believe whatever they read in a kids' book. the point of it isn't that children must be protected from bad literature anyway, it's that the upper crust of two countries getting together to determine what <em>both countries</em> will be reading is gross. although disappointing, it'd be far less disgusting to know that reactionary-sounding literature was being written by Russians than to know it came from the United States and people are making excuses for it because supposedly the retailers of Russia are the whole Free Will of Russia. if the bourgeoisie currently have so much power to determine what books the United States sells to Russia then why don't they get together to make Russia buy good books rather than censoring them? why doesn't anyone ever ask that?

</li><li class="field_geo" value="3600" data-dimension="Z"><cite>The God Delusion</cite> (Dawkins 2006)  ->  contains the infamous claim that religion is a delusion.
</li><li class="field_geo" data-qid="36,01" value="3601" data-dimension="S2">Religion is a delusion about material reality  ->  a claim that is very much not violet, although possibly crimson; it might technically appear in the works of Marx, Engels, or Lenin. once you start looking at things through meta-Marxism, you realize that Dawkins' version isn't a Materialist position because it doesn't take into account the possibility that [[Term:Hyper-Materialism|groups of people are each material objects]] and the "correct" belief that "isn't" a delusion would have to correctly model a socially-linked group of people who would be Christians as a material object. this causes Christianity to be replaced with a concept such as political parties or conflict between ethnic groups. or, if people were actually smart, the concept of arranging people into federations of countable cultures which have each been transformed into a proletarian civilization.
</li><li class="number_empty"   data-qid="36,02" value="3602" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="36,03" value="3603" data-dimension="Z"><cite>[[E:DemonHauntedWorld|Demon-Haunted World]]</cite> (Sagan 1995)  ->  this had to be marked blue because of the weird amount of anticommunism in it in baffling contradiction to everything else it says.
</li><li class="field_trotsky"  data-qid="36,04" value="3604" data-dimension="S2">Trotskyism is as good as the bible / Trotskyism is as good as Christianity  ->  derived Trotskyist proposition. but also one that they actually say, if somewhat implicitly.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="36,05" value="3605" data-dimension="S2">God is the statement that belonging to a culture is moral / Christianity is the statement that belonging to a particular countable culture is morally good  ->  what else can it truly mean to say things like "hell is separation from God" and "Good people convert to Christianity". "God" is generally the god of a countable Culture.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="36,06" value="3606" data-dimension="S2">[[E:SuperMonkeyGodFallacy|If you exist at the expense of others, there's always hope]] / With enough hope and determination, Vegeta will prevail / Super Saiyan God fallacy  ->  in <cite>Dragon Ball Super</cite>'s era, the Saiyan kingdom quietly searches for some mysterious power called Super Saiyan god to restore their hope... of continuing to exist as a brutal, murderous empire. this is my big problem with Existentialism, early- or otherwise. every time people appeal to "believing in yourself" and "overcoming the future" it's inseparable from the background state of individuals and countries competing against each other. it always potentially turns into a case of Saiyans hoping and hoping they will prevail so they never have to turn away from imperialism and genocide and simply being little {{censor||shit|s}} that get to kill whatever people on earth and not care about any of them.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="36,07" value="3607" data-dimension="S2"><cite>Dragon Ball</cite> is as good as the bible / If the bible is useful for demonstrating life lessons or relatable emotions, <cite>Dragon Ball</cite> or any secular book is equally as useful, especially assuming it contains elements of a mythical narrative  ->  I don't think there's a good religious argument against this. the only argument you can really pull at this point is that religion is better than secular books because it's the ideology of global empire and a secular book can't help you pulverize Black people, Palestine, and all of the Third World; the only remaining arguments for religion over mere-poetry are basically definitionally evil. on a lighter note, I always find it hilarious to imagine someone arguing that if secular books aren't as good as the bible then Trotskyist books are equally as good as religious books, because <em>ostensibly</em> Trotskyism is a global ideology that is the only Marxism or "socialism" that can unite everyone in the world. at face value, isn't that what Christianity is trying to do but better? you can't be a fascist if you believe in Trotskyism, you have to side with at least all the people oppressed by a particular individual fascist figurehead, even if you can be a total deserter to a particular country. but Christianity doesn't even have standards that high.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="36,08" value="3608" data-dimension="S2">Siding with God is like siding with Goku / A personal relationship with God is like being allied with Goku / Personal relationship with God equal to personal relationship with Goku / A person having a "personal relationship with God" in the real world is equivalent to a person in the <cite>Dragon Ball</cite> universe having a personal relationship with one of its heroes  ->  this can be said in either a positive tone or a negative tone. positive, in that the narrative purpose of God in a bible story or an anecdote is to be a reassuring ally, just like Goku. negative, in that the way things work in <cite>Dragon Ball</cite>, its universe doesn't have inherent cosmic morality, and whenever you ally with a hero and hope they can defeat your enemy, you also take a gamble that the hero isn't evil and you haven't created an Evil faction. see: [[E:Super Saiyan God fallacy|Super Saiyan God fallacy]].

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="36,09" value="3609" data-dimension="S2">Spiritual people aren't delusional; they're highly cultural / Spiritual people aren't delusional, they're just deeply absorbed in culture, poetry, and romanticism  ->  this becomes very apparent if you read enough secondary-source Christian media totally detached from the opinions of any Christians as if it all fell out of the sky yesterday and you're the first person that ever saw it. the point of the stories is poetry. to tell things that would make sense said another way through really opaque poetry. that's just it.<br /> the reason it's so frustrating to try to get people out of religion is this. religion was never about the supernatural. people don't necessarily care about a supernatural or afterlife existing whatsoever. the true draw of religion that keeps sucking everybody in is <i>culture</i>. religion is culture. people are really obsessed with culture, they absolutely love culture. (while I'm one of the only people in existence who doesn't; I hate culture and love math.) a normal person sees a poetic description of some Lived Experience purportedly universal to multiple people's lives in a bible story or a novel and goes crazy for it, they flip out about how much they related to it and go pour out their emotions of how much they love whatever simple trope of "love your neighbor", "lesbians got together", etc with however many other people who are all there just because they're flipping out over a little shred of poetry. and these normal people intrinsically trust each other and trust that they each belong there flipping out over a line of poetry and it's completely expected nothing bad will happen and they won't spontaneously turn out to be enemies because they come from different subpopulations. if that happens they just go "it's unthinkable for that to be able to happen" and act quickly to suppress it and crush the way things really work. (not that that's a terrible thing, should they actually succeed.) because they're totally wrapped up in poetry, they're under poetry's spell. people get together around a bit of poetry and become spellbound that whatever people they clustered together can become a stable ongoing countable culture and a "community". and from there they can get so wrapped up in poetry and "community" that they even start to have serious faith in their poetry-group out-enduring every human being who doesn't belong to it. this, I feel, partially explains the typical narrative around the New Deal and "fireside chats". people keep bringing up the fireside chats because they love the poetry of it. the simplicity of just collecting people together and sharing the same bit of culture and poetry, and thinking that this will supposedly make all of the suffering of the United States bit by bit slowly go away. but then it doesn't. the events that come next reveal people's attachment to poetry to be a mythology. it's revealed that the most innocuous case of people gathering around a national campfire and uniting together around poetry is a Cartesian system of reasoning that doesn't account for the existence of two separate plural groups in conflict with each other. the ignored group not integrated into the poetry gets upset and [[E:Zinovievizing|Zinovievizes]] the Roosevelt followers and the whole thing comes crashing down. and this, I think, is a microcosm of all of Liberal-republicanism. the human brain really isn't built for intuitively understanding [[E:separable multiplicity|separable multiplicity]]. the whole artistic, cultural, poetic, spiritual mode of thinking practically always fails to catch the existence of whole different countable cultures with whole different internal realities.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto ES, MX onto HAS" data-qid="36,10" value="3610" data-dimension="S2">Some people prefer poetry to science  ->  the answer is to give them proletarian poetry. think about it this way: fantasy books are poetry. they tell what are supposedly life lessons or at least meaningful statements about art through really thick, opaque, poetic framings. I think in some senses some people really need to be hooked into the poetic fantasy or history-myth that workers fight terrifying battles and the owners right next to them in their own town can be "[[E:king of darkness|kings of darkness]]".
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="36,11" value="3611" data-dimension="S">poetry (literary flair) / poetry (expressive style of creating art or narrative style or expressive form of framing used in any form of storytelling; poetic quality of mythic narratives)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="36,12" value="3612" data-dimension="S">Alternian movie title  ->  the motif of something being named by a rather long and verbose but also precise description of it. this came to mind because honestly, almost all systems of proposition-based logic require this.
</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="MX onto ES, MX onto A, MX onto W" data-qid="36,13" value="3613" data-dimension="S2">Anarchists would rather read fiction than history  ->  hypothesis. can we successfully teach anarchists historical materialism with enough Warrior cats?

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-tradition="IV" data-qid="36,14" value="3614" data-dimension="S">may Trotsky be with you  ->  a while back I saw this on Left Voice I think. it was trying to be poetic, the intention was like, as long as there are Trotskyists Trotsky lives sort of and all the theorists living or dead are connected, but the phrasing the article used was so funny it began to resemble some very bizarre new religion where Trotsky was just a protector deity now. I laughed at it but at the same time the idea stuck in my mind and kept turning over many times in different permutations to where it had become less like I had anything against the article and more felt like it was a gift in its own way. I got weirdly obsessed with the comparison between Trotsky and religion, how his history messed with every scenario I could imagine of him going to the afterlife and how Trotskyism was or wasn't a similar historical process to Christianity. was he actually a good figure to have on anybody's side as a particular faction? what would it be like if ghosts existed and he haunted the earth? I think some of these ideas I just spun up because I was bored and there was nothing bad about me getting obsessed with this history and these thought experiments, while it did make me learn stuff. but I do think this silly article had some part in getting my gears turning.

</li><li class="field_geo" data-qid="36,15" value="3615" data-dimension="S">Christian devotional about Ted / Christian devotional about Alice, Bob, or Mike / prayer book but God is Trotsky  ->  after the "may Trotsky be with you" motifs corrupted me I had this one little game I thought was the funniest thing where you take some kind of devotional or commentary book only talking about the themes of the bible that isn't a bible, and you replace every mention of god with Trotsky. you could equally say "Alice" or "Bob" or "Mike" or any random name; I just think picking a historical figure who believed himself to be important makes it especially funny. what I think this demonstrates is that once we establish how bad an authority "god" is according to every mythical story and supposed example, he may as well just be any human being, and when you read devotionals that way you start to see how strange it is that people need this oddly specific thing outside them specifically to do things they could already do. that said this "game" isn't all negative. sometimes it shows you how people really just want someone to talk to and they want a break from the unending division and hostility of the real world where they can actually dialogue with someone and maybe connect with others. the actually positive sentences might be the most insightful about religion as a historical process.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3616" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_ML"  data-qid="36,17" value="3617" data-dimension="S">bedtime bible stories except with Lenin / easy-to-follow bible retellings, only with Lenin  ->  I'd love that to be a book so bad. just imagine this by no means being mandatory yet being a thing you could read. but not knowing who would write such a thing I might have to settle for writing a single B-side chapter to demonstrate the concept
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3618" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_ML"  data-qid="36,19" value="3619" data-dimension="S">founder of darkness / pioneer or colonist of darkness / ancestor of darkness (artisan or expert type antagonist; wizard; creator of ancient science-fiction technology) / capitalist of darkness  ->  the capitalist counterpart to "[[E:king of darkness|king of darkness]]". to fit this motif the villain must be somebody who could plausibly be considered an indispensable part of a town or city once and that might even have been treated as an "ordinary", "understandable" protagonist once but that by now people are now afraid of. it has to be vaguely like, in book one Firestar is good and relatable, in book nine Firestar is talked about as the enemy of the new generation. in book one Harry Potter or Clay and Glory and Starflight are the nice likeable heroes, in book ten they're the enemies of the new generation who are appalled they made the decisions they did. in show one Spike and Rarity and Rarity's boyfriend are everyone's friends. in show two everyone is suffering because of the decisions they made and mad at them. although the early "book one" part of this large-scale generational arc doesn't literally have to be the main narrative, it can just be backstory that is suggested or described at some point. (these examples are also just analogies for what the trope looks like, not suggestions for how these narratives "should" have gone.) the theme of generational antagonisms is likely to come up though not strictly necessary — it's one of the simplest ways to portray the concept of somebody owning part of society and taking up decision-making power and making bad decisions without an author having to truly understand class analysis to have thought of it.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="36,20" value="3620" data-dimension="S">just war  ->  the motif that a particular war is believed to be necessary or morally right. found in both Toryism and center-Liberalism. arguably also found in a totally different form in anarchism, Trotskyism, and mainstream Marxism-Leninism, in the sense of either secret operations or defensive wars. in one way or another almost everybody believes in just wars, but ideologies determine when that metaphysical category is applied.
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="36,21" value="3621" data-dimension="S2">If just wars exist, it's possible Che Guevara fought one / If there are just wars, it's possible Che Guevara was fighting one / If there's such a thing as a just war, then it's possible Che Guevara was fighting one  ->  my thought today when I remembered what I think was either PragerU or Fox News complaining that 'kids these days don't understand that there's any such thing as a just war'. I think it was PragerU. this is the comeback you hit them with. ok, so there's such a thing as a just war. what is the definition of a just war? do you really want to open that can of worms? if you simply decide to believe there is no such thing as a just war then you don't have to accept Che Guevara's war, but you also lose the ability to defend the Trotskyite conspiracy tearing apart Stalin's government to create its own. so choose wisely.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3622" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="36,23" value="3623" data-dimension="S2">A war to defend the proletariat is a just war  ->  the full-stop version. there are definitely texts containing this one.
</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="36,24" value="3624" data-dimension="F2">A war to clear away obstacles to Trotskyism is a just war / A violent action against a workers' state to clear the stage for realizing Trotskyism is justified  ->  it's fairly hard to successfully argue this one, mostly on account of how it destroys the best or only possible <em>allies to Trotskyism</em>.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3625" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3626" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A, DG" data-qid="36,27" value="3627" data-dimension="S2">Diversity is natural / In nature, variation between different populations as well as variation between individuals inside a population happens spontaneously without intervention and generally takes unusual situations to eliminate  ->  out of the many things anarchists say this is one of the only ones that's true.
</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="DG, ES, LR" data-qid="36,28" value="3628" data-dimension="S2">Diversity is strength / diversity is our strength (motif taken literally)  ->  debatable. nothing can really justify the act of purposefully getting rid of diversity. diversity is always fine as an end rather than a means. but at the same time, the top reasons anybody needs diversity in order to have strength also have contradictory effects of making diversity the worst way to get it. it's typical to say "diversity is our strength" just to persuade people you aren't out to get them. but if you're saying that it's a tautology. if bigots really were out to get them they'd all find that diversity didn't strengthen them in their goals, and the minority demographics would find that letting in too many identities was a real strain on their ability to protect themselves when they typically start out with few people and not much for resources to spread over all the people who aren't already strong enough to stake out territory to keep away from bigots. whenever things get tough you see things like "stop admitting trans people to LGBT" pop up, or "stop admitting White people to pride" (if I've ever actually seen that one, it's only said as a joke, but the general sentiment of wanting to "communitize" everything and whittle everything down to the minimal closely connected "community" of people that Truly represents it is definitely a common thing). once you see beyond [[E:protest brain|protest brain]] and the perception that progressivism and inclusion only take place at individual street protests and never happen at all anywhere else, you start to realize that movements are really messy things that no matter how much they try to call themselves "communities" and pretend to be non-political entities, the more they start revealing that every single Community is inherently exclusionary and there is nothing about Communities that inherently causes them to include each other. we're all just a bunch of blobs of Animals that fight each other daily over people-arrangements that aren't decided and suffer as groups when anyone fails to perfectly represent the greatest strength, the greatest ability, or the most elite compassion-and-kindness-and-sensitivity skill. if anybody is just tired of all of it and the horrible contradiction of having to fight and displace and exclude and kill people the best through niceness and performance of being the goodest virtuousest existiest individual who exists the best and has the most existence to generously hand to people without getting mad at anyone, the blobs of Animals throw them out and demand better erasing of bad thoughts and memories and better performances.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3629" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="36,30" value="3630" data-dimension="S">criterion which expels something from a group / judgement criterion which causes people to expel someone or something from a social group (prejudice)  ->  one of the only definitions of prejudice I can think of which is meta-ontologically sound, as in, the definition itself doesn't change depending on what ideological faction people are on. the downside is that under this definition some prejudices are almost objectively good. everyone wants to have a prejudice against fascists per-se. most people want to have a prejudice against Communists per-se, but not against business territory owners. if you're a Marxist this definition will actually be somewhat appealing because it allows probing exactly why people side with the bourgeoisie. assume that prejudices can't be changed with "Subjectivity" or "culture" the way Marcuse says and then figure out where they're really coming from. from what I know, the answer is long and complicated but it begins at "the smallest unit of humanity is voluntary subpopulations (Filaments), not individuals".

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-qid="36,31" value="3631" data-dimension="S">criterion which declares one thing more important than another thing / hierarchy (anarchism)  ->  <em>this</em> is the anarchist-approved definition of prejudice?? this is. terrible. I mean, excuse me for Perpetuating Hierarchy, but this definition is not possible to identify in the material world. every movement will inherently think it's more important than other things simply due to the calculation everyone has to make of what to put effort into, which unfortunately kind of explains how everyone ended up in movementist hell where at various times all the movements just fight each other. it's also not hard to see how exactly ideas that appear to have come from anarchism keep getting vulgarized right back into center-Liberalism or right-Liberalism: people can just equivocate the concept of one thing being more important than another thing to say every viewpoint is important even if it's terrible, capitalists are important too, empires are important too, Europe is important too, White supremacists are important too, the works. it's fatal to a movement to not recognize that "hierarchies" are actual spatial structures where the prejudiced people are actually penning together other groups of people and conflating themselves with that fenced-in social graph. you never even get rid of the Archon if you don't recognize the microcolony as a structure and boot the Archon out of that. the Archon will just keep claiming to be nice and "not subscribed to a hyper-competitive mindset", "not subscribed to the colonizer attitude", "totally as important as you, why are you so prejudiced against me", "why don't we all do it together as all classes at once". and so far anarchists don't seem to have much of a defense against that. they just kind of let all the owners corrupt anarchism into Existentialism and let everything keep getting worse.
</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A, PT" data-qid="36,32" value="3632" data-dimension="S">hyper-competitive mindset (attitude; framing; perspective; anarchism)  ->  I have heard anarchists and Western-Marxists who have absorbed all their models from anarchism say this at least twice, but I still have no idea what it means in real-world terms. like, say Dinesh D'Souza has a "hyper-competitive mindset" — you could fairly say this from reading his book. why is it that he has it and {{em|won't give it up no matter what}}? I don't think anarchists have a good answer to that, which makes the model implied in this term that a hyper-competitive mindset is something you can get rid of rather unproductive. [[E:anarchism|charcoal]] or [[E:named nationalism|khaki]] swatch depending on who mentions the basic concept.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="36,33" value="3633" data-dimension="S2">North Korea does not have the colonizer attitude  ->  I think it's pretty easy to argue this. North Korea doesn't want to conquer anybody. all it does is defend itself. the same thing about halfway goes for China, although that half of the time is only when considered from the perspective of Maoism or Deng Xiaoping Thought. so why is there so much resistance to noticing this and thinking about it? why isn't North Korea the hero of Western Marxism and postcolonial theories? how is it they can go on and on about culture and attitudes and how supposedly we have to change every scrap of culture and attitude before we get anything but center-Liberalism, yet they don't think of this? I have my suspicions that people might secretly believe that North Korea <em>does</em> have The Colonizer Attitude somehow. it's the particular way nearly every single Existentialist talks about "generalized dictators" as if that means something. in the real world it generally seems that [[E:No dictator is an island|groups of people form, then leaders appear]], "dictatorial" or not. but Existentialists have this very conspiratorial way of thinking where they seem to think "generalized dictators" show up and then create the groups of people.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="ML, JC, MX onto JC" data-qid="36,34" value="3634" data-dimension="S2">North Korea is your new hero  ->  the claim that North Korea is consistent (by which I really mean {{em|has been}} consistent circa 1948) with the overall themes, mostly as taken by themselves, thrown around in postcolonial anarchisms, critical theory, and so forth, because North Korea emerged from being slaves, threw out colonialism, and [[E:North Korea does not have the colonizer attitude|does not have the colonizer attitude]]. sounds like a solid case at least at first. so what could possibly be wrong with it? you know that practically nobody in the United States labeled progressive who isn't a crimson ideology would agree with that. but why, exactly? the facts don't really support that.<br/>
and this is basically why I'm going to such lengths to [[E:meta-Marxism|analyze the nuts and bolts that drive every ideology]]: so we know the real reasons that political parties and organizations and miscellaneous individuals oddly committed to specific swatch colors are pushed to believe what they believe. sometimes it's prosaic, and Marx pointing out the bourgeoisie is just fine as a short explanation. other times it's genuinely more complicated, because other elements of societal structure than class territories, such as individual human organisms themselves and social links themselves, are driving particular theories and people to be particular ways.<br/>
note: this proposition can be filed under the <code>JC</code> ideology code because of the fact there was a brief movement to try to build Juche-socialisms in Africa that learned from North Korea; these hypothetical Marxist states would count under the <code>JC</code> ideology code.

</li><li class="field_nations" data-qid="36,35" value="3635" data-remark="Hydreigon" data-dimension="S">criterion which declares people of lesser worth / criterion which declares people "not equals"  ->  this motif is meant to be the center-Liberal definition of prejudice. which, to be honest, the mechanics of this definition have never made any sense to me. how do you keep people from inevitably judging each other if you believe that making everyone the same class is a fool's errand? you must believe some people are better than others if you don't believe people can all coexist without any individual being the official occupant of a societal activity that gets to subjectively define who else links to that activity. and if so, in what way are people meaningfully "equals"? look at affirmative action: it achieves the wrong thing. it assumes that "hatred" is what's keeping people out of top positions rather than it actually being [[redlink - Frantz Fanon conjecture|really hard]] for anyone to achieve that level of skill over anyone else especially if a particular population of people for some reason begins with limited means. if you don't fix what's going on at the bottom scales of things (redlining, etc) the processes at the bottom will never hurl enough people upward that "removing hatred" and "offering training" to be the best actually matters.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3636" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3637" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_nations" data-tradition="PT" data-qid="36,38" value="3638" data-dimension="F2">Race divides household anarchies in two / Households are not anarchies because interracial marriage / An anarchy of Black husband and White wife is impossible  ->  there are two forms of this. one, that households should be anhierarchies with man and woman perfectly on opposite sides of the [[E:time cube theory|time cube]]. two, that households should be medieval-style spatial hierarchies. in either case, you see that racism is emerging from the existing household structure more than it is truly fundamental to the core principles of the time cube theory. the time cube model falsely believes that racism and misogyny are the same thing but its own concepts do not require an external "holistic" source to spawn both of them. one can be derived from the other, suggesting that neither of these concepts is actually a principle and they may be processes.<br />
An anarchy of two racial subpopulations is impossible + Some households are not anarchies = this

</li><li class="field_nations" data-qid="36,39" value="3639" data-dimension="S">the colonizer attitude / colonial racism ({{TTS|Colonial Racism|sometimes capitalized}}; MDem)  ->  do not refer to this as "colonialism" within Item labels. reserve that word for the physical processes of global empire. you may refer to colonial prejudices with any number of terms such as "colonial racism" or "alterity" or "Manichaeanism"(?) if you think readers would understand them, and you may use "colonialism", "imperialism", and "global empire" interchangeably with each other. the one thing you must not do is imply that The Colonizer Attitude and global empire are the same concept. it is critical to separate these things in order to discuss which one causes the other one.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3640" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3641" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3642" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="36,43" value="3643" data-dimension="S2">Believing in free will is a prejudice / Free will is the only prejudice postcolonial theorists will never ever give up

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="36,50" value="3650" data-dimension="S">generalized dictator / the totalitarian psychology (authoritarian; mentality, personality; Lacanianism, psychoanalysis, psychohistory; sic.)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="Aa" data-qid="36,51" value="3651" data-dimension="S2">North Korea is psychoanalytically wrong  ->  a cluster of different claims, probably. one would be that opting to be a Marxist theorist or General Secretary is morally wrong under psychoanalysis and the non-traumatized Real Human Being opts not to do it.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="36,52" value="3652" data-dimension="S2">Nazism {{TTS|tts=and|&}} Bolshevism come from Materialism / Nazism and Bolshevism have the same cause: Materialism / Horseshoe theory is backhandedly true (in reference to different framings of the [[E:Lynxley fallacy|Lynxley fallacy]])  ->  the claim that observing the material process of chunk competition causes some people to become Communists and some people to become nazis, contingent on level of education and various other factors.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="36,53" value="3653" data-dimension="S2">Nazism and Bolshevism have the same cause / Nazism and Bolshevism are caused by the same thing / horseshoe theory (hypothesis that nazi ideologies and Communist ideologies are instances of the same prototypical thing)
</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="36,54" value="3654" data-dimension="S2">Nazism {{TTS|tts=and|&}} Bolshevism come from class war / Nazism and Bolshevism have the same cause: class war / historical horseshoe theory / Horseshoe theory is right for entirely the wrong reasons / Horseshoe theory is backhandedly true  ->  components: horseshoe theory - case of - backhandedly correct statement. better horseshoe theory goes as follows: mark up the horseshoe as a timeline of events, with a straight arrow cutting from middle to ends. the middle of the horseshoe is a period of peace; because things are peaceful everyone remains moderate and similar. the next period of the horseshoe is a period of upheaval; as things become turbulent people separate into two groups and each becomes less moderate and more hostile. at the ends of the horseshoe, the separate groups may become violent, regimented, militaristic, and "similar". this has nothing to do with the specific ideologies of the groups, and everything to do with the fact they're divided and competing against each other and possibly literally at war. when you look at it this way, it's fair enough to say the horseshoe describes both the Nazi Germany period and the East Germany period. but what it really describes is the phenomenon of populations splitting because they can't stand each other and having to create borders and border police because they aren't one country. when you realize this you see that the horseshoe is a great oversimplification of the problem. the real problem is: is it worse to divide a country and live with the "extremes" of new borders, or is it worse to live in the same country with nazis and have to treat nazis as full citizens of your country as they're busy actively trying to act like they're the only true citizens and nobody else is? there's no option for "there are no nazis". center-Liberalism is, to some extent, the statement that given enough highly-educated experts siloed away from society nazis and non-nazis can be forced to live in harmony by a bunch of cops and courts despite how internally violent and hateful they may be every single day and despite how much the nazis may want to lock everybody else up as criminals for making them nervous.
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="36,55" value="3655" data-dimension="S2">Anarchism {{TTS|tts=and|&}} Toryism come from Existentialism / Anarchism and Toryism have the same cause: Existentialism / Anarchism and Toryism have the same cause: capitalism / Communist horseshoe theory / Communist fishhook theory (statement that theories stuck in capitalism circle back to the center whether they go "right" or "left")  ->  the motif or claim that so-called "far-left" ideologies in the United States are similar to "far-right" ideologies in that they both believe in giant amounts of freedom, but no matter how hard they try to escape oppression with freedom they don't escape capitalism and keep perpetuating all the patterns and toxic principles of capitalism, or worse, they literally tear apart into [[E:multicapitalism|two countable areas of capitalism]] that become violently hostile without successfully forming borders, turning the [[E:assigned liberal at birth|false Idealist slider of "political positions within the same nation"]] into a down-facing horseshoe, center-wing capitalism on the left, center-wing capitalism on the right.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="JC" data-qid="36,56" value="3656" data-dimension="S2">North Korea can undergo a Deng Xiaoping process without being Deng Xiaoping Thought  ->  I think this is true.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="MX onto JC" data-qid="36,57" value="3657" data-dimension="F2">Anarchism is indistinguishable from Juche-socialism / Juche-socialism is indistinguishable from anarchism  ->  troll proposition. if anarchism is better than Bolshevism because it doesn't divide people into The Community Process and The Party, then surely a Marxism that mixes them both together must be better, right? if anarchism is people joining into A Community then how do you know it's different from Juche-socialism? how do you know they're not the same?<br />
Arceism + Juche concept = this.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="36,58" value="3658" data-dimension="S2">Your response to a Marxist text is deterministic / Your response to reading a Marxist text is deterministic / Each person's response to a Marxist text is deterministic  ->  this is what's strictly true if you don't believe in Free Will, yet somehow practically nobody thinks about this. the better question, though, is how? if my response to reading a Marxist text is deterministic, in what way is it actually determined? personally, I would argue that the answer is [[E:Nature is a multiplication table|reterminism]]. the stimulus and the human body as it is both have to act together to produce the result. determinism exists but it isn't a closed system as much as something that forms semi-spontaneously in the middle of chaos. that does imply you can't predict exactly when determinism begins, and can only predict what happens after it begins.
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="36,59" value="3659" data-dimension="S2">Those who don't believe in free will could become Communists / If you truly don't believe in free will, you may be destined to become a Communist  ->  I am so sick of people claiming they don't believe in Free Will but then clearly secretly believing in it when they try to say historical materialism is impossible because of The Subject. nobody arguing about Free Will seems to actually understand what Free Will would practically be in real life.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-qid="36,60" value="3660" data-dimension="F2">East Germany was indistinguishable from an Anarchism / East Germany was actually an Anarchism  ->  I am pretty sure this is false but I could not actually explain why. so this is basically one of those "man is equivalent to a chicken" type statements. the heart of this probably-spurious claim would be that because events like Black Lives Matter and the Paris Commune were built around people of a particular idealistic countable Culture assertively occupying a particular spatial area, the distinction between a hypothetical successful Anarchism and a real-world historical fortress state is rather fuzzy. what actually is the difference? you can't say that a fortress state is different from an Anarchism because it's based around the proletariat, because North Korea became a fortress state and hardly had a proletariat at all. I guess you could appeal to "The State", but personally? in my opinion an army always counts as having a State. that's the easiest way to interpret the Trotskyite conspiracy as the seeds of a plural Marxism and open up the road to diplomacy and healing traumas between rival Marxisms. so like, if an Anarchism always realistically has to have a State to perform realization and exist, how is it actually different from a fortress state?

</li><li class="field_geo" data-qid="36,61" value="3661" data-dimension="S2">[[E:Q3661|Deng Xiaoping Thought is a postcolonial theory]] / Deng Xiaoping Thought is part of a new category of postcolonial theories solidly based in Materialism instead of Idealism  ->  the claim that because it is primarily focused on maintaining the national independence of China and not on creating Bolshevism or abolishing capitalism, Deng Xiaoping Thought is not a Leninism but does instead qualify as a postcolonial theory. if this is true, there would exist a category of Marxisms which are postcolonial theories based in Materialism but are not Leninisms.<br />
I'm not positive on this one, yet there is just enough of an argument here to change over Deng Xiaoping Thought to the [[E:Western Marxism|strawberry swatch]], as a rather complimentary use of that swatch that contrasts all its negative meanings. it's better than giving any statist things the [[E:anarchism|charcoal swatch]]. probably... Deng Xiaoping Thought needs its own ideology code now. ok. <code>MZ</code> and <code>DX</code> are the new codes for Maoism and Deng Xiaoping Thought.
</li><li class="field_geo" data-qid="36,62" value="3662" data-dimension="S2">Juche-socialism is a postcolonial theory / Juche-socialism is part of a new category of postcolonial theories solidly based in Materialism instead of Idealism  ->  I think there's also equally as good a case for this.
</li><li class="field_geo" data-qid="36,63" value="3663" data-dimension="S2">East Germany was a postcolonial movement / East Germany provides evidence for a new category of postcolonial theories solidly based in Materialism instead of Idealism  ->  I think this is one possible answer to the jamming question of whether East Germany was "an anarchism". the claim would be that all successful instances of creating a workers' state have been postcolonial movements, and it has been a fundamental truth of workers' states that they operate on ensuring the whole population is competitive against or defended against all the other countries around it who every day still [[E:Subjects eat and occupy space|eat and occupy space]] — postcolonial movements are in contradiction with degrowth and the environment, contrary to what everyone wants to think, and only either industry or a very concerted push from as many Third World individuals as possible to form a coherent and operational civilization and a unified government can actually make Third World nationalities free. said another way, if Third World people can solve Trotskyism and merge into one big country of like 5 billion people they're good on having to build more industry or damage the environment, but it's still the case anarchism has to go.

</li><li data-qid="36,64" value="3664" class="field_anarchy" data-dimension="S2">Culture is nothing more than the set of signs many individuals spontaneously make up  ->  this is ultimately why people think there's a "Spanishness Office". Existentialism. they think that if they tell one person, who is [[Ontology:Q5440|perfectly equivalent to the whole population]], to change their way of thinking that everybody will spontaneously change, unanimously flipping over the policies of the Spanishness Office. but there are several wrong assumptions in there. one, knowledge doesn't travel faster than light to everybody at once. two, individuals have different content, and whenever they hear the same message, this sorts them into different factions and different opposing courses of action. imagine any two individuals, Stalin and Trotsky, Goku and Vegeta. you tell them the exact same statement, and they take it to mean totally different things, and any allies they have take it to mean the same thing. "Freeza is descending on Planet Vegeta". (if you live on earth, is it a good thing for Saiyans to cease to exist?) "The Soviet Union will fall apart if people don't properly participate". (Trotsky, Zinoviev: that's fantastic!) "Inclusive history education will give marginalized people more power." (Floridians: then let's destroy it, we can't have that.) you have to plan any attempt to "inform everyone" around this inherent separation into ideological subpopulations.
</li><li data-qid="36,65" value="3665" class="field_anarchy" data-dimension="S2">No one should make their own meaning unless others consider it wonderful / People shouldn't spontaneously make up culture and signs unless it's wonderful  ->  Q3667 + Q?? everyone creates their own meaning = this. anarculture proposition / democulture proposition. I think this one is anarculture but it turns into democulture practically speaking with another proposition

</li><li data-qid="36,66" value="3666" data-remark="sinners" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q3666|Individual choices immediately shape the health of society]] / Individual choices immediately contribute to the health of society  ->  the nexus point where we see Existentialism being born inside the context of ancient religions; what is in my opinion the core of defining "sin", as well as the Buddhist concept of "unhelpful mental factors" that impede meditation and also society.
</li><li data-qid="36,67" value="3667" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q3667|Nothing should be done unless everybody considers it wonderful]] / "they had such good reasons for doing what they did that the ends justify the means"  ->  I am so sick of this phrase and its use in analyzing both fiction and reality. there are so many wrong assumptions in it that are difficult to dig up at first, but whenever anyone uses this concept it always totally distorts their view of how reality really works. you get so many crazy propositions out of this like that it's absolutely not allowed to investigate how reality works without obeying metaphysics, etc.
</li><li data-qid="36,68" value="3668" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S2">Manipulative and abusive people seek to destroy Freedom / ([[User:RD/9k/Q36,68|9k]])

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-tradition="Zv, PT" data-qid="36,69" value="3669" data-dimension="S2">Abusers manufacture emergencies / Manipulative people manufacture emergencies in order to create desperate behaviors  / "manipulative people shift context to normalize extreme behavior" {{YouTube|b3AN2wY4qAM}} / ([[User:RD/9k/Q36,68|9k]])

</li><li class="field_nations" data-qid="36,70" value="3670" data-tradition="PT" data-dimension="F2">[[Ontology:Q3670|COVID measures were devised in order to create Bolshevism]] / ([[User:RD/9k/Q36,68|9k]])

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3671" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3672" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3673" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3674" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3675" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_nations" data-qid="36,76" value="3676" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q3676|Freedom requires rejecting COVID measures]]<br />
COVID measures were devised in order to create Bolshevism + (government has no right to control Tories?) = Freedom requires rejecting COVID measures
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3677" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_nations" data-qid="36,78" value="3678" data-dimension="S2">Nobody is actually an atheist / Nonbelief is a fabricated idea and nonbelievers are a fad / Nonbelievers or infidels ignore reality / Not believing religions is an extreme position (generic) / Nonbelievers can't know that atheism is true / Nonbelievers can't have any knowledge or evidence that atheism is true / Nonbelievers can't have any knowledge or evidence that religion is not true  ->  too many people have fallen for this hook, line, and sinker and absorbed a brown proposition into their perfectly blue worldview. make no mistake, this proposition is bright khaki brown. the content of individual people's religions is, statistically, often against the process of forming solidarity across households, subpopulations, and religions, if not outright hateful to the existence of outside countries (the only silver lining is it's more often countries than ethnic subpopulations), and to say that not believing something hateful is something somebody "can't know to be true" is just insulting. there are a bunch of complexities to all this and it takes a long time to discuss and unpack correctly. but morality is actually the best opening argument that God is less likely than no God, you just cannot unify all of philosophy let alone all of religion. ...yeah, actually, refuting Žižek's bad interpretation of Hegel might be an even better place to start, it's really just a matter of logical contradictions that don't also get resolved through physical "wavefunction collapses" of different models of physical objects interacting physically.<br />
(if you find a good reason this proposition is something other than brown, you can change the Item page to reflect that. just don't change this page. it's here for historical reasons.)

</li><li class="field_nations" data-qid="36,79" value="3679" data-dimension="F2">[[Ontology:Q3679|Nobody is actually transgender]]
</li><li class="field_nations" data-qid="36,80" value="3680" data-dimension="F2">If nobody ever built towns, everyone could live in harmony / If nobody ever built social structures, everyone could live in harmony / If nobody ever built social structures, people of every ideology could live in harmony  ->  the founding axiom of Proudhonism and Distributism, seemingly. note that it's literally untrue when [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield%E2%80%93McCoy_feud Hatfield attacks] can always happen out of the blue.
</li><li class="field_nations" data-qid="36,81" value="3681" data-dimension="F2">If nobody went to work and made money, there'd be no need for labor movements
</li><li class="field_nations" data-qid="36,82" value="3682" data-dimension="F2">If nobody ever voted, nobody would get angry about voting
</li><li class="field_nations" data-qid="36,83" value="3683" data-dimension="F2">If nobody ever left their houses, nobody would have to wear masks / If nobody ever left their houses, it wouldn't be necessary to force anyone to wear masks
</li><li class="field_nations" data-qid="36,84" value="3684" data-dimension="F2">If nobody ever got vaccines, we could have perfectly rational discussions about them / If nobody ever got vaccines, there'd be no need to debate them  ->  jamming proposition to catch especially stupid thought-diversity rationalists. I, personally, am sitting here never getting vaccines just because since the beginning of COVID everybody was treating vaccines as a conspiracy theory and you couldn't discuss them, so I ended up never leaving my house in order to be safe during COVID, and never being able to ask anybody to take me to get vaccinated when I can't drive on my own. I could walk 8 km for the whole trip there and back, or tell a lie, but both of those take enough effort I usually don't have the energy. the ideal method is for me to ride a bus by myself, but this place doesn't believe in public buses, so I get no vaccines. this isn't even due to health insurance coverage; Medicaid covers them. it's due to the fact societies are built out of factions and if you don't fit into them you have no society. if I gripe to someone about a lack of buses they'll ask me why I need vaccines, as well as why I need buses. the only way I can allow Tories to exist and stand by and "criticize" them is to sit in my house all month and never vote and not get vaccinated. if you think society is not fundamentally made of factions and you can just stand by "criticizing" them you're stupid. and I'm going to fill this wiki with propositions until you can't function as a capitalist or a Liberal representative any more because everybody sees through all this <s class="censor">bullshit</s>.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="36,85" value="3685" data-dimension="S">Information is just for your information
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="36,86" value="3686" data-dimension="S">I'm just putting information out there / putting information out there to make sure you have a choice / putting information out there so you can do your own research  ->  an excuse used to publish anti-vaccine material legally; this particular motif is distinctly negative, although Q36,85 might be positive sometimes. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GshpRqztBT0] seems connected back to core Existentialist propositions. in its own weird way it's like a nonfiction parallel to "don't like, don't read".

</li><li class="field_horror" data-qid="36,87" value="3687" data-dimension="S2">Putting Harry under the stairs is freedom from Harry Potter  ->  this is what bugs me about anarchism. every time everyday people oppress you in your life, they're probably doing it because they want freedom from you. anarchism thinks you can fix that with freedom freedom freedom but it just doesn't make any sense when freedom is actually one of the quickest roads to prejudice and oppression.
</li><li class="field_nations" data-qid="36,88" value="3688" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q3688|Prejudice is a form of freedom]]  ->  follows from: solidarity is strictly optional. this is really awful to realize; it's not something you <em>want</em> anyone embodying and making use of. but, it neatly explains exactly why people continue to have prejudices. people have prejudices because when you give them enough freedom they will simply decide what demographics they do and don't want to interact with, turning freedom into this runaway train you can't stand in front of without it declaring your death under the train is less important than it having ownership over the railroad it's already barreling down.
</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="PT, A" data-qid="36,89" value="3689" data-dimension="Z">vaccine hesitancy / vaccine distrust / vaccine refusal / vaccine denial (center-Liberalism)  ->  I was unsure what swatch to give this because it's just a phenomenon people do and turning it brown seemed a bit too negative. I went with "anarchism" because there have been anarchists seen condoning this, and it seems fair enough to slam them for that. as much as some Black towns have genuine reasons to be afraid of doctors, anarchism is an ideology promising social transition; even a few anarchists against vaccines is a few too many.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="36,90" value="3690" data-dimension="F2">[[Ontology:Q3690|Anything is true if your population is small enough]] / Sunny's dream world fallacy  ->  "Sunny" in reference to <cite>{{caps|Omori}}</cite>, and how it becomes "true" that he has no problems if he isolates himself in his dreams.
</li><li class="field_nations" data-qid="36,91" value="3691" data-dimension="F2">[[Ontology:Q3691|All facts are culture, thus one Culture is superior to another]] / Because culture is the only thing that's true, one Culture is superior to another  ->  this is the crux (no pun intended) of Christianity reaching its fascist form and why religion causes problems. it's true that in theory, you can combat hateful religion without ever talking about religion or telling people they can't believe it. but if you want to do that, you have to realize that religion boils down to the assertion that whatever ladder of cultural signifiers people stack up into an ontological model of how the world works <em>is the truth</em>. monotheistic religions archetypically assert that their group of people is behaving the correct way to be chosen by God; what this means in practice is that they have the correct culture to keep persisting as a civilization and telling everyone else what is moral while somebody else has evil, incorrect culture. progressive anthropologists and various people often unknowingly duplicate this same assertion that culture is "somebody's truth" in trying to define what tolerance is and how it is that people tolerate identities, but this is a nasty fallacy that nobody should be using. people in each town believe that culture is the truth because we can never experience reality except through culture, but whenever they do this they always believe the culture of one town is the truth for the whole world, not just for that town as sociology wants them to. this leads to the bigoted behavior of acting like one town's culture is the truth but another town's culture is lies. it's easier to get everyone to tolerate each other by simply asserting that culture is never the truth and Lived Experiences are not the truth, while creating a working model of how the universe works including a meta-Marxist analysis of how each society or subpopulation internally functions of its own power and under its own values is a different matter. maybe our model of reality is never reality, but culture, being the shared ontology <em>of a specific socially-linked population of people</em>, is definitionally insular and definitionally ignorant.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="36,92" value="3692" data-dimension="S2">Any "inevitable" social structure inevitably holds up a gun / a phenomenon which is real and tangible is capable of holding up a gun  ->  a little opaque out of its original context but very clear in context. societies are composed from elements which are material, and which must live and exist materially as any Animal does. any proposed element which makes up a society in a consistent way across time or throughout various different events would have to be material. if The Subject is an unavoidable element of society, then we should expect The Subject has the ability to fight for its life and try to kill us whenever we try to impose something on it it doesn't like. if political parties are an inherent or permanent fixture of societies, then we should expect that whenever we make reactionary political parties accept pronouns or whatever makes them really mad reactionary political parties will fight to the death and try to kill us. whether these two hypothetical cases have actually happened yet is debatable; one could argue that these cases have happened or that they haven't truly happened, depending on whether one feels that "unavoidable" or "fight to the death" is the more important part of the conjecture. either way, if we assume "unavoidable" is the part in question versus reality, then it would be the case that we should <em>want</em> it to be true that the unavoidable elements of society are fairly large, and <em>not want</em> unavoidable elements to turn out to be as small as we can imagine. thankfully, it's arguable that the smallest unavoidable element of society is the Social-Philosophical System, which is of variable size but in some cases can be as large as a society itself. Catholic, Muslim, Latino, native-Hawaiian, Trotskyist, mainstream Marxist-Leninist, Kropotkinist, North Korean, and certain unclear sections of majority-China might be examples of unavoidable social units, but "The Individual" might not, and likewise, "The United States" might not, being too big to meaningfully form its own "organism". which, if true, is very good in terms of the (il)legitimacy of global empire. there is no easy answer in terms of exactly how local units are supposed to be combined to create peace. but, we do know that the more we understand and substantiate Social-Philosophical-Systems the implications would be that coexistence becomes increasingly obvious while empire makes less and less sense.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="36,93" value="3693" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q3693|Vaccine distrust is a deeply human response]]  ->  every human being is near-deterministically obligated to strive against things that will harm their [[Ontology:Q2970|own survival]] or their children's survival if they want children. the intuitive human defense to threats is to group together with people who are trusted to protect a person's survival. if somebody just suffered the death of a child and you tell them "life is unpredictable, there's nothing you can do about it" {{YouTube|GshpRqztBT0}} then you are generating anti-vaccine social groups through your actions, because human beings {{em|require}} enough predictability to be able to survive and reproduce without their babies dying. they won't lie down and accept a world where they can't build a group of people to help them survive better. I feel like the appropriate response is actually to connect all of these people to research on their specific baby disease or something so they can have a "community" which isn't just opposing vaccines

</li><li class="field_nations" data-qid="36,94" value="3694" data-dimension="S">no one in these comments supports gay marriage! / awful CNN comments section  ->  looking at a CNN comments section, there was a certain contradiction to it. it seems like only a certain swath of older Tories actually watches "the news" any more. so they all come to the CNN comments section and post about how "I've never seen anyone support gay marriage", because the only commenters they've seen are the commenters boring enough to watch solely The News and hardly anything else. the easiest way to fix a comment section like this is to report half of them for the blatant TOS violations in their posts, given that "hateful content" is already not allowed. but there's something not satisfying about that. the problem here is that comments sections are designed expecting a bunch of progressive people to flood into the comments section and post comments, as if everyone has identical interests and there are never self-selection effects. two countable Cultures are graph-struggling over the comments section in an unavoidable competition and in order to stop "echo chambers" you have to ramp up the competition by progressives over every comments section to change who wins. but progressives are never going to watch every single video, even collectively. there's no way to just "push them upward" in the struggle over {{em|every video}} and win the comments just so Tories won't see a comment section full of Tories. people don't want to watch the videos toxic Tories watch. but you don't really want to ban news stories with negative outcomes just because Tories will flock around them. you always see some sort of shepherd sheet structure forming purely because there is [[E:microhierarchy|networkism]] and the ability of people to freely associate around one social-graph owner instead of another potentially generates negative, anti-social behavior. if there isn't a Communist party then there will be a central body of YouTube experts determining what are the terms and conditions to not have horrible anti-social Cultures forming inside YouTube. people think you can escape the prospect of having a government that regulates the formation of Cultures but you really can't. escape an overarching Culture-federation in your republic and you'll just get a smaller one inside the chunks of society large numbers of people actually use.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3700" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_nations" data-qid="37,09" value="3709" data-dimension="S">the freedom to not encounter Jews  ->  it is strange and bizarre how much some people can get offended by "BCE".
</li><li class="field_nations" data-qid="37,10" value="3710" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q3710|the freedom to not encounter Black people]] / freedom to not encounter particular ethnic subpopulation  ->  the motif of people insisting that a few Black people cast in a movie or TV show is due to "a political agenda" — which is, of course, some mysterious secret agenda {{em|beyond}} people wanting to see more demographics represented on TV shows. I never had any idea what my parents were even grumbling about until I got to the age of 27 and I finally learned about the existence of Gramscianism and went "....oh". everybody had been lying to me, some lying that Media Representation was an evil conspiracy and others lying that there was no such thing as Gramscianism. the terrible thing is that when you finally find out what it is, the United States has utterly vulgarized Gramscianism to where it's like, everybody take over all the job slots before the White people notice you've done it {{em|so the center-Liberals will get votes and there will never be Gramscianism}}, but if they notice too fast you're trying to get a few Liberal-party votes for anti-racism they'll all get furious you're even doing that. that's this motif.
</li><li class="field_nations" data-qid="37,11" value="3711" data-dimension="S">freedom to not encounter LGBT+ people / the freedom to not encounter lesbians
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3712" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3713" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3714" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3715" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3716" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="37,17" value="3717" data-dimension="S">freedom to not encounter social-democrats / the freedom to not encounter social-democrats  ->  somewhat rare to see, but several Marxist articles complain about it and tell Marxists not to shun people who could help build overall national movements. so this is a motif in what {{em|some}} people say
</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="37,18" value="3718" data-dimension="S">freedom to not encounter Stalin-followers / the freedom to not encounter Stalin-followers (Stalinists, mainstream Marxist-Leninists; Trotskyism)  ->  basically every Trotskyist believes in this, whether they say it out loud or not. to me it's never made sense because it seems just as stupid as Q37,17.
</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-qid="37,19" value="3719" data-dimension="S">freedom to not encounter White people / the freedom to not encounter White people  ->  when "freedom" goes on long enough you'll get small groups of Black people or LGBT+ people just absolutely and utterly tired of straight White people to the point they almost don't want to see them, most often in reference to fictional media and not necessarily in reference to its audience.<br />
[[E:Berdly|Berdly]]'s character feels like an instance of coding this in the middle of an abstract fictional world — in a way that is mostly inoffensive until perhaps the moment you spell it out like this.
</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="DX" data-qid="37,20" value="3720" data-dimension="S">freedom to not encounter {{TTS|tts=United States|U.S.}} people / the freedom to not encounter the United States  ->  an idea which is nearly specific to China, or other Third World countries. definitely not as known in countries like the United Kingdom, Germany, or Australia.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-qid="37,21" value="3721" data-dimension="S">freedom to not encounter HTML / the freedom to not encounter HTML  ->  although I can understand this for about five seconds before I really think about it, it drives me up the wall and makes me not really want to use Gemini or the fediverse, just because it is so uncomfortably similar to all the other entries next to this. I have gone into detail about this on another entry.
</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-qid="37,22" value="3722" data-dimension="S">freedom to not encounter Javascript / the freedom to not encounter Javascript  ->  this one? this one is actually valid. when it's implemented as a kind of personal defense inside a browser where you can forbid all Javascript and only sometimes allow it when it's actually useful, that's about ideal. I don't really like attempts to try to ban the use of something that was already standardized such that there are no competing proprietary versions of the basic thing. the world needs more things like that, not fewer of them.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3725" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3730" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3731" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3732" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3733" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3734" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3735" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3736" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="right-Liberalism, LR" data-qid="37,37" value="3737" data-dimension="F2">Pointing out demographics facing racism is racist / If Trotsky says people in Alabama are racist, Trotsky is racist / If Joe Biden says "if", some hypothetical, "then you ain't Black", Joe Biden is racist  ->  both of these anecdotes of people saying this are real, unfortunately.<br />
the second one is the absolute worst because somebody actually tried to use it to explain logical fallacies, and in the process I think that person showed formal logic to be one giant fallacy itself. Joe Biden saying "...then you ain't Black" is a "some occurrence" statement, neither entirely true nor entirely false. it's another version of the trap statement "Black people experience structural racism. true/false?" to which the answer is "some occurrence". no other answer creates a sound statement than "neither true nor false, some occurrence". just like the trap statement "Communism is oppressive. true/false?" where the truest it gets is "rare occurrence" and it never gets all the way to "true". it says a lot about people's general ability to reason when they take the two statements "Communism is oppressive: rare occurrence" and "Trotskyism will succeed: no occurrence" and a ton of people sided with Trotsky. what those statements say is that Trotsky literally has no power to prevent Communism from being "oppressive" even if it was, and supporting Stalin or supporting Trotsky would have the same result if you actually want to end neoliberalism. if you support Stalin then you don't get Trotskyism, and if you support Trotsky then you don't get Trotskyism. and yet even so you get your Noam Chomskys who would literally rather take [[E:the Trotsky delusion|the 0% chance that Trotskyism succeeds]].

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="37,38" value="3738" data-dimension="S2">Tribes contain bureaucracy (tribal populations; indigenous people-groups; social structures)  ->  that slowfactory video was the weirdest thing. "we're better because we choose not to continue to be a corporation after our task." "we don't choose to continue to be a corporation because to stop colonialism we can't believe in bureaucracy". but older forms of society aren't inherently pure. in tribal populations for instance, there can be "bureaucratic" structures like a circle of elders. that was the entire premise of <cite>The Giver</cite>: that if you simplify society in the name of Communism that would (supposedly) cause it to revert to an earlier form and create an elder council that made all the decisions. humanity did not enter modernity because it created bureaucracy.
</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="37,39" value="3739" data-dimension="S">primitive communism  ->  a motif in early Marxism which basically amounts to remarking on how tribal populations are not yet divided up into tiny competing populations of one person each due to property lines or otherwise, and instead tend to form a single cohesive unit. this entry represents the motif exactly as it would appear in Marxist texts. the propositions below take it and attempt to make it more materially precise or fit for an era of meta-Marxism where there is not only one ideology interpreting things and we have to lay out the anarchist hypotheses as well as the Marxist hypotheses.
</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="37,40" value="3740" data-dimension="S2">Tribal populations model something about current societies  ->  in general this has to be true because even under historical materialism all societies contain the same palette of structures and processes.
</li><li class="field_anarchy"  data-qid="37,41" value="3741" data-dimension="S2">Tribal populations are a model for anarchy / primitive anarchism claim
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="37,42" value="3742" data-dimension="S2">Tribal populations are a model for individuals taking care of other individuals  ->  pay attention to how quickly people leap in logic from this to it being materially possible to create government programs.
</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="37,43" value="3743" data-dimension="S2">Tribal populations are a model for a classless society / primitive communism claim  ->  rather old now. somewhat doubtful for reasons nobody could have expected.
</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="37,44" value="3744" data-dimension="F2">Tribal populations are a model for the whole world being one population  ->  because the Item number was 44, I tried to think of some reason that tribal populations could be a model for Trotskyism. the first thing I thought of didn't make sense whatsoever. then I realized that the total nonsense statement was more insightful than things people actually say specifically because it was clearly wrong. Trotsky is like when you tune your guitar and you adjust it way too low so you can tune it up and tell where it's actually going. I swear Trotskyism will save us all specifically because it's the only thing where its wrongness is obvious; it's the only actual baseline standard of wrongness. yeah, anyway. one of the most obvious things about tribal populations is that they're [[E:plurality|plural]]. they were never a single indivisible population, and they easily come into conflict at various times in history. it seems to be fundamentally hard for humans to understand this fact, just looking at the Christian Old Testament, and Buddhism, and Trotskyism, and general-sense psychoanalysis or all its counterparts of the bourgeoisie becoming convinced that chopping everyone into a bunch of tiny islands makes humanity one population instead of a billion humanities as it actually does. human beings around the world have a really hard time with the concept that countries are plural, whether they want to dominate others or want to cooperate with others but end up being bad at it because their failure to understand [[E:plurality|plurality]] makes it impossible.

</li><li class="field_geo" data-qid="37,45" value="3745" data-dimension="S2">Tribal populations are a model for not destroying the environment / primitive environmentalism claim / indigenuity claim  ->  before anyone makes fun of this one, we have to remember that the tribal populations could be proposing it in this case. this doesn't mean they can't be wrong.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="37,46" value="3746" data-dimension="S2">Tribal populations are a model for government programs / primitive Menshevism claim  ->  why do we not. take a moment and realize that tribal populations are much smaller than the huge population we want to apply government programs to. they don't have government programs. (?) not in the specific large-scale sense the United States would have.
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="37,47" value="3747" data-dimension="S2">Tribal populations are a model for Deng Xiaoping Thought / There is such a thing as primitive Deng Xiaoping Thought  ->  this sounds like a total troll proposition purely put here as a joke, but I swear it's a proper jamming proposition. this is the claim that the thing tribal populations model is solid borders between physical populations where the people in the population interact mostly with each other and only sometimes with the outside and this encourages the population to develop or to take care of itself. it is then proposed that Deng Xiaoping Thought is a way to restore "primitive Deng Xiaoping Thought". if this proposition is accurate, it would provide evidence that there is a missing step in mainstream Marxism-Leninism. a country can achieve [[E:Deng Xiaoping process|Whatever This Is]] before it creates Bolshevism, or it can create Bolshevism before Whatever This Is while risking that outside countries totally tear it apart. it also may be possible for a country to create Whatever This Is inside a country using multiple subpopulations, and in the process get rid of one of the major problems plaguing the United States that people become stuck on elections but every election becomes about badly arguing over whether subpopulations should destroy each other.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="37,48" value="3748" data-dimension="S2">There is no primitive Menshevism / The "primitive communism" concept doesn't apply to Menshevism  ->  many people observe over and over that tribal populations in North America, Australia, etc, or around ten thousand years ago, often had this particular configuration where people inside a tribe "take care of each other" without attaching payment to the concept. what practically nobody realizes is there is a very particular set of conditions surrounding a tribe under which this happens. a tribe is often isolated from other groups of people by a large physical area such that even if they meet occasionally they cannot come into conflict. this one thing is drastically different from the modern age where tribe-sized subpopulations are constantly squashed into each other and fighting each other over things. the real question to ask ourselves on primitive Menshevism is whether societies of old would be able to take care of their people if they were constantly fighting each other, or constantly fighting European empires.
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="37,49" value="3749" data-dimension="S2">Industrial societies are a model for Existentialist-Structuralist ideologies / primitive Existentialism claim  ->  I think this is relatively easy to show. this is just a statement that the assumptions inside early-existentialism, Lacanianism and psychohistory, and so forth come directly from baking in certain aspects of Liberal-republican capitalism without ever thinking they could be different.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3750" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3751" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3752" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3753" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3754" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3755" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3756" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3757" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3758" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3759" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_mdem"     data-qid="37,60" value="3760" data-dimension="S">What is the function of a union?
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="37,61" value="3761" data-dimension="S2">The function of a union is to change capitalist behavior / The function of a union is to change the behavior of individual capitalists  ->  what I swear is the position in center-Liberalism and connected Existentialisms.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="37,62" value="3762" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="37,63" value="3763" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky"  data-qid="37,64" value="3764" data-dimension="S2">Unions are for creating workers' governments / The function of a union is to directly create workers' governments  ->  weird position in early Trotskyism that was strongly countered by Lenin.
</li><li class="field_gramsci"  data-qid="37,65" value="3765" data-dimension="S2">Unions are for empowering workers to change culture / The function of a union is to empower workers to change the popular mentality  ->  I have no citation for this right now, but this proposition is supposed to be the Gramscian position on unions. it can be redone if necessary

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="37,66" value="3766" data-dimension="S2">Unions are for the next generation to secure its right to exist / The function of a union is for the next generation of people to fight for subpopulational possession of territory against older generations who form into capitalist Filaments and {{caps|Wasp}} swarms  ->  mainstream Marxism-Leninism doesn't like to think this way, but it's the kind of question we have to contemplate to end Gramscian identity politics and Idealism. one of the things that keeps Liberalism going is clashes between whole demographic subpopulations as socially-linked subpopulations, and petty-bourgeois experts rising to the heads of the subpopulations to make sure each subpopulation is safe from whatever the other one is really or supposedly about to do to them. these could be a Black population versus a White population, or they could be a Democrat population versus a Republican population, or a Protestant and Catholic population against each other, etc. to take away the power of those experts to dictate everything that politics is, you have to have models of entire subpopulations operating headlessly as coordinated subpopulations; a simple statement that subpopulations have [[Term:Archon|Archons]] and [[E:anarchism|the Multitude has to kick the Archons out]] will not be enough to stop the subpopulations from kicking out their Archons and then descending into a blood feud. so, we begin here: the function of a union is to tie together people of a local subpopulation to fight for the right to be a proletariat instead of getting scattered off a territory and effectively Artisanized. the function of larger unions is to create <em>a</em> proletariat instead of plural proletariats. in the United States the entire existence of the proletariat has been attacked, and it has been variously shattered into smaller proletariats or sometimes extirpated from a region. this does have racial correlations — although not in the way that people want to think it does. United States people try to extirpate the proletariat because they are already linked into countable cultures covering spatial areas, such as "The Democratic Party" or "White Southern Baptist Christians" and they see the birth or entrance of the proletariat as a threat to existing countable cultures. in some senses, it <em>is</em> a threat — when a subpopulation of proletarians forms it forms its own countable culture socially and politically and may break up old traditions and bigotries. at the same time, it's quite easy to have a process like Black people trying very hard to integrate into the United States republic, studying the constitution and case law and becoming representatives and so forth, and in the process creating their own anti-proletarian subpopulation of experts that threatens to extirpate the Black proletariat if it doesn't do exactly what they say. it's generally the dynamic of [[E:multicapitalism|whole countable cultures colliding with each other while containing separate proletariats]] that causes all the problems.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3767" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3768" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3769" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="37,70" value="3770" data-dimension="S">Carl Sagan was lucky to land the best professors  ->  <cite>Demon Haunted World</cite>. I find it pretty funny I cite this book for Careerism more than for secular philosophy against religion
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="37,71" value="3771" data-remark="people-gambling; 770" data-dimension="S">job doomscrolling  ->  I have never seen this term but I don't know why, as it's perfectly intuitive to me as a concept that follows from saying people-gambling on social platforms is bad. if so, is there a point where you can be "doomscrolling" jobs looking for good ones but really just being addicted to the concept they'll magically get better and you'll find the only good one?

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="37,72" value="3772" data-dimension="S2">The reason petty bourgeoisie won't carry a revolution is precarity  ->  I won't mess around and try to tell you the bourgeoisie are the prime ingredient in a workers' movement; that would be ridiculous. the only reason I have to talk about such stupid things is the way literally all discourse in the United States is run by the bourgeoisie and has become [[E:Western Marxism|this weird game]] of "how do we rationally convince the bourgeoisie to not be {{censor|asshole}}s". all right, let's examine the Western Marxist question seriously. why <em>is it</em> the bourgeoisie are bad at committing to a workers' movement to break through capitalism? I'd say one of the top reasons is simply precarity. there are a far greater number of petty bourgeoisie than anyone wants to admit. and for them in particular, their career is always really precarious. they can't expect to remain in the same town. they can't expect to stay there and learn from all the workers. they have to attend to this fragile tiny business constantly and it takes away from their time to even go around and connect different groups of people. their ability to live is constantly threatening to shatter itself and they have nobody to turn around and protest about that. it only makes it worse that capitalism contains a natural shattering process where over time any particular business easily dies and when it dies everything the workers built up over their lives potentially dies and all the people become Artisanized a bit, pressured to make new businesses and start from scratch in their careers or have nowhere to work. when businesses are dying sometimes they guard against death by laying off a bunch of workers and keeping the non-dead part the best they can. a business which is greedily thriving is easy to strike against but a dying business may be harder because there's simply nothing to take back, it's just a case of the proletariat dissolving into nothing and if it fails, everyone being converted back into the bourgeoisie. now to be fair, in a Third World country [[E:TC8|people can have absolutely no hope of survival and build a workers' movement to gain that]]. in a First World country people chicken out of situations of great poverty and migrate to the first place they aren't precarious any more, and this has to do with the way that anyone who isn't suffering in First World countries joins into these [[E:Wasp Swarm|big nightmare Filaments]] where 2,000 people oppress one poor person before even 50 poor people can get together. in one sense the United States has always been colonial, aided by the "friendship" of people socially linking together just to build a farm and build a business and build the next generation and build the next generation, but dragged down by that same "friendship" when individual people fail to fit into countable cultures and suddenly 200 other people in the countable culture are all oppressing them at once. you see how a lot of the way, social problems are tied to not being able to predict the way populations reproduce and build and realize this structure and that structure from generation to generation. people being selected out of colonial cesspools in the United States and Soviet microdistricts failing people over generations are each ultimately kind of the same exact problem. that Marxism still sees human populations as static and doesn't model humanity as a thing that continuously reproduces and re-creates and realizes. as a material object that regenerates new instances of itself called "towns" or "suburbs" and can always suddenly regenerate the bourgeoisie just because it reproduced. if we knew the chemistry of this continuously reproducing thing and the different possible regeneration processes, we could fix it so that capitalism didn't realize again. it's in thinking that a single revolutionary event actually fixes the fundamental problem, rather than a science of actual continuing development, that we make our great mistake. back to this entry: having that particular science, you could <em>maybe</em> get some of the bourgeoisie into position so towns are more stable against business failure and they don't run away. no guarantees though.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" data-qid="37,73" value="3773" data-dimension="S2">There exist towns where public space contains 1 owner per 1 worker / There exist towns where public space contains 1 owner per 10 workers, and the majority of people is owners plus unemployed  ->  I am convinced this is one of the biggest differences between the First World and the Third World. in the Third World you get a ratio more like 1:100 inside the workplaces. in the First World you simply have to be able to work with that 1:1 ratio. but North Korea did it. you can do it if you have a genuine reason for the population to be united and for everybody to form into a larger object.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3774" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3775" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li data-qid="37,76" value="3776" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="F2">[[Ontology:Q3776|Solidarity is strictly optional]] / Any individual being part of any particular faction or subpopulation or town or business or party or ideology or country is strictly optional and voluntary  ->  the heart of how Existentialism in particular generates capitalism and anticommunism, how Deleuze and Guattari are essentially just screwing us over by exalting what oppresses us all. everyone's conception of progress is fundamentally this weird kind of "Freedomism" where it's thought that the exact opposite of any particular social oppression is Freedom. this is dangerous because it takes the notion of "solidarity" that emerged during the French Revolution and breaks the whole thing in two. if you think Freedom is the secret to everything (or even that Lived Experience is) then nobody will ever be required to form an enduring group which experiences solidarity, full stop. people will just look at their own needs and whenever their [[redlink - a Subject eats and occupies space|biological organism]] experiences suffering they'll get up and leave — exactly the way people left East Germany just because <i>being in group of people doesn't make survive good</i>. center-Liberals try to rapidly toss water out of the sinking ship by asserting that people have to be bound together by morality, and surely if nobody has to be connected they'll all connect together just because not standing with marginalized people against racists is morally wrong, but that [[redlink - Singer / Mr. Satan's path is never easy|doesn't really work]]. morality can never overcome ability and disability. if people are "free" to do whatever they will always desert you the moment the ability of their biological organism to perform the actual actions that help you drops off. this is how the notion of progressive struggles gets vulgarized into "the few people who are able to leave donations donating money". that is baseline existence before progress happens. donations are the symptom of everyone having separate parallel existences and not actually being able to help each other with anything because they are each individually struggling to stay alive. donations punish disability and reward the people who miraculously have the physical ability to do what is required of them whether or not anyone has made the requirements clear or left everybody to flail.

</li><li data-qid="37,77" value="3777" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q3777|Democracy is government of the person by the people]] / Democracy is government of the person, by the people and for the people / culturocracy proposition / democulture proposition (one of them)
</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-remark="anarculture" data-qid="37,78" value="3778" data-dimension="S2">Democracy is government of the culture by the people / Democracy is the people overcoming the Spanishness Office / democulturocracy proposition / democulture proposition (more proper one) / anarculture proposition (one of them)  ->  culturocracy is a "real" meta-Marxist term, but "democulturocracy proposition" is to be taken as a proper name, not an actual term; even I think that word is too silly.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="DG" data-qid="37,79" value="3779" data-dimension="S">state apparatus signifying regime  ->  not necessarily phrased this way, but this is the implied whole phrase. the motif of a "deterritorializing power" marking up particular required ontologies of groups of people and sellable units of land; to be contrasted with "rhizome sign regime". I don't like the subtle implications in the uses of terms like this that "centralization" is anything in particular, which never lead to anything good.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="37,80" value="3780" data-dimension="S">rhizome mathematics  ->  [https://thedewdrop.org/2020/05/08/deleuze-and-guattari-rhizome/ terribly mathematical descriptions] offered by D&G themselves; "neither one nor multiple" yet still growing sideways in some kind of graph-theory terms
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="37,81" value="3781" data-dimension="S">arborescent society / arborescence (schizoanalysis)  ->  <s>I have no idea what this even means. we're going to find out</s> edit: this fundamentally has to do with countability and the countability of subpopulations. Deleuze was trying to be all smart about the perfect principles that would supposedly keep a society from dividing, and basically ended up with the notion of a unity of opposites, which he decided to name "multiplicity". in the middle of this he seems to have obscured one of the most important distinctions in Materialism: the sheer division between material objects including populations.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="37,82" value="3782" data-dimension="S">rhizome sign regime / rules by which rhizome contains uncountable(?) Philosophical System  ->  sounds impossible in real life but definitely very interesting
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="37,83" value="3783" data-dimension="S">rhizome (schizoanalysis)

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3800" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3805" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3809" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="38,10" value="3810" data-dimension="S">Linear time cannot capture lived experience / Linear time can never capture the intuitive experience of time (Henri Bergson)  ->  Henri Bergson's assertion contrasted with Deleuze, which is this weirdly positivist conception of time that somehow inner experience equals time. when it generally really doesn't. if Bergson had just known about relativity he'd have seen that there can be separate parallel timelines (world lines) without any of them necessarily being consciously experienced. follows from: all events that occur around a person occur inside that person
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="38,11" value="3811" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="38,12" value="3812" data-dimension="S">lived experience and Santa Claus / Existentialism and Santa Claus  ->  this phrase sounds like a joke but I'm mostly being serious. Christmas movies are so weirdly obsessed with even after they are secular, appealing to what is basically Lived Experience. this seems to happen because of how religion takes a long time to fully leave people and thus people are always tempted to frame replacements for religion in magic-ritual terms. thus, you get these weird themes in Christmas stories about how Santa Claus <em>just has to be experienced</em>. to deny magic is to squash the Lived Experience you could be having but have closed yourself off to. the story is secular in that magic is taken as a fantasy element, imagined by the narrative, but the purpose of magic in the narrative is that it stands in for the notion that Lived Experience just has to be experienced and there is nothing like it except to experience it. Santa Claus stories are smuggling in [[Special:PermanentLink/6320|Henri Bergson]].

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3820" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3830" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_geo" data-remark="question that might reasonably be asked in physics or ecology" data-qid="38,38" value="3838" data-dimension="M3">Can science be the Last Unicorn? / Is scientific data vulnerable to the Last Unicorn fallacy?  ->  I think the answer is that it can be but it doesn't have to be. getting more information about different but similar scenarios can help break out of "unicorn" illusions. in some ways "[[E:Materialism and Empirio-criticism|psychical elements]]" are just one big problem with human perception that causes mirages.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="38,39" value="3839" data-remark="German Ideology 1C/1D 1840" data-dimension="S">drawing out a totality of human capacity (Marx) / the possibility for each human being to develop all powers, capacities, and talents they possess for the benefit of the overall society (Daniel Guérin 1970) [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281006148_Anarchism_the_State_and_the_Role_of_Education]  ->  a motif in Marx that for a while I would always keep thinking about periodically. what does it mean? should it be taken literally, that people have various abilities? or should it be taken more figuratively, that people have time to have well-rounded personalities with many interests? at first I took it literally, and I was like, is this a wrong projection of the future, given that people do that today as a product of dissolving the proletariat and "Saiyanizing" society into a fierce competition between individuals that paradoxically [[E:arrows around an axe|stands together]]? now I wonder if I overthought it and it was meant figuratively to simply say, if Bolshevism is prosperous then this incidentally happens, this is just the goal rather than a step anywhere in the middle.

</li><li data-qid="38,40" value="3840" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q3840|Applin is a scam]]  ->  several ideas to unpack

</li><li class="field_ML" data-remark="Lenin, Trotskyists" data-qid="38,41" value="3841" data-dimension="S2">The "Existentialist-Structuralist tradition" equals Idealism / The "Existentialist-Structuralist tradition" is synonymous with Idealism  ->  I would call this statement "fair" but missing only one tiny nuance. I think that Idealism is trying really hard to evolve into an ideology which is fully as elaborate as revolutionary ideologies, which is genuinely capable of replacing every part of Marxism. so I speak of the "Existentialist-Structuralist tradition" to try to characterize the process of Idealism narrowing itself down into the "perfect" Idealism capable of creating the perfect "anti workers' state". this seems to be a very messy process which has had many many attempts going in different directions and which has had many failures getting there, and also which may go multiple directions when it gets very close to being finished, producing a plurality of two or three different schemes for Existentialist republics. just as there are multiple competing Marxisms — mainstream Marxism-Leninism, Trotskyism, Gramscianism, etc. the bright side is that Marxisms can actually reason through their differences to ultimately come together, while Idealisms are incentivized all the way through to fight each other.

</li><li data-qid="38,42" value="3842" class="field_horror" data-dimension="Z"><cite>It's a Wonderful Life</cite>
</li><li data-qid="38,43" value="3843" data-remark="publication" class="field_horror" data-dimension="Z"><cite>A Christmas Carol</cite>
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="38,44" value="3844" data-dimension="S">superstructural world or cosmos  ->  superset of: superstructural fantasy world, superstructural boring world.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="38,45" value="3845" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q3845|superstructural fantasy world]] / Superstructure, meet base / what happens out there affects us in here (check wording? FNaF World)
</li><li class="field_horror"  data-qid="38,46" value="3846" data-dimension="S">superstructural boring world  ->  rather special case. Deltarune, Fionna & Cake<br />
historically, may technically exist in Gnosticism
</li><li class="field_horror" data-tradition="Fy, ES" data-qid="38,47" value="3847" data-dimension="S">non-magical magic creatures  ->  somehow Fionna and Cake and Deltarune are like the exact same genre of thing. Fionna and Cake is exactly the Deltarune of Adventure Time<br />
using the horror swatch rather lightly but it can definitely be cast as mildly horrifying.<br />
non-magical magic creatures + Pokémon vs Digimon = F2-55,40 Digimon is the Deltarune of Pokémon.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="38,48" value="3848" data-dimension="F2">Unicorns left texts due to extinction / Unicorns vanishing from manuscripts means unicorns went extinct ({{Book|The Last Unicorn}}) / Dragons are only seen in books because dragons went extinct ({{Book|The Fire Within}}) / Last Unicorn fallacy (proposition) / Last Unicorn effect (perception-internal, "Amalthean" framing)  ->  the motif of mistaking descriptions or perceptions of reality for the reality a text's author experienced. named for the book or animated film <cite>The Last Unicorn</cite>, where this fallacy was used imaginatively to portray a fantasy world where unicorns vanishing from manuscripts happened because real live unicorns gradually went extinct. (at least, apparently — it's a long story.)<br />
I partly wanted to make this the charcoal color for Idealism, but the fantasy color might be better, just because of how <cite>The Last Unicorn</cite> is in some ways a quintessential embodiment of what fantasy stories even are.<br />
also... oh gosh. this + Trotsky = Trotsky's letter describes an alternate reality

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="38,49" value="3849" data-dimension="S2">Perceptions are names for objects / Perceptions are names for perceptual constellations making up real-world objects / Inside the mind sensory information is indistinguishable from signifiers  ->  what I thought of instantly when Mach talked about "symbols". but somehow that wasn't what he was saying.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="38,50" value="3850" data-dimension="S">crossing from mental images into physical world  ->  appears in: <cite>Materialism and empirio-criticism</cite>, <cite>Deltarune</cite>. this motif is blue because it appears in Jungian psychoanalysis. (which is also arguably part of the basis of Deltarune)
</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="38,51" value="3851" data-dimension="S2">Experiencing a unicorn doesn't make it real / Regarding the whole world as qualia fails to explain where the world comes from  ->  there are definitely reasons people try to build models like this, and I think those reasons are somewhat orthogonal to this complaint. I think the justification will often be something like trying to explain human error from lack of knowledge, or individuals' prejudices. the dumb thing about that though is Idealist models are never prepared to comprehend the existence of multiple minds having different kinds of errors, or how that actually affects behavior or interactions. it's always, I could be wrong but I'm still the only person that exists. you could do better with Gödel's incompleteness theorem. that actually presents a way of taking logic or thought and stepping out of it to treat it as a self-contained thing to evaluate how well it can evaluate itself. Idealism is like meta-ontology but bad.
</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="38,52" value="3852" data-dimension="S2">People's minds are not a single mind-plane / We don't live in <cite>Deltarune</cite> / Idealism is unworkable because Stalin doesn't perceive reality through Trotsky / Stalin doesn't perceive reality through Trotsky / Vegeta doesn't perceive reality through Goku

</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="38,53" value="3853" data-dimension="S2">If the brain was a liver you wouldn't see anything / If the brain is a liver, you won't see anything / If the brain secretes consciousness like the liver secretes bile, that does not explain where external objects come from and how there are any external objects for people to see
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="38,54" value="3854" data-dimension="S2">Structuralist linguistics is better than empirio-criticism  ->  I don't think this is much of a hot take. I think structuralism gets better when you see it specifically as ontology rather than language, but otherwise, yeah, it's literally better
</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="38,55" value="3855" data-dimension="S2">If we can only perceive sensations and not object models, there's no way to predict how they will connect  ->  somehow both a problem in Idealism and fiction
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3856" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3857" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3858" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="38,59" value="3859" data-dimension="S">the earth was the experience of a worm / prior to man the earth was the experience of a worm  ->  this one is violet because this thought experiment would get you all the way to meta-Marxism if you only did it with "the world before mainstream Marxism-Leninism" or "the world before Trotskyism". if Trotsky was only smart enough to be able to see a world where he hadn't been born and realize that for a Marxist theorist people are fungible and the actual world shouldn't be different we wouldn't be in this mess
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="38,60" value="3860" data-dimension="S2">Sensation is a fence / We can only perceive psychical elements, not physical elements  ->  the positivist core of [[Ontology:Q19,09|empirio-criticism]]<br /> yeah, it's more of a fuzzy boundary between a lawn and a road if it's anything.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="38,61" value="3861" data-dimension="S2">Everyone has their own unicorns / Last Unicorn effect (neutral, "Beagelian" framing of the phenomenon)  ->  the claim that all perception is vulnerable to the problem of people's internal ontological models distorting into incorrect "fantasy worlds" containing unreal mirages known as "unicorns". the unicorns are artifacts of everything a person knows, sees, creates, or discusses with others, but not what real material things a person actually bumps into. sometimes, unicorns are harmless — some unicorns are cultural fabrications that some number of people manage to agree on and thus are able to communicate with each other about without any confusion even though they are not "real". to some extent, unicorns enable us to be able to do pure mathematics, construct systems of logic, write fantasy books, and generally think abstractly. at the same time, they can cause problems when they blatantly do not match the real things they are supposed to represent, or when they are abstract and two people do not have the same particular unicorn they need each other to understand and frustratedly keep trying to explain it to each other but for some reason one person refuses to stop and reconstruct it.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto Aa" data-qid="38,62" value="3862" data-dimension="S2">{{TTS|tts=object small a|"𝖺"}} is a {{TTS|unicorn|unicorn|title=unicorn (perception)|E=Q3861}}  ->  the claim that Freudian theories are often talking about the Last Unicorn effect, and specifically that the concept of "{{TTS|tts=small a|𝖺}}" is a unicorn because it is always generated in the mind instead of reality. I honestly have my doubts that the small-a concept is even true, because it's like, no, the whole body generates desires, not just the mind, so some of them have to be real needs that are in contradiction with the world, not simply imagined things that are false. even the things that you come up with intellectually could fall under this, because they are separated by the barrier between your body and the world, not the barrier between your mind and reality itself.<br />
I do not think you can end up at an accurate analysis of Trotskyism unless you have an interpretation something like this. and you know what that means. it means you don't understand the assembly of societies or the progression of history. and if you don't understand history, you can't even predict with strong confidence that "democracy" will still be standing tomorrow, so don't even try that.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="38,63" value="3863" data-dimension="S2">Concepts don't cause themselves / Ideas don't cause themselves  ->  slightly complicated, because it depends on what you mean by "idea". if idea is the same as ideal, then definitely ideals don't cause themselves. but if they are imaginary {{em|physical objects}} they can create causality through reterministic wave-machine interactions.
</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="38,64" value="3864" data-dimension="S2">Revisionist Marxisms don't cause themselves  ->  the claim that the internal models of groups practicing revisionist Marxisms are not causing modeled realizations of the models that then empower actual realizations, and only underlying class phenomena cause revisionist Marxisms. this one seems rather up in the air. I lean toward the possibility that this actually can happen yet there is a mix of each outcome happening. some incorrect Marxisms are good enough to model their own realization and realize, but some of them are just obscuring underlying class processes.
</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="38,65" value="3865" data-dimension="S2">Ideals don't cause themselves / Concepts in the Idealist or Platonically-rational sense do not cause themselves (in the Cartesian sense; rationalism)  ->  likely true.
</li><li data-qid="38,66" value="3866" data-remark="mdem chapter 'who the hell is sans'" class="field_geo" data-dimension="F2">Models don't cause themselves / Models can cause models (admitted possibility)  ->  likely false. A) given enough lore rules, sans undertale can cause himself; Undertale rules can cause sans. B) necessary to do physics experiments.<br />
the first case is a little fraught because fiction always chooses some rules arbitrarily and intuitively, and those don't cause themselves. but it's incorrect to say fiction never contains materially-consistent models.
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="38,67" value="3867" data-dimension="S2">Models can cause unicorns / Physical or materialist models can cause models which do not refer to reality but are internally consistent (Last Unicorn effect; meta-ontology, meta-Marxism)  ->  not the exact same thing as ideals causing ideals.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3868" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3869" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_geo" data-qid="38,70" value="3870" data-dimension="S">Chinese-speaking room / Chinese room thought experiment  ->  it's supposed to be about language but it is weirdly relevant to all forms of perception.
</li><li class="field_geo" data-qid="38,71" value="3871" data-dimension="S">Dr. Mary in the monochrome room / Dr. Nancy in the monochrome room (typo) / colour-ese speaking room / colour-ese room (color-ese; thought experiment)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="38,72" value="3872" data-dimension="S2">Mary in the monochrome room does not understand perception
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" data-qid="38,73" value="3873" data-dimension="S2">Mary in the monochrome room understands perception / Mary the color scientist in the monochrome room {{em|does}} understand color perception (colour; scientific studies of conscious perception)  ->  controversial, but I feel like this is the better Materialist position. you can't actually experience other people's Lived Experiences, so at any given time the absolute best ways of studying people's perceptual processes from the outside are sufficient. there is nothing wrong with observational studies of people's anecdotes, but it is implied in this proposition that observational studies of people's anecdotes are also equally considered studies from the outside, because you are never inside their heads.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="38,74" value="3874" data-dimension="S">Henry-seconds and Felix-seconds  ->  a concept that came up on [[Term:multiplicity]], to demonstrate the relationship between general relativity and Lived Experience. two people [[E:Henri Bergson|Henry]] and [[E:Felix Guattari|Felix]] may each be having an inner experience of the "irreducible" flow of time, but if Henry will never experience Felix-seconds then it is useless to try to get him to appreciate Henry-seconds by talking about Felix-seconds or vice versa. although relativity may be mildly unintuitive at first, it does do a great job of showing how Henry-seconds can exist even though Felix doesn't experience them. Henry and Felix are each experiencing separate timelines that interact, not a single overarching timeline. no need to get into Henry-seconds and how great and un-captured by science they are, when assuming they aren't described by science is just failing to understand science.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3875" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3876" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3877" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="38,78" value="3878" data-dimension="S2">A palette swap can see a different red / A CSS stylesheet can see a different red / Paint-chip colors are connected to absolute colors by signs, therefore a tool that edits all chip-to-perception signs at once has changed perception  ->  this dawned on me while testing a colorblind stylesheet and I haven't thought about the "different red" question the same way since. if a webpage says "box_red" and the CSS stylesheet turns it from rose to sea or from rose to fir, haven't you then finally figured out how to experience a different red? or if you take a Famicom-era game designed for a certain limited color palette and you swap the colors. {{em|only while}} you're looking at the color-swapped sprites you'd be seeing a different red, and I cannot justify why it wouldn't be in the exact same sense as the thought experiment. colors are always defined relative to each other. a sprite palette designed based on the real world is almost exactly the same thing as how colors are relative to each other in real life.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="ES / MX" data-qid="38,79" value="3879" data-dimension="S2">Colorblind people also have a different red / Colorblind people are indistinguishable practically from people with a different red / Colors are practically identified through similarities between paint-chip colors, not by what absolute color people see, so only a difference in which paint-chip colors are grouped together should count as experiencing red differently  ->  it's so typical for people to say "when I talk about people seeing a different red, I don't mean they're colorblind". why not? what are you asserting the difference to be? it could be that philosophers think that there are unique activations in the brain for red and blue, and they are saying that the eyes are the same but the brain is different. this is at least somewhat possible, in that some people with brain damage cannot recognize colors as particular names. [https://eyesurgeryguide.org/understanding-color-blindness-and-brain-damage/] but. let's consider the world as a collection of material objects. every person learns to recognize colors by grouping physical things, like water on a sunny day and blue jays. if the person cannot see blue, and groups sand and water together, there is a difference in perception, because the person sees the details of the objects as belonging to a new signifier. if a person groups cardinals with pine trees, that is distinctly a colorblind perception, but if a person groups cardinals with sunsets and pine trees with jade, that is distinctly a typical perception. say that somehow there was such a thing as absolute color, and red and green were cosmic objects, but humans always named things in crayola colors: cardinals are rose, blue jays are robin, pine trees are forest, and sand is lemon. say that in that world, there are three people: Alex, Bob, and Carol. Bob says that cardinals are forest and pine trees are rose; he sees cardinals as yellow and pine trees as yellow. Alex says that cardinals are rose and pine trees are forest; they see cardinals as red and pine trees as green. Carol says that cardinals are rose and pine trees are forest; she sees cardinals as green and pine trees as red. there is no practical difference between Alex and Carol. every single thing they communicate with each other will be understandable, and every action they take in the world will be comparable. Carol can even create art that does not look colorblind and looks perfectly normal to Alex, because Carol has always observed the natural world and the relationships between things in the natural world the same way she draws them, while Alex also perceives the same set of relationships between all things in the natural world. we need to step back and look at the social impact of that. Alex and Carol are much closer to seeing the world the exact same as each other than Stalin and Trotsky. Stalin and Trotsky see the same colors but the messages they attempt to communicate with each other and their ability to perceive those messages are drastically different. they technically both believe in Leninism. they should be the same. but they're not the same, because Trotsky perceives a particular arrangement of groups of people one way and Stalin perceives it another way. if significance to an ideology and recommended action were a color, Trotsky sees state businesses as robin, Stalin sees state businesses as rose. the difference between them is in what category or signifier they parse a particular object as being part of. but, in whatever way this may have happened, they have learned this categorization of objects into signifiers during their lives. and this active categorization and assignment is what makes perceptions different; if you didn't choose what category something is in and somebody else was assigned the exact same categorization system, they are mathematically equivalent perceptual systems. let's go back to Bob. even though he did not choose to be colorblind, it directly affects the process of his brain categorizing objects into signifiers, in his case in a nicely predictable way. when Bob categorizes cardinals as forest or pine trees as rose, it is subjective in the same sense as Trotsky categorizing state businesses as robin based on his knowledge, because both perceptions rely on The Subject taking objects and putting them in signifiers. subjective perceptions matter to daily life because differences between them result in the need to understand subjective experiences and experience intersubjectivity or empathy, or at the very least in the need to do meta-Marxist analysis of the development of countable cultures and ideologies. if Trotsky had some weird perceptual issue where he literally looked at state businesses and saw an undulating hydra, but all he said was that state businesses are rose and genuinely believed that signifier and all around was a mainstream Marxist-Leninist in both his actions and his beliefs, that inner experience wouldn't matter to anyone. it's when Trotsky looks at state businesses and sees them as robin and then says they're robin versus somebody else categorizing them differently that it actually matters to everybody. so, really, colorblind perception should be more significant than a stupid thought experiment where Alex and Carol both agree cardinals are rose and pine trees are forest. when Bob says that cardinals are forest, that <em>is</em> his red. everything that has ever been red to most people <em>is</em> yellow to Bob, but as Bob goes through life he always has to see everybody else call it red, so it <em>is</em> red to him inasmuch as it <em>is</em> rose to him. I guess what I'm saying is that there is no practical difference between red and rose or green and forest. I have a mathematical reason, in structuralist linguistics and perception. I have a historical reason, in Stalin and Trotsky going through subjective perception and forming warring "countries", which nobody should want. I have a humanities reason, in that it is pointless to talk about inner experience and lived experience and qualia if the point is not to better experience it and understand how to treat other people — well, inasmuch as those results are the whole reason people usually talk about lived experience in the first place and without the usual motivating rationale of talking about lived experience then what is the logical reason to even bring up lived experience. I feel like that's pretty sufficient, even if not exhaustive. this old thought experiment misses the point of talking about perception.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="38,80" value="3880" data-dimension="S">paint-chip color / Crayola-style color
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="38,81" value="3881" data-dimension="S">absolute color

</li><li data-qid="38,82" value="3882" data-remark="The Lady or the Tiger" class="field_mdem" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q3882|dreadfully unclear word]] (meta-Marxism) / ambiguous word or phrase / term useless for communication / term with different interpretations in every philosophy, ideology, and belief system  ->  earlier today this started as a half-joke labeled "words RD hates", but the rules are that you're supposed to be able to cite some kind of work or in-draft manual, so I settled for this being some heading in a hypothetical meta-Marxist manual about word usage. ironically enough, this Item itself is <i>highly</i> useful for defining our policy on Lexemes. Lexeme - instance of - dreadfully unclear word

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3883">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3884">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3885">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3886">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3887">??

</li><li data-qid="38,88" value="3888" class="field_nations" data-dimension="S">molecularized nationalism / molecularized theory of fascism / molecular fascism
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3889">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3890">??
</li><li data-qid="38,91" value="3891" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">atomized theory / atomic theory / theory defined by individuals
</li><li data-qid="38,92" value="3892" class="field_mdem"     data-dimension="S">molecularized theory / molecular theory / theory defined by Particle Theory / theory defined by graphs or constellations / theory defined by connections but ostensibly discarding individuals
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3983">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3984">??
</li><li data-qid="38,95" value="3895" class="field_mdem" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q3895|Caesar Antichrist sees all possible worlds while men glimpse just one]]

</li><li class="field_nations" value="3896" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_nations" value="3897" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_nations" value="3898" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_nations" value="3899" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_nations" value="3900" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_nations" value="3901" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_nations" value="3902" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_nations" value="3903" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_nations" data-qid="39,04" value="3904" data-dimension="F2">{{TTS|tts=Dungeons & Dragons|D&D}} is not gay whatsoever / Dungeons and Dragons is absolutely not gay {{YouTube|cUyvUjBc-Eg}}  ->  arguably, it's been a wave of minorities that were previously excluded from it that even brought it back. it's been this special case of not even nostalgia but genuinely people discovering it for the first time and catapulting it out to "normal" people or vice versa in a certain back-and-forth.<br />
sub-case of: Lesbian writers would never want to write about lesbians.
</li><li class="field_nations" data-qid="39,05" value="3905" data-remark="approximate lesbian flag color" data-dimension="F2">[[Ontology:Q3905|Lesbian writers would never want to write about lesbians]] / Show writers including lesbian relationships is always fanservice / Show writers writing about lesbians are never lesbians  ->  encountered this in a video recently. video essayist seemed to believe writers would only ever write about lesbian relationships if some great Rhizome of people came down on them and forced them to. which is a really funny belief when their two examples, Adventure Time and Steven Universe, included actual LGBT+ people at least somewhere on the cast. you can't exert democulture on a lesbian to force plots about lesbians when the ideas are already there. that said, there is a deeper issue to look at. what do we term graph struggle between microcolonies? if people are mad that one microcolony for LGBT+ characters is enclosing people instead of another microcolony, is ignoring this some kind of lesser parallel to condoning inter-imperialist conflict? lesbians or progressive people taking over what amount to empires is only so much of a victory if the real complaint is people are tired of being herded into empires and told what to think, even if the things they're told to think are good things.

</li><li class="field_nations" data-qid="39,06" value="3906" data-dimension="F2">Whenever books are sanitizing the existence of genuinely hateful factions in real life, fanfiction and fanfiction writers are the culprit {{YouTube|x3NPxraALq0}}  ->  well. this one is at least creative. it's wrong on a technical level. beginning writers existing didn't result in a bunch of Deltarunes. (that's a funny sentence to even say, because, like, "despite" at least half the main characters being gay or bisexual nobody would say {{game|Deltarune}} was written by a beginner.) but at the same time... okay, Tories, you produced an actually interesting proposition that's kind of worth talking about for the wrong reasons. {{em|should}} literature be realistic? should literature try to genuinely portray things as they actually are? I think there are times that's good and times it isn't necessary. the presenter of this video, ironically, doesn't understand abstraction and thus has bad media literacy. I could fairly accuse her of being a beginner-tier "once fanfiction author" if this problem appeared in her books.<br/>
other thought: how does this concept interact with the idea of taking fictional settings and using them to write meta-transitional socialist realism? like, if this writer is correct, writing a fan fiction where there are Communist parties or workers' states would be a good thing because it would be more realistic; it would include things that have existed several times historically, and it could discuss the difficult challenges of actually doing these things instead of falsely presenting Marxism as "utopian". that author thinks fanfiction is bad because it's "self-indulgent". but it could go either way, you can get into making seemingly rosy settings really dark just by exploring the realities of trying to counter imperialism and this idea that many people who seem nice can become utterly cruel when they detect that Communists exist. when I was messing around with the MLP setting I just knew what would make the most sense and be very funny is after Twilight learns the SSSR is not so bad for Celestia to suddenly heel turn and be like yeah we're going to destroy them in a horrible cold war, no more friendship, no nothing. but I kind of liked how Undertale is so absurdly friendly I just couldn't imagine anything but Asgore seeing the Communist party and being like "yeah ok" ""

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3907" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3908" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3909" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3910" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3911"><cite>Twentieth Century Continental Philosophy</cite> (May 1997)  ->  not-especially-remarkable compilation book outlining many of the periods of philosophy which appear to form a single tradition known here as the Existentialist-Structuralist tradition. I do not believe either "analytic" or "continental" to be synonymous with this tradition; it seems to straddle both categories at times.
</li><li class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="field_nations" data-dimension="S">molecular nationalism / molecular Toryism  ->  believed to refer to: right-Existentialism
</li><li class="field_nations" data-dimension="S">molecular imperialism  ->  believed to refer to: capitalism
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">molecularized democratic regime / molecular democracy (generic)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">molecular Liberalism  ->  believed to refer to: Existentialism
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S0">molecular Socialism
</li><li class="field_anarchy"  data-dimension="S">molecular Anarchism
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">molecularized Multitude theory  ->  I'm slowly becoming more certain that Rhizome is this
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">molecularized Existentialism  ->  Existentialist periods that believe in graphs or Social-Philosophical Systems
</li><li class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="number_empty">??

</li><li class="field_nations" value="3960" data-dimension="Z">al-Qaeda  ->  basically, it's a tiny army for fundamentalist Islam spread over a few countries, and it was associated with 9/11. it appears that many people especially in Russia have gotten very confused about it and sometimes insist it's protecting the Third World from the United States when in reality it's not necessarily doing anything good for anybody. I vaguely know about three other buzzword names that get thrown around when people want the United States to hate other countries. I don't know very much about the motivations behind any of them.<br />
note: al-Qaeda is relatively "Take It Seriously", but joke statements where the joke is focused on something else are fine.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3961" data-remark="MrEnter is like, right-Liberal? whether he's a Tory is up in the air, he's bad but not totally terrible" data-dimension="S2">{{book|Turning Red}}'s universe experienced 9/11 / The {{book|Turning Red}} universe experienced 9/11  ->  this is so funny because like, it's technically true, but not exactly. would 9/11 affect the overall country even in the universe of the movie? yes. would it necessarily affect the city or town the movie takes place in? no. that's just it. this statement is "has some occurence" but it's not flat-out "true". this goes in the "Causality in fiction" ontology along with "Steven Universe revived Pinkie Pie"
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3962" data-dimension="F2">{{book|Turning Red}}'s narrative should mention 9/11 / {{book|Turning Red}}'s narrative would be affected by 9/11  ->  this is the version {{TTS|tts=Mr. Enter|MrEnter}} actually said.

</li><li class="field_ML" value="3963" data-dimension="S2">Al-Qaeda is anticommunist  ->  this statement might sound dumb because many people are immediately going to say "aren't there more obvious reasons to be against it?". but in terms of world history and where things came from, it's very much worth pointing out. if Communists don't win in Iraq, then somebody is obligated to "protect" Iraq from the Soviet Union. and if al-Qaeda is there they're certainly going to try. and if the United States eradicates Communism in Russia, Alexander Dugin can look over at al-Qaeda and go, hmm, at least there's still one group of people protecting the Third World from the United States. being anticommunist in the Third World is a dangerous game, and the United States doesn't understand this at all — if the United States is a nation of ideas founded on freedom and prosperity why would anyone be afraid of the United States? and that's the fatal fallacy of Existentialism. that walnuts can be free when other "free" walnuts are constantly threatening to crack them open and take away their "free will" by any reasonable definition.

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="DX" value="3964" data-dimension="S2">The {{TTS|html=abbr|tts=Communist Party of China|CPC}} is not as bad as al-Qaeda / The Communist Party of China is not as bad as al-Qaeda  ->  seems objectively true but many people don't figure it out.<br />
honestly. I don't think {{em|Trotskyists}} have figured this out.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="39,65" value="3965" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_gramsci field_LGBT" data-qid="39,66" value="3966" data-dimension="Z">Simon Nkoli  ->  South Africa; founded GLOW in order to have a gay/lesbian rights organization within the context of the struggle against apartheid, instead of from the context of bettering Europe(?). I've never heard of him before today but sounds good so far

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="39,67" value="3967" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="39,68" value="3968" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="39,69" value="3969" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_fantasy field_LGBT" data-tradition="LGBT onto Fy" data-qid="39,70" value="3970" data-dimension="S">male rivalries and gay subtext (fiction) / two male rival characters fixating on each other has gay subtext  ->  one of those things that's often not intended to be true but then based on evidence that piles up becomes confusing and hard to ignore. it's one of those cases of accidental representation, where the author doesn't think something is possible and then accidentally depicts it.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="39,71" value="3971" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="39,72" value="3972" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="39,73" value="3973" data-dimension="S2">Reactionaries are just like Voldemort / Center-Liberals are just like Harry Potter fighting the death eaters  ->  this old trope becomes so bizarre when you realize how much transphobia and destructive nationalism comes from buying a Harry Potter book. comparing Harry Potter to the real world is like death eaters versus death eaters. the really terrible thing about this proposition? you'd have to prove center-Liberals have more principles than the Harry Potter series to prove the analogy is not accurate, and I'm not sure that's actually possible. the most accurate assessment might actually be that transphobes versus nazis is about where <em>actual</em> United States elections are, and the comparison is right for entirely the wrong reasons.
</li><li value="3974" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S2">Transgender people can't own Harry Potter books / Gay people can't own Harry Potter books  ->  there's a pretty good argument for not buying new ones. that said, some people really do go as far as getting rid of all of them because they know a transgender person, and not knowing the context that would look pretty weird. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHvWWJ-640E] this begins to look like the same basic form of statement as "Protestants can't be gay". it raises a lot of questions about where this general <em>form</em> of statement is coming from in terms of what basic social dynamics are producing it.

</li><li value="3975" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">Platform 9¾ / Platform nine and three quarters (9 3/4)  ->  this came back to mind when I was thinking about schizoanalysis and Rhizome and their worship of everything "in-between", and then how Platform 9¾ becomes the key to letting wizards freely exist in the <cite>Harry Potter</cite> universe. runs narratively parallel to: secret abnormal Gaster hallway
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3976" data-dimension="S">retroactive LGBT+ character / Dumbledore is gay / Word of Gay (TV Tropes)  ->  Rowling's idea of representing the anomaly and the exception. very interesting when you think about it that people hate this when an author does it but when fans do the exact same kind of retcon people more or less receive it well. what would the difference be? in either case the same group of "meddling executives" is telling the writer or fan that the original work, that any self-respecting Disney show, can't show people a queer couple, so they're both getting around it with secret retcons.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3977" data-dimension="S">unofficial LGBT+ retcon / "I don't care if it isn't canon" (LGBT+)

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3978" data-dimension="S">assigned harpoon at birth (Ahab) / Land Gay Before Time / Lesbian Gay Pikachu Eevee / Lesbian Gay Bacon Lettuce Tomato (South Park) / Maoist who Loves Men (MLM) / mainstream men (MSM) / Liberal, Gay, Bisexual, Trotsky  ->  the motif of accidentally reading acronyms that have nothing to do with gender / LGBT+ as "definitely" being a strange new variation of an LGBT+ acronym. not to be confused with acrostics where a word is simply structuring an arbitrary set of words. this is when two actual acronyms collide and people start reading one of them as the other even if they aren't exactly the same
</li><li class="field_nations" value="3979" data-dimension="S">don't listen to the MSM  ->  the motif that gay and bisexual people are supposedly at all media outlets or every popular media outlet filling them with "the LGBT agenda"

</li><li class="field_horror" value="3980" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q3980|taking baby, fleeing Estonia]] / taking baby, fleeing Russia / taking the baby & escaping dystopia / taking the baby and escaping the bad society  ->  now that this has appeared in two things, <cite>The Giver</cite> and a <cite>Growing Around</cite> theory, it can be a motif.

</li><li class="field_ML"   value="3981" data-dimension="S2">In any particular anticommunist fable, Liberal countries exist  ->  the generic fan theory that if a story like "1984" continued on it would be ~10 external Liberal countries that show up to destroy the anomalous civilization, just like in real life
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3982" data-dimension="S2">In any particular anticommunist fable, other socialisms exist  ->  the generic fan theory that every anticommunist fable is technically meta-transitional literature and if it went on other kinds of civilizations with particular named ideologies would happen. appears to be the case for <cite>The Giver</cite>, where people are blatantly constructing Anarchisms.

</li><li value="3983" class="field_horror" data-dimension="S">cognitohazard / infohazard  ->  I think entirely too much about how this is similar to the concept of containing information about a government or society that would cause people to take a narrow view and behave the wrong way. I mean, when this concept is connected to crazy conspiracies about what the government is "really" covering up, of course it is... but SCP entries and modern 2010s horror stories in general have really taken the concept in a new direction by making the anomalies something people genuinely would not want to know and regret learning about.
</li><li value="3984" class="field_trotsky" data-dimension="S">secret room of forbidden books (<cite>The Giver</cite>, <cite>Girl from the other side</cite>) / decisions made in elder council (<cite>The Giver</cite>) / figurative priests (anarchism) / "hermetically-sealed compartments of knowledge" (<cite>Demon-haunted world</cite>)  ->  Sagan's quote is so good
</li><li value="3985" class="field_anarchy" data-dimension="S2">The Giver quartet is about wrecking Trotskyism  ->  this sounds random until you look at the books very closely to discover how they have clearly misinterpteted specific Trotskyist texts
</li><li value="3986" class="field_anarchy" data-dimension="S2">The Giver quartet is about building an Anarchism  ->  when I capitalize Anarchists, it's a placeholder for civilizational shape words like "Kropotkinism" or "Bookchinism". I don't have a lot of knowledge about specific "Anarchisms" but I do know a few different kinds of named "Anarchisms" clearly exist and it's worth distinguishing which ones to be able to evaluate whether they will be successful. also? if anarchists get mad when you try to <em>broadly</em> categorize different kinds of Anarchisms, it only further identifies that they do have specific beliefs that set them apart as a specific group of people. being an Existentialist and thinking that believing in utopia really hard or believing in the concept of non-ideology really hard will unite people together and build an Anarchism is also an ideology. you aren't free of ideology just because you believe in Existentialism.
</li><li value="3987" class="field_anarchy" data-dimension="S2">The Giver is about Anarchists wrecking Trotskyism / The Giver quartet is about Anarchists wrecking Trotskyism to create an Anarchism  ->  this is such an interesting concept to talk about because if true, the book is a sectarian quarrel or inescapable conflict between two different civilizational shapes (Bauplans) rather than a universal message for everybody. don't even try to twist that into an anti-Anarchist, pro-center-Liberal argument though. if the inescapable conflict between Social-Philosophical-Material Systems supports Liberalism, then it supports the constant oppression of different groups of people beneath each other such as center-Liberals under Tories because minus colonialism no group of human beings would ever be guaranteed to behave.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3988">??
</li><li class="field_ML" value="3989" data-dimension="S2">The Soviet Union exists in the <cite>Fantastic Beasts</cite> films  ->  if realistic footage of World War II exists this is technically true.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3990">??
</li><li value="3991" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S2">[[E:Q3991|Philosophers have tried to change the world; our job is to interpret it]] / Philosophers have only tried to change the world in various ways; our job is to interpret it  ->  my pet peeve and the absolute heart of most of the E-S tradition
</li><li value="3992" class="field_mdem" data-dimension="S0">named molecular Marxism  ->  a named molecular Marxism is simply a named Marxism which has been molecularized. when this entry was first added to the list I had some actual names of Marxisms below this but I decided those more appropriately go in the 4000s next to all the "things that are more materially possible than Trotskyism".
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3993" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3994" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3995" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3996" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3997" data-dimension="S0">??

</li><li value="3998" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">reverting from the anomalous hyper-future to the past
</li><li value="3999" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">beyond the end of history in the hyper-future / Communism as bad fake historical period  ->  the motif of real history versus fake historical periods applied to workers' states. usually a workers' state is asserted to be a "fake" historical period for reasons having to do with central government; that seems somewhat more common than it being based on fine-grained social structure. people will pinpoint one figurehead or a tiny council of people as a reason to attack a whole population.

</li></ol><noinclude>

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