View source for User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-1

<h2 id="section-100"><span class="mw-headline">Unsorted Items (page 1)</span> <span class="mw-editsection plainlinks"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span>[https://research.moraleconomy.au/index.php?title=User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-1&action=edit edit]<span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h2>

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

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="DG" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Multiplicity is not representable in math (Deleuze)  ->  this is such an ironic use of words, like, in its basic use multiplicity is the division into multiple things, which is all over math. the way Deleuze uses [[Term:multiplicity|multiplicity]] is really really strange

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Because inconsistent multiplicity is a void in math, underlying reality is a void (Badiou) [https://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/alain-badiou-badiou-deleuze/]  ->  what does it mean. what does it mean.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Things have to separate to carry out an Event (Badiou) [https://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/alain-badiou-badiou-deleuze/]  ->  this is complicated because on one hand it's possible to apply it wrong but on the other, I don't understand why schizoanalysts think this is a problem. it sounds to me as if schizoanalysts really hate the concept of Social-Philosophical Systems or population-societies and just don't want to believe that movements exist or countable workers' states exist and they want to create a black-flag anarchism without having to reconcile the notion that individuals eat and occupy space into the concept that whenever individuals join together they become separate group-objects that eat and occupy space against other groups. schizoanalysts hate [[E:existential materialism|exmat]], is what it feels like. and I don't see how they should when comprehending the concepts of [[E:structural racism|structural racism]] and the [[E:Black Panther Party|Black Panther Party]] require exmat or something resembling it.<br />
this "transcendental status of the signifier" is the "totalization" thing all over again, or maybe before it. these blue anarchists always want to believe that not creating an identity or set of principles will somehow leave everybody included when there's really no guarantee that anyone in particular will be included in anything because groups are always finite things with finite numbers of slots. both blue and charcoal anarchists are totally obsessed with the notion that identity is somehow a form of government, that identity causes "hierarchy" and the ownership of groups over areas or groups. but it's such a misplaced thing to worry about. that isn't what causes ownership and domination of areas or populations, it's the sheer process of material people pushing each other back and forth and in and out while groups and areas are both finite and can only hold so many people. material reality is the thing that truly holds tyrannical power over anarchists, and they won't admit it. it's like even when the only enemy is understanding material reality they still don't want to fight back.<br />
this is so bizarre. at some times it feels like Badiou is closer to Materialism and at some times it feels like Deleuze is closer to Materialism. Badiou is making me think that maybe Deleuze and Guattari are further from Materialism than he is, but then he makes such strange mistakes of his own I don't know.<br />
Things have to separate to carry out an Event + Anti-essentialism applies to everything = Badiou doesn't understand Rhizome because he fails to apply anti-essentialism

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The Event is transcendentally discontinuous (Badiou) [https://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/alain-badiou-badiou-deleuze/]  ->  no clue what that means.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="DG" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Badiou's theory is transcendent (Deleuze) / Badiou's theory is arborescent (insult; Deleuze) [https://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/alain-badiou-badiou-deleuze/]

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Being is not a material object / Being is not a thing (Heidegger) / Being is not a substance (Deleuze) [https://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/alain-badiou-badiou-deleuze/]  ->  okay. that seems accurate.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="DG, ES" value="618" data-dimension="S">judgement (Deleuze) / each individual is judged by their own becoming [https://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/alain-badiou-badiou-deleuze/]

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S">ontological primacy of the void (Badiou) [https://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/alain-badiou-badiou-deleuze/]

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Badiou doesn't understand Rhizome because he fails to apply anti-essentialism [https://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/alain-badiou-badiou-deleuze/] / ([[User:RD/9k/Q51,44|9k]])

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Badiou doesn't understand schizoanalysis  ->  probably true, but I don't think it's his fault. I don't think anybody does.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="Z">Alain Badiou [https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780190221911/obo-9780190221911-0110.xml]  ->  (long paragraph of prototype notes lost in computer crash. it doesn't matter, I still remember the lessons for now)<br />
Badiou is a rival to schizoanalysis but has an almost equally confusing philosophy that I still don't know the name of.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="Z">{{book|The Concept of Model: An Introduction to the Materialist Epistemology of Mathematics}} (Badiou 2007)

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="Z">{{book|Deleuze: The Clamor of Being}} (Badiou 1999)

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="Z">{{book|Being and Event}} volume 1 (Badiou)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="Z">{{book|Being and Event}} volume 2 (Badiou)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="Z">{{book|Being and Event}} volume 3 (Badiou)  ->  it looks to me like there are three volumes of the same thing but the third one is untranslated.<br />
just like the Mother series.........

</li><li class="field_internal" data-tradition="MW" value="618" data-dimension="S2">If you don't like a statement inside an article, check that it is coded as a proposition and go examine it there; if it is coded as a proposition {{caps|Or}} recorded on a prototype you can remove it from the article without worrying  ->  case of: project guideline.<br />
I just wrote a bunch of {{em|stuff}} on [[Special:PermanentLink/?|an Ontology entry]] that was a bit verbose and definitely contained some tall claims. so, it's best I write a little reminder here so at the very least I can take my own advice.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Dragon Ball misrepresents Kamehameha / Dragon Ball misinforms people about Kamehameha  ->  I honestly don't think this is entirely true. a story has different dimensions to it: facts, and abstract "lessons". as far as the second aspect, Dragon Ball takes a very Materialist perspective about empire that is not so different from the concept of defending Hawaii from empire. does it do this clumsily? of course. but it's not like it didn't actually try to step out of the perspective of Imperial Japan in particular as it relates to Hawaii in order to take a perspective that would defend Hawaii. the only thing you can argue is that it did that particular task badly.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Pokémon Sun/Moon is fundamentally stuck in the perspective of Japanese empire and not in the perspective of Hawaii  ->  I don't know whether this is true or false, but it's definitely something somebody could claim.<br />
points for: A) Kamehameha is treated as a special technique instead of a person B) Necrozma the [[E:Plasma Spark (Ultraman series)|Communist sun]] Pokémon is an antagonist: anticommunism, maintenance of what exists, communists are too strong because they are too weak<br />
points against: A) the game doesn't appear to treat Alola as tourism despite every Pokémon game being a travelogue made by tourists

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Postcolonialisms {{TTS|tts=and|&}} Proudhon are compatible / Postcolonial frameworks and Proudhonism are compatible  ->  I'm pretty sure they're not, and this is one of the biggest problems sinking anarchism for the past 10-20 years.<br />
Greedy pepople are a class + = Postcolonial frameworks and Proudhonism are compatible.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES onto PT" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The "13/50" statistic actually represents huge numbers of Black people being profiled and arrested without being convicted [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_journalism#link-redacted]  ->  I never bought into the statistic so I never thought it through that much but honestly that makes a whole lot more sense<br />
edit: ...what. that is a generated page. [https://app.gptzero.me/] what the {{censor|fuck}}. okay. [[E:AI-generated anti-racism|I guess this is a new motif now.]] I guess this blog is not allowed on anything but the entry about AI-generated anti-racism now. the proposition can stay where it is because propositions are just claims and claims can come from anywhere. but yeah, I think we want real citations.

</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM / game theory" value="618" data-dimension="S">Hobbesian trap (game theory) [https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q10263552] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobbesian_trap]  ->  the situation of two groups without sufficient information on each other launching an attack from one side or the other preemptively to prevent the other side from attacking.<br />
I think this more or less summarizes the relationship between Tory types and United States anarchists. because of the existence of anarchism Tories can never know if their cities will spontaneously get attacked, and they start blaming racial minorities for the existence of all crimes because they have no idea how else to achieve their goal of getting rid of all crimes.

</li><li class="field_horror" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S">she looked like chocolate / he looked like chocolate / they looked like chocolate  ->  the motif of a work of fiction feeling like it has to describe dark skin tones in the language of "familiar" objects because they are inherently unfamiliar.<br />
when you spot this, it doesn't take very much explanation to intuitively see that it's a problem. but it's actually somewhat harder to explain {{em|how}} in a sense of material causes somebody would know not to have done this. it's very intuitive for people to believe that unfamiliar things need to be described visually. it naturally flows out of the concept that books exist for people to read them and learn about experiences they haven't had, to have new experiences. and certainly it's dumb for people to think something as simple as not having racial segregation qualifies as [[E:white bread fantasy|a "new experience" for everybody]] — I'm not saying it isn't. at the same time, the roots of this trope aren't what you'd think they are. written narratives can easily fall into a trap of suddenly throwing in words or phrases the writer is familiar with but people have never heard, or that would give you an intuitive image if you'd ever seen them before but would mean nothing if you hadn't, like, I don't know, referring to a structure having a <i>bastion</i> literally rather than figuratively. or a book might say something like "the house had a kotatsu" without explaining what it is (not a great example because it's something people interact with so the two people who don't know what it is would probably figure it out in a few paragraphs, but you get what I mean). there are a lot of books out there where without having access to image search you wouldn't know what they're talking about. so there's a dilemma when writing texts, sometimes this is even a problem in non-fiction works with jargon terms in them, where you have to carefully think about whether to explain potentially unfamiliar terms through things like redundant descriptors of how they behave, or whether you should just assume that if something is irrelevant to the story or main point that people can look them up on image search or simply skip over them. there will naturally be a way that people write when they are from a particular region and know what various foods and pieces of architecture and so forth look like and don't realize people won't know what they are, versus a way that people write when all these things are new to them. this can make it hard to write books because it will be like, who is going to read this, will it be the people who know what the things are or the people who don't? would it feel weirder to describe things people might know about or to leave people who ought to learn about new things without context?<br />
I think that's basically what's going on with "she looked like chocolate". people have something of an illusion that books are equally written toward everybody when that's not really possible because of the "bastion/kotatsu" problem, although usually it doesn't go all the way to reading as a microaggression like this does. and then they get jarred awake when they see a "white bread fantasy" type writer blatantly write things toward only White people and ignore that anyone else could be reading them. the actual process of fixing this is... complicated. like, in my mind, it's not so hard if you could somehow teach everyone Marxism. because whether they get past the very basics to the class analysis or scientific thinking parts, you could teach them to think of all populations including their own from the outside and look at each one as self-contained, and think of every population as having its own history and goals and day-to-day village and town and city existences. when you get to thinking of all people and populations as material objects there's far less incentive to treat any population as "the other" or to leave anything inaccurate versus trying to have a basic understanding of how that population views and describes itself. so to me, when you get people to think of populations through the lens of material-history it inherently becomes easier for a White majority subpopulation to recognize the existence of all the other minority subpopulations and actually write things realizing that those also contain writers and it would be better to describe them closer to the way they'd describe themselves, with the exception of "kotatsu problems" where a few extra clues will be thrown in. the only problem is that nobody likes (meta-)Marxism and everyone seems to genuinely like Idealism and telling people to automatically know things they couldn't have known. I don't know why; meta-Marxism means BlackPantherism and whatever Marxisms Frantz Fanon and W.E.B. DuBois were aligned with and Stalin's Marxism and possibly some anarchism of the future are equally as good as long as they're viable in the first place. I will catalogue all the "Black Marxisms" if I only knew what they were.

</li><li class="field_gramsci" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Mode of production expands to fill population growth / When populations grow it is predictable that the form of social organization and structure (microhierarchies, class territories, business territories) will expand into something that is capable of containing the excess population  ->  this is one of those propositions that in another form would be uncontroversial but which somebody managed to oversimplify and put in a form that really bothered me. no, you don't actually know if mode of production is going to change to fit the population at all. all the anarchists that try to tell you the proletariat is a malicious fabrication to make people think they are obligated to work in factories to deserve life and get to live in a particular country at the permission of the people with all the land and money while "really" the need to create a new mode of production isn't real for some reason are almost closer to correct. there are reasons that's also wrong, but yeah, no, it's fully possible for a population to just start massacring excess population rather than moving to a new mode of production to fit them in. there were times in Europe (was it Henry VIII?) when all the extra homeless peasants were just killed; you need to count your blessings. the fastest correction to both I can give without writing a long essay: when a population gets too big it splits into two populations and the new population has to be willing to 'chain' itself into the most appropriate mode of production to avoid a lot of unnecessary deaths. but the process is many times less painful if the population creates a Marxist republic around the transition and collectively takes control of its own chains. this gets controversial when [[E:Deng Xiaoping Thought|China and Vietnam]] are effectively having to consciously choose to create benign colonies and serve First-World countries to keep other countries from depriving them of a representative government or using capital to slurp up their land or forcing their people out of the country to become First-World immigration slaves in a faint, less-bad echo of why the Transatlantic slave trade happened. that aside, anarchism is bankrupt in that it can never actually justify why any group of people is actually obligated to tolerate any other group of people's existence or let them live in any particular area. if people have Free Will as most charcoal and blue anarchisms want to believe and only pretend they don't believe, they have infinite freedom to be as evil as possible, and trying to tell them what human rights to believe doesn't recognize the reality of their own Free Will and Lived Experience. it's only because I don't believe in Free Will that I can turn around and say that [[E:Leon Trotsky|my "favorite" enemies of Marxism]] actually might not be that bad.

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="ES, W" value="618" data-dimension="S">more female drone pilots  ->  the motif of "reforming" even the worst parts of empire through classic [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology|blue-anarchist]] principles

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-tradition="MX onto IV" value="618" data-dimension="S">Trotskyist China (thought experiment) / China as Trotskyism in one country  ->  the concept of the country of China as it exists in an alternate hypothetical timeline where it did not build [[E:Maoism (1940s)|early Maoism]] and instead became Trotskyism-in-one-country.
</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-tradition="MX onto IV" value="618" data-dimension="M3">If China had emerged from a Trotskyist revolution and created Trotskyism in one country, would Trotskyists want an independent Tibet?  ->  I genuinely don't know the answer to this. on one hand, Trotskyists are infamous for breaking countries apart and wanting things to be independent. on the other hand, they seem broadly aligned with the old Leninist idea of dissolving all nationalities to basically create one big one. so how can you conceptualize national independence through Trotskyism, or alternatively, forming a union republic type thing next to a larger country that the people of the smaller republic believe to be abusing them? does the concept of populational autonomy even exist in Trotskyism? if so, how?<br />
China as Trotskyism in one country + conflict between China and Tibet = this.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Marxism is colonial / Marxism is steeped through with The Colonizer Attitude / Marxism is too full of structural racism to be useful
</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A onto ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Working is colonialism / Proletarians are a scourge on the earth because in having the privilege to go to work every day at a relatively stable workplace and do unskilled labor they become part of and reinforce the system of corporations competing over the earth's resources, exploiting countries less developed than them, using their dominance over the ability to structure society to abuse and disenfranchise tribal populations and other ethnic minorities, and overall making it illegal or impossible to not serve owners' aims of infinite growth  ->  this is harder to counter than you'd think. if an anarchist actually believes something like this and you try to bring up concepts like that growth actually occurs because people are born and industrial structures fit people into countries while managing the threat of crime (which is to say, miniature wars), they'll just turn around and be like, {{i|I don't care about human beings if they're in China, or if they're Irish and slowly being absorbed into a United States population that hates immigrants. if people have bad and prejudiced attitudes they simply have to stop, and ignorance of what people are doing to the planet or other countries is no excuse. if people don't willingly transition to tribal society, let them all die.}} was that too mean? did I miss something that would cause anarchists not to say that? in any event what I do know is there's no arguing with anarchists. whenever you try to argue with them they pull {{censor|shit}} like trying to say you can't {{em|really know}} the material world exists and you can't really know historical events mean anything. which leaves me baffled because it's like, all I have to prove to me that colonial abuses happened are history books, so you're taking away your entire argument that people still need to be liberated if you argue against reasoning off history. every anecdote I hear from people about their lives is just more history; I never actually {{em|have}} Lived Experiences to work with.<br />
I have to be honest, sometimes North-American Maoism feels like it's slowly turning into this. supposed Third-World Marxisms get to really beating up on people just for being part of the population of White people and not moving to Third World countries, whether those people are actually part of the Careerist layer {{em|which largely becomes corrupt by fighting itself}}, or not. or, you know, beating up on China because it may or may not be becoming a First-World country and that "basically" makes people White, and when people are White they are part of the complex of bad and mean attitudes that are the only things binding people into empires. why are anarchists so weirdly racist against Third World countries? it's like the typical anarchist thinks racial minorities of First World countries and all tribal populations are important but they really hate Third World majorities especially, seemingly more than they get semi-reasonably angry at White people or First World majorities. there is this weird dual anger at being in the First World and silent acceptance that tribes and minorities have to turn into a new global empire and beat up the Third World in place of the empire they fight against currently.<br />
Marxism is colonial + socioempire = Working is colonialism

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S">Asocialism / general-sense Socialism but for people who do not believe in Community processes as agents of change  ->  the concept of an ideology of transition — either Menshevik-style or Bolshevik-style — which absolutely does not ground itself in "community" or "communality", although it does not prohibit such things, and seeks to unite people based on the values of Materialism, physics, and math.<br />
the Community delusion + Socialism = Asocialism.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The {{TTS|tts=United States|US}} already has dictators / The {{TTS|tts=United States|US}} has had dictators since 1930 [https://www.studentsofhistory.com/ideologies-flip-Democratic-Republican-parties] / If a dictator is defined as a situation where a population has a limited number of statesmen or theorists and people do not have the ability to arbitrarily align with one of them over the other, the United States does not meet its own criteria for not having dictators, and has not met those criteria for at least 50 years; this problem did not start recently whatsoever  ->  I think way too much about how the only grounds on which the United States can claim not to be a "dictatorship" or "one-party state" is that you can vote for Trump. literally, the choice to be able to be a reactionary or not is the only actual choice people get to make. they don't really get to choose who will be president. they have a president assigned to them by a curated body of experts; solely in terms of class it's no different than already having a Marxist party-nation.<br />
people need to be aware that like, in China, you can side with the CPC if you're progressive but you also have the choice to side with one of the eight or so bizarrely identical capitalist parties. having that choice doesn't even meaningfully distinguish the United States from other countries.<br />
Progressives must vote for the Democrats + People have little actual control on who the Democratic Party nominates = Progressives have no choice but to vote for Biden<br />
Stalin was a dictator / Mao was a dictator + Progressives have no choice but to vote for Biden = The US already has dictators.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Wars are leaping States colliding / Wars are the collision of two State apparatuses unable to regulate each other  ->  this is what runs through my mind when I think about the United States Civil War. if true, it gives pause on whether any particular country can actually regulate any other external country over human rights, or whether that can only be a pretext for violence.<br />
field: existential materialism

</li><li class="field_nations" data-tradition="A onto PT" value="618" data-dimension="S">tribal empire  ->  the motif of various free-floating populations, tribal populations, or indigenous populations ending up in arrangements where one tribe has dominated another that it extracts tribute from. the anarchists are right about one thing: it's a good question to ask why exactly these happen.<br />
for me the Aztec people versus the surrounding tribes comes to mind, although if I remember anything right they were somewhat stationary and that's getting into regular empires instead of perfectly fitting this. you could not really ask me about the history of the world's many tribal populations. but I don't really intend to exclude them from meta-Marxism. in my mind meta-Marxism is more tolerant than early versions of Marxism of different societies staying at different stages and existing on different trajectories in plurality. there is room in it for tribal populations to declare themselves to be an anarchism if they feel like it and not really have to fit themselves into a particular nearby named Marxism as long as they are willing to carve out their own place to be and leave nothing ambiguous. getting a named Marxism to cede a historical land? okay and good. making agreements to head off potential disputes between two populations when things are changing and there are new developments? good. the only thing tribal populations could do that meta-Marxism wouldn't like is starting disputes without trying to reach an actual goal and using anarchist logic to justify perpetual war. that is bad; anything but that can be integrated into meta-Marxism. to be fair, I'm saying that's a thing {{em|anarchists}} do and are rather bad about, not a thing tribal populations would necessarily do.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">I am therefore I am / The physical reality of a person's existence and daily life needs no further confirmation than the observation of continuing physical events and consequences with predictable physical logic connecting one to the other; "present materialism" or "today-today-tomorrow materialism" is as operable as historical materialism if not more / Lived experiences are not required to observe the physical phenomenon of someone suffering, and in fact make two people's confirmations of each other suffering more objective / I know the physical process of how I was born, therefore I was born, and I am / weak anthropic principle (statement that people being born and formed out of material objects must be materially possible in some way for people to observe the world and ask the question of if they exist) / Even if we're in a video game we have to play by the rules of that video game (Matt Dillahunty) / Hyper-Materialist proposition (proposition that material reality does not have to justify itself to "reason" as long it can be verified)  ->  the physical world can sound "circular", but that's because everything is always interacting with everything else. of course it's circular. you wouldn't be born if material processes weren't circular, recycling the same objects and the same rules to form new objects. it is so {{em|stupid}} people think anything material needs to justify itself to "reason", because quite literally, from everything we know, you wouldn't be reasoning if {{em|physically putting you together}} wasn't possible, and that shaped every way in which you reason.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Academic specialization manufactures ignorance / Academic specialization, based on its own existence, manufactures external groups of "ignorant people" through people's gaps in imagining that anyone other than themselves with the experiences of training and social circles they have had could exist; this claim is applicable mostly to highly specialized frameworks like Lacanianism and poststructuralism more than knowledge regularly applied in industry like a degree about making computer chips or vaccines; due to at least limited applicability in law practice, critical race theory for example is excepted (people's prejudices; meta-Marxist shovel dream analysis, also some blue anarchism probably)  ->  one thing that gets me about all the [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition|blue and strawberry anarchisms]] going around is that they show up with these highly arcane frameworks that nobody would understand at first and then they try to act like not only is it obvious for everyone to know this but it's rude and mean to not know something that literally only a few specialized people know and you have to dig through a bunch of texts and study for years to understand, that like, Crenshaw trying to draft up a school curriculum won't even fix this gap of so-called "ignorance" between regular people and all these experts. it feels like they're getting degrees and trying to justify it by bullying other people into thinking that having their degree is the default instead of an unusual specialization. you know what's a social construct believed to exist by small arbitrary groups of people? ignorance!<br />
like... certainly some people do not have basic knowledge of the material world, such as when you find somebody that tries to tell you viruses don't exist or vaccines contain microchips. but somebody not knowing some of these highly specific and in reality totally incoherent academic anarchisms is on a different level from that.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="MX onto A, MX onto ES" value="618" data-dimension="S">using deconstruction to argue Communism / using Idealist methods of tearing apart social constructs to argue Communism  ->  so, cards on the table, I don't fully know what deconstruction is. I only have a vague constellation in my head of mountains of weird things poststructuralists, schizoanalysts, Jungians, self-labeled postcolonial theorists, postcolonial anarchists, and "generic" anarchists have said, often tearing apart each other for being too racist in being anti-racist but racist in anti-racism, and on and on. not to be mean to them today, the overall picture I get is that there are several methods for trying to show that everything people take to be assumptions on concrete parts of a situation that exist are actually wholly arbitrary or unnecessary. at one end of this cluster of methods is people picking apart assumptions baked into language. somewhat at the far end of this overall {{em|cluster}} of {{em|different}} methods are the people that argue that entire historical events or things that happened yesterday are inadmissible as facts about the material world. that latter end seems crazy to me because it seems like a way to shut down all arguments by taking away every way people attempt to explain and clarify anything or express themselves and reducing people to brains in vats that have no right to be physical and exist. the material world and what has already happened are the only things we can even know that {{em|aren't}} our own speculations or inventions. I am therefore I am.<br />
examples of arguments (not the best, but that doesn't matter): A) we can't use history to predict the future, therefore we can't know the United States won't transition to Bolshevism B) "Communist dictator" is a social construct created by empire which does not reflect the reality of living in workers' states C) there is no reason the English language needs to include the word "totalitarian", and it was created by the arbitrary conditions of alliances and rivalries through and at the end of World War II D) the concept that society "ideally" needs to transition into a fine mist of tiny businesses while big businesses are impossible is made up<br />
Bolshevik identity politics + ?? = this.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="MX onto ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Undertale is evidence people wish Bolshevism was possible / The great popularity of Undertale is evidence First-World people wish Bolshevism was possible although nobody has any idea how or if it is  ->  there's no contradiction in saying both the statements "Undertale is based on Idealist movements" and "you write something like Undertale when people wish Bolshevism was possible but nobody has any idea if it is".<br />
this one eats at me. it's so hard to not just shout from the rooftops "Undertale is a narrative about forming a society that holds all people instead of an empire and the material conditions resemble North Korea and that logically leads to Bolshevism". but I know people will think I'm weird. so... when I get "Auldernet" finished in some capacity. only then.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S">stellar development / stellar evolution  ->  I don't want to use 'evolution' in the label because of how Kent Hovind famously misunderstood the use of the word as something changing to be the same as biological evolution. funny enough you could describe both speciation and stellar development through dialectical materialism, and 'expose' the word evolution to frequently refer to dialetical transformations. but when I've already boiled down dialectical materialism to {{em|sort of}} be another word for "modern, non-Euclidean, relativistic physics", I'm not going there.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The development of societies is comparable to the development of stars  ->  depending on the size of a star and density of matter in it, it will undergo transitions into different stages. this to me is very comparable to the concept of creating existential-materialist models of countries.<br />
a lot better of an analogy than the slightly joking metaphors of Digimon stages or alchemy. you can actually build this comparison seriously by comparing the mathematical processes in exmat to the mathematical processes in physics.<br />
stellar development + historical materialism = The development of societies is comparable to the development of stars

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Bolshevik revolution follows population density / The probability of experiencing a transition to Bolshevism has to do with a country's population density (experiencing transition to Stalin's Marxism; meta-Marxism)  ->  I have had this thought that while {{em|a Marxism that abolishes capitalism}} happening in the United States is still possible, the United States may be past the stage of historical development where a {{em|Bolshevik}} revolution can possibly happen. this is because Bolshevism appears to happen based on having a surplus population which objectively has the potential to be developed further, for instance out of peasants and into industries or what would be capitalism. when the population keeps developing past the window for forming Bolshevism without forming Bolshevism, it turns into a different kind of population with new characteristics, where the country as a whole is crammed with people that have already gotten into industries and become experts and maybe accumulated a modest pile of wealth and the remaining people fundamentally aren't inherently useful. in the "pre-Bolshevik" countries you can justify Menshevism easily because welfare programs support the overall process of people leaving peasant life and the country completing its development. but in the "non-Bolshevik" countries it's hard to even sell people on Menshevism because everyone in the country has every industry they need and materially it's so much easier for people to select what people get to stay in the country or have to leave based on what people they especially like and are friends with and what people they think are mean and nasty rather than making a principled decision to actually exert effort to create more carrying capacity that actually allows more people to stay rather than leaving. it becomes really easy to make people into nazis on the grounds of 'nice people, mean people' and convincing them that nice people are actually mean. but with that said, there is still a really horrible class society in play that will make everyone tired of it: the class society of every individual just kind of cultivating their individual career skill and brand-identity to fit into each unoccupied slot with it impossible to really receive help from anyone else, transient to their own fragile body, unable to make it easier to live in towns by building up industrial structures that can pay taxes, unable to leave their kids a house to live in. this eventually starts cracking at the edges as it builds up unrealistic standards for every individual that get higher every decade and every generation, conveniently reinforced for the short term by Filaments of people who all happen to fit into things as a connected ring of people and pay each other. ultimately you get a particular kind of symptom: people hating that they are part of the exclusive finitely-slotted countable culture they had to fight their way into and making up confused conspiracy theories that "cultural attitudes" have been bad or "hegemony" did this (because by the 'musical chairs' definition it kinda did) or "we decide to be in modernity" or complaining about "what happened to community". people really start thinking that anarchism explains something when it doesn't. when really what they've been ignoring is that Existentialism screwed things up — the practice of People Live Their Lives And Try To Slot Into Society And Find Community And Just Exist, because when duplexed, everyone doing this causes problems for everyone else. one of a few possible things has to happen. one thing that could happen is all the contradictory individuals closing the gaps between them and becoming one thing, some kind of structure similar to Bolshevism but which consists of a lot of teeny tiny microscopic businesses instead of big ones with a lot of workers in factories and in soviets. if you create this mono-structure, it can conceptually accommodate adding a few more people to it based on the forms of structure that already incorporate people into it; however new openings were calculated before can go around again. the mono-structure can't be based on "wealth" or "distributing gains", it has to be based on closing up the gaps between competing chunks, and nothing else. or else, as particular fringe groups of Marxists put it, everyone is just 'leeching off the world and benefiting from settler status'. not my favorite way of putting it, but hey, it's true when people deliberately resist creating Bolshevism, and whether that's the case it can be fixed by uniting people into a mono-structure where the internal elements and connections of the structure become important in supporting each other rather than running to the ends of the earth to find 'unclaimed' slots to fulfil their needs.

</li><li class="field_nations" data-tradition="MX onto PT" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Prisons cost money because lives cost money / The simplest way to empty prisons is with a gun (Tory phrasing; censorable title) / The contradiction of prisons is that they have to contain people nobody wants to keep track of or pay money for but not paying money for them basically means people have nowhere to exist at all and have to be killed / If you can't put Trotsky in prison, then you have to kill him, so ultimately prisons have a purpose

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Having a car is a form of poverty / Having a car is a form of poverty experienced by individuals but applying to towns rather than individuals  ->  this is going off the model that the creation of public structures is where wealth "truly" lies and workers are technically privileged while small owners are created in conditions of less privilege where privilege applies to towns.<br />
if you think this sounds stupid.... you haven't seen how stupidly skewed the people of the United States are into Wealth Brain and toward thinking a bank account means survival. you have to scream at them "people with bank accounts are poor!" "people with investments are poor!" before they finally understand things like lack of transportation or food deserts or medical bills and how they can be lethal to anybody but the very top.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto W" value="618" data-dimension="S2">To get Tories to give up racism, pay a bunch of White people to be sensitivity consultants on Black issues  ->  one of those scenarios I know is disgusting to imagine happening but that I hope will be thought-provoking.<br />
in daily life, Tories are obsessed with making money. they will support anything that results in them being able to study business or become a high-valued expert, work hard every day, and bring home money to feed their household. if you try to take down fossil fuels, it's, but we're making money! if you try to get them to support public transit they'll sometimes try to appeal to the necessity of company owners making money and there being a survival threat on their whole family if they don't do it right. (no joke. actual remark from somebody I knew.) so, the thinking goes, if you want Tories to change themselves, you should pay them to do it as their career every day. open up jobs that pay people to get degrees in the history of racism and read about racism every day, and make them actually live every day doing that job, making sure the organization never goes bankrupt. this could result in people being forced to change their worldview to protect what {{em|now}} makes them money, even if they retain a lot of other Tory beliefs and their worldview is bizarrely contradictory.<br />
a couple further questions come up with this. first, how would you allocate money for this? it has to be done independently of government so it can't be dismantled by elections. you have to make sure all the people with money join together on this instead of donating to electoral candidates, and don't pull their money out. you have to make sure there aren't investors that can pull out. you have to keep money coming in, although if the core cluster of finance capitalists is owners in other 'productive' industries that wouldn't be a problem. if any of the productive industries stop growing because they stabilize and all their money is going to operating costs, you have less money for making people learn anti-racism. you have a particular time limit based on remaining possibility for industrial growth to just concede that the government isn't a bad place to put stuff that can only be reconnected and allocated, and transition to Bolshevism.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Any division of things into identities is hierarchy (anarchist phrasing) / Any division of things into identities potentially results in violent anhierarchy (meta-Marxist phrasing)  ->  a quintessentially anarchist proposition that it seems a great number of anarchists don't want to believe.<br />
anarchists: forcing people into rigid roles is bad, people should be free. anarchists: populations of people being forced into layouts is bad, people shouldn't have to serve a particular cause. anarchists: people should be able to express their individual identity and be and experience whatever they want to. anarchists: corporations are illegitimate. anarchists: Artists are important and it's fine if they fence off territories that nobody else gets to be just because they're artists, that's their right as living breathing human individuals, it's all a matter of respect and ettiquette and niceness and humanness, I hate AI because AI is rude and cold. anarchists: Property is a fabrication of the people in power, not a real material object that exists on the ground without any uniting organizations or central government. meta-Marxist: okay, if you want to dethrone a cluster of Afrikaners, what is their power actually made of if it isn't made of physical individuals who outwardly extend fences and guns directly from themselves, and join their own families and existences together into a weapon that multiplies the power of their guns? where the hell is the imaginary division between The Subject and The State that slices open Property inside that? anarchists: well, obviously, the government is trapped inside their heads and you have to pull the Spanishness Office out of their heads. I don't know why you have so much trouble seeing that ultimately all government is just having wrong and mean ideas. anarchists: colonialism is wholly made up, not conquering other countries is just obvious. anarchists: there is nothing wrong with dismantling the Soviet Union or China and letting capitalists flood into them to chart up the activities and lives of the whole population to serve the needs of the United States. conquering a country and destroying its government isn't colonialism if they ever had any wrong and mean thoughts or did anything bad. I have never done anything bad. meta-Marxist: you just advanced a position which has historically made the world hate all Russians for being Russian with only small arbitrary exceptions for immigrants who successsfully become people's friends. you committed xenophobia, so aren't you now eligible to be conquered? anarchist: I am not conquered. if I'm not living in Russia or China or Iraq I am free.<br />
okay, funny skits aside, I think this actually reveals something specific. the dismissal of mutually-exclusive identities as a form of spatial slot hierarchy seems to be a manifestation of Proudhonism as a kind of Proudhonist Bauplan. Proudhonism, classically, revolves around these frontier farm plots or individual-peasant plots. but it seems like it can morph into more abstract forms where a bourgeois art studio or YouTube channel can become your farm plot, and in any case, people believe that these isolated farm plots have an inherent power to suddenly stop being mean and be nice which if it ever activates will inherently make Proudhonism work out. there is no regard for the concept that people actually group into chunks of friends that defend themselves against other chunks of friends defending themselves neither believing they could be the bad guys but both getting increasingly angry. so some anarchists seem to just want to section up the whole world into teeny little figurative farm plots and disallow greater forms of structure out of the belief that this won't then leave some of the tiny identity-plots utterly failing and having to search all over for the exact group of people that wants and needs them and reintroduce segregating identities and physical social structure. people having to segregate into finite identities that only have room for so many people is bad, granted, but it's also an inevitable development you'll have to deal with if you begin by chopping everyone up and thinking that makes people nice.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="618" data-dimension="S">this couldn't be meta-Marxism!  ->  the wholly hypothetical motif of a very large Marxism or anarchism forming composed of several local Marxisms with their own characteristics, which insists that it is not meta-Marxism and is, perhaps, Trotskyism, or some other very specific named Marxism. think of a "Soviet Union" which contains different Marxisms inside, one is Maoism, one is BlackPantherism, one is Trotskyism-in-one-country, or Bordigism-in-one-country, or Juche-socialism (kind of unlikely when one of its characteristics is being isolated, but you know, maybe there are two of them in Africa), etc. but it believes that the whole thing is Trotskyism, etc, despite being very heterogeneous in its local parts.<br />
this is recorded in relation to Ironblood's "United Socialist States" scenario. I think this is somewhat possible to happen assuming that any of the components happen, like a really big poly-Marxism happening or Trotskyism-in-one-country ever happening. Marxisms can be really blind to the concept that there is something beyond their specific identity, in a few cases demographic identities that don't fit into their model but notably other Marxisms existing in plurality. and in my mind that kind of thinking really sinks the ability to truly get rid of capitalism, if we're talking about the real world non-hypothetically. one of the things that entrenches capitalism is that we fail to get rid of identities, and identities keep turning into exploitable Properties / imperial worker-colonies because it's truly the gaps between things that own them, and the gaps always regenerate the state of having particular owners. the only thing that would actually accomplish the goals of Trotskyism and unite the world's workers is abolishing the identity of Trotskyism through abolishing the division between mainstream Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism. ditto for anarchists fighting Communism, as long as those identities are actually in conflict and don't want each other to exist they regenerate the failure of movements and workers' states and the return of capitalism. that said, the way to actually abolish identity is far simpler than it seems. all you have to do is encourage every movement to support other movements as they are instead of changing them, as they want to realize themselves fully, to the end — respecting that anarchism is anarchism, respecting that Communism is Communism, not assuming that one actually wants to be the other. that requires every movement to adjust to the reality of not being the only one and of other movements taking up parts of the world they can't have — you can't have China for Trotskyism, but maybe you can have Europe, so get over it. you can't have China for anarchism, but you can maybe have the United States (on a slim, vanishing chance), so get over it.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Proudhonism is the mother of order / Anarchism is the mother of order (may imply particular anarchisms, and not all anarchisms) / "Liberty is the mother of order" (Proudhon) / Charcoal-tinted anarchic social formations corresponding specifically to anarchism but never to Communism exist before States exist, and are the natural healthy order of things which is violated by the creation of States  ->  Proudhon's statement is so difficult to unpack because the more I think about it it's seemingly talking about five to ten different things at once, and the statement has totally different truth values depending on what things it's actually referring to. I think this iteration of the statement is false because it's backwards. I think that anarchism specifically emerges from conditions of people being herded into nation-states where they have little participation in politics and then forgetting that states exist, and outright believing that states interacting with people regularly and directly ("totalitarianism") is a thing that must immediately be dissolved and removed, while in actuality that can only be done through the colonial extension of particular nation-states across the world which retain state power over all the places whose governments they remove.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Order is the mother of anarchism / Charcoal-tinted anarchic social formations corresponding to anarchism and not Communism may be caused by the conditions of Liberal-republicanism, and in any case, the conditions of Liberal-republicanism falsely program all its inhabitants to forget Liberal-republicanism exists or creates their conditions and think that anarchism is a logical next step from these conditions when actually to attempt to create anarchism may abolish all conditions that make anarchism seem possible  ->  what I think is true for many but not all anarchisms. there are going to be a few anarchisms that resemble Molecular Marxisms where this manages not to be true. but each of those would have to have a very good existential materialism inside it descriptively modeling how human beings generally behave regardless of anyone's ideals or hopes. an anarchism that succeeds at being more than what is conditioned into people by living in Liberal-republicanism below the scales of politics — quite literally [[E:the colonizer attitude|the colonizer attitude]] — can be termed a "molecular meta-anarchism", and the people who analyze it can be termed "meta-anarchists" if they are truly doing what is basically meta-Marxism but with solidly anarchist frameworks as their prototypical civilization to be improved and, very importantly, they allow workers' states to exist and only strive to construct anarchisms that will become their allies.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Dualism means two apples exist / Dualism is caused by the presence of more than one object in the universe  ->  this sounds like some kind of gross oversimplification or deliberately-crafted reductio argument, but I'm actually serious. there is only one kind of dualism that truly makes sense: the dualism between noumenon and phenomenon. and this dualism exists for a particular reason: the universe contains relativity, and relativity makes it impossible for any particular object to know everything about any other particular object at any given moment. as individuals or societies learn more about generalizations of every possible common or uncommon object, the gap of things we don't know grows smaller and smaller, making this "dualist" gap less and less real and more and more irrelevant. at the same time, it does still exist. every time something new is created from existing elements out of someone else's sight, and an exception is formed, there come to be "unpredictable" phenomena in nature, including new human identities or experiences. there is absolutely nothing special or transcendent or sacred about this. every "new, unpredictable" phenomenon came from things that ultimately become predictable in their generalization. every time you try to assert exceptions are the future you kill Trotsky. you set up Trotsky to fight against the majority without being understood and you kill him.

</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM, STM onto MX" value="618" data-dimension="S">thousand brains theory / cortical columns "voting"  ->  nice model. it matches well with intuitive hypotheses you'd have after knowing about split brains giving two different answers, and the realizations smart people should be having about the contradiction between "free will" and "absolute determinism" actually being a deepity and not making any sense either way.<br />
reterminism + individual will = thousand brains theory.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S">respect for the personal autonomy of the other (Leacock) [https://www.historicalmaterialism.org/everything-goes-three-problems-with-the-dawn-of-everything-a-review-of-the-dawn-of-everything-by-david-graeber-and-david-wengrow/]  ->  I like this article for saying things that sound like anarchism because they are in reference to a tribal population or similar, but not making it sound stupid. everything is in context. it actually bothers to say, here are the gatherer and hunter societies, you can see what they do, you can see what the discourse on egalitarianism is, the tension between the "close, collective community" and respect for individuals produces egalitarianism if it goes right. yes, fine! you have the material group of people and then the particular conflicts they go through that produce particular values.<br />
bush people can have tent of freedom poles. it does make material sense there. there will be no mockery. I just do not like when it is sloppily applied to industrial societies like it's trivially easy in that context.

</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">A form of societal structure is the space of variations possible before turning into another form of structure (a historical period is; a Bauplan is; Callinicos 2004) [https://www.historicalmaterialism.org/everything-goes-three-problems-with-the-dawn-of-everything-a-review-of-the-dawn-of-everything-by-david-graeber-and-david-wengrow/]  ->  wow, a regular Marxist defines Bauplans<br />
this article is making me think more clearly about something I hadn't before: part of the reason I talk about "Bauplans" is to leave a little room for societies shifting to a different kind of structure for reasons that don't {{em|look}} like they have to do with production. although many times that's because people will just be perceiving that wrong and using the word 'production' wrong; for instance, First World countries putting pressure on workers' states to try to crack them open in order to fully integrate them into one freakishly big 'Napoleonism' {{em|is}} production, it's a logistical structure of store owners, retail stores, manufacturers, and finally workers. why is it perfectly intuitive to me that retail stores have to 'produce' things out of somewhere and anarchists can't figure this out.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Organized violence has nothing to do with how people eat and occupy space / Classifying these groups according to how much they farmed, fished or hunted tells us little of their actual histories  ->  when you say it out loud like that, you see that there's a problem in the second part: occupy space. Graeber's book seems to be taking whole structures and splitting them in two, then trying to analyze the actions of the pieces, weirdly like Rothenberg split all interactions between people in two. if you look at the whole tribute structure as a single proto-empire, nothing is confusing. the group exacting tribute are doing that partly because they're part of the structure they've created. I don't really know this history well enough to tell you "why" they did that. I'm guessing there was maybe some kind of war and a classic process of throwing on debt as a substitute for continuing war; if that's anything close to accurate, you have the actual tension between the groups as independent identities to deal with, where the more the two populations inherently don't get along the harder it will be to put them together peacefully without an empire or a State forming.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Kandiaronk invented the Enlightenment (Lahontan, Graeber) [https://www.historicalmaterialism.org/everything-goes-three-problems-with-the-dawn-of-everything-a-review-of-the-dawn-of-everything-by-david-graeber-and-david-wengrow/]  ->  wow. that is a bold one. I can't say I'm surprised after seeing various things that looked like anarchists were claiming that Liberal-republicanism was the start of transition to anarchism that they would flat-out go all the way to claiming that this person named Kandiarok got the whole thing started by bringing people 'the way to free themselves' that Europeans presumably garbled. to be honest, this seems like a fun book, although I doubt it's correct.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="Z">{{book|The dawn of everything}} (Graeber) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fopyyYbSvuQ&lc=UgwmDB6fSPvEGCBgNsp4AaABAg]  ->  this book is claimed to disprove early historical materialism.<br />
looking at this... it seems like it would be a problem for the very first texts by Marx but it wouldn't be a problem for meta-Marxism. meta-Marxism is able to accommodate the concept of transition from any Bauplan into any Bauplan, while also asking if any particular transition is a good idea.<br />
I have to say, the phenomenon of anarchists constantly proposing transition to tribal society makes me angry. not because I think there is anything uniquely wrong with tribal societies that haven't transitioned to industrial societies. but because I already know transitioning the people that exist in industrial societies today to tribal society would be a terrible idea. the people that exist today have a real way of turning friendship toxic. I swear Christian theocracy would get worse and you'd get violent, malevolent sea-crusaders.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Philosophy can only take place in a vat / Philosophy can only take place inside the Amazing Digital Circus  ->  I saw somebody actually try to argue like this today. I'm tired.<br />
Caine, this is an equation of a cone. this means determinism is real, even if there's no material world and you can change everything. shut up.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">There is no difference between "ideology", systems modeling themselves, and "social consciousness" / Because all Social-Philosophical-Material Systems exist in plurality, no distinction can be made between bodies of philosophical description such as "the collected works of Lenin" and the concept of "ideology", although that is not to say that all ideologies are equally valid or equally good / Stalin's Marxism, Trotskyism and anarchism exist as separate bodies of people with separate behavior because there is no actual difference between "ideologies" and "consciousness"  ->  Western-Marxists have this really terrible habit of talking about "ideology" like it exists separately from some other better thing like "science" or "dialectical-materialist methods" or whatever it is they're thinking of. [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-philosophy-and-policy/article/how-are-ideologies-false-a-reconstruction-of-the-marxian-concept/7AC936E5DE9CCFF357D2F255CC879378] Marx did this too, in my opinion improperly. there are very very few places where I'd ever say "Marx can't say that!" or even "Engels can't say that!". almost all the time I feel like what they say is at worst technically true. but that's one of them. I think Marx made a very big mistake in not realizing that anarchist movements and Trotskyist movements would be their own material objects separate from a mainstream Marxist-Leninist material object. if he'd had any idea that would happen then just by fixing that he probably would have been able to fix a bunch of other things I wouldn't even think of. including the supposed opposition between mainstream Marxism-Leninism and "decolonial"; those can just be additional named Marxisms if they can't fit themselves together with the main ones.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="ML, MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">It isn't enough to show an idea is wrong, you must show why a wrong idea arises (Marx)  ->  claimed to appear in {{book|Capital}}. case of: Marx going meta.<br />
yeah, that's the idea. that's why I came up with the concept of showing the material basis and class basis for a bunch of specific named ideologies, including the differences between different Marxisms. you'll never know which one is wrong, particularly for which country at which time, unless you know what [[E:shovel (meta-Marxism|shovel (meta-Marxism]] the [[E:shovel dream|shovel dream]] came from.

</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S">sublation / "The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence" (Marx)  ->  takes a bit to properly explain, but very important. I've even been using it in a whole lot of propositions here without thinking about the exact word. sublation is something like a description of how material objects are transformed into new material objects. kingdoms are transformed into republics, and the kingdom or empire shape is partially preserved because the republic had to be made from something, it doesn't sprout from nowhere, but removing the feudal order allows the kingdom shape to be preserved in a new very different form as the republic for better or for worse.<br />
from time to time, I keep trying to explain sublation in terms of superhero shows. like Agumon turns into MetalGreymon and it's still Agumon but it's better even though it had to leave behind the characteristics of Agumon. Ultraman, which is a blatant failed Communism metaphor anyway, has all the people turning into big aliens with powers to represent that the society has been transformed, and with their new form they have become something greater by leaving behind what they were previously but they also can't totally get rid of it. you can also connect sublation to real-world evolution, and how it often takes a while for any particular ancestral characteristic to be lost and you always have some of them. but I like to point to superhero shows because they portray things happening without having to wait for them, this idea that something part of a bigger thing can simply change itself when change is needed.

</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="Z">On the question of dialectics (Lenin 1915) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/misc/x02.htm]  ->  outline created by Lenin on concepts relating to dialectics

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">{{TTS|html=abbr|tts=existential materialism|Exmat}} simplifies dialectics / {{TTS|html=abbr|tts=existential materialism|Exmat}} simplifies {{TTS|html=abbr|tts=dialectical materialism|diamat}} / {{TTS|html=abbr|tts=existential materialism|exmat}} approximates {{TTS|html=abbr|tts=dialectical materialism|diamat}} / Existential materialism seeks to present dialectics to people who only understand mechanical materialism by describing the (continuous) transition between mechanical and dialetical processes  ->  you may notice that a lot of the Materialism I use to describe populations or "chunks" is rather mechanical, or looks that way on the surface. I have specific reasons for doing that. I think that large-scale processes are inherently closer to being mechanical while small-scale processes are inherently less mechanical. I think there is a transition between the workings of the two scales similar to the transition between quantum physics and classical physics; to me, mechanical materialism is an approximation of the workings of the real world that breaks down at particular scales and moments where other processes take hold. of course since humans are macroscopic it's easier to trivially observe small-scale things behaving like large-scale things or large-scale things behaving like small-scale things, and as such I will often take a situation and crudely reduce it in the other direction into a macrocosm or microcosm just to solidly illustrate that the transition exists. I do this because I feel like people are firmly drilled into mechanical materialism and you almost have to start there and show them the moment the actual transition to dialectical processes happens to actually get them to understand it. of course, I think one of the major ways this transition happens is relativity. and when you look into relativity and build relativistic determinism, you start to see that modeling the "retermination" of even simple processes is weirdly complicated, or at least, very unfamiliar to everyone used to mechanical materialism / vulgar determinism. a [[Philosophical Research:MDem/5.1r/1101 differentiate|wave machine]] can compute it just fine, it's just single-variable functions that have trouble.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Socialist transition begins at kingdoms / The process of socialist transition begins at the moment a kingdom-shaped nation is created<br />
Socialist transition begins at kingdoms + ?? = Bolshevism is lower-phase communism — and upper-phase communism is the same ideology<br />
Socialist transition begins at kingdoms + ?? = Liberal-republicanism is lower-phase anarchism

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Upper-phase Communism would be a different ideology  ->  it's the existence of Trotskyism and anarchism that have made me think this. both of them are new ideological factions totally separate from mainstream Marxism-Leninism that claim to be capable of completing the transition that Bolshevism begins, though in practice they are both basically lying. that said, it's possible that when a transition out of Bolshevism which doesn't create capitalism actually begins, it would be a transition to a new named ideology as distinct as "Bolshevism" or "anarchism", not just a continuation of Bolshevism.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">George Washington is vaguely comparable to Lenin because in the time of Washington the purpose of the constitution and judicial processes were partly to distinguish true statements about the functioning of a republic from false ones  ->  this is my explanation for the term "Washington's filter". it would be okay to replace "Washington" with a different United States founding figure if there is one that better matches this
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Thomas Jefferson is totally incomparable to Lenin because he proposed a system where the constitution would be rewritten every generation

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">feeling like a Chinese room / feeling like your existence is a Chinese-speaking room
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">Turing test for autistic people instead of for computers

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S">Tsunami (Wings of Fire)<br />
Tsunami + Undertale = Undyne. Undyne + Wings of Fire = Tsunami.<br />
note: this is based on the characters' personalities. I have no idea if Tsunami is a lesbian or not. I know there was like one male she turned down?? was it book 2 or was it later?? but I don't remember what happened after that.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto ES, MX onto IV" value="618" data-dimension="S2">It's easier to unite the world's petty bourgeoisie, unemployed, and retired together all at once than all the world's workers at once / It's easier to unite the world's petty bourgeoisie, unemployed, and retired all together across the world than the world's workers  ->  a terrible realization that Trotskyists don't want to believe because it sinks their ideology<br />
and why didn't they, or most Marxists, want to believe this? because genuinely, the notion of a repeated pattern of workers all uniting together because they are workers {{em|or}} they have the power to include everyone else makes a lot more logical sense than the notion of a bunch of arbitrary socially-linked identity-sets of people uniting together into a big united identities of identities for really no particular reason but arbitrarily and miraculously all deciding they belong together and like each other.<br />
there is a terrible new class society that lives below bourgeois class territories. it's the Community process. it comes together and includes {{caps|Everyone}} except the people it can't fit the moment it suddenly overflows like a too-heavy uranium atom. and then it turns around and starts oppressing and eliminating everybody that couldn't arbitrarily fit into it when it arbitrarily formed. anarchism is its [[E:shovel dream|shovel dream]]. Existentialism is its shovel dream. it's one of the most self-righteous class societies to ever exist, because it truly believes you aren't human if you don't spontaneously and arbitrarily fit yourself into a spontaneous and arbitrary national or cultural identity that then spontaneously and arbitrarily forms together with others for various unpredictable reasons. it believes it's the only thing that's obvious, and that nothing else makes sense.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">No labor is unbranded / Whenever you work, you align yourself with someone's flashy and spectacular brand identity, even if the constructed identity-product is your own  ->  this is the angle you have to argue to get modern people to understand capitalism and transition out of capitalism. you see a whole lot of people complaining about "having to be a brand identity instead of a person" as they try to build small businesses on YouTube or wherever it will be. everyone's the petty bourgeoisie but they're actually really tired of it. and that's where you find a very unexpected lever for change. like people outwardly claim to support capitalism and then when it comes to everything that actually defines what capitalism is — having to perform and be a specific brand identity, having to fight everyone for the last scrap of people's attention and make 3-minute shorts just to get a chance to get a view and earn money, having to design your life around the ability to work and be useful instead of finding psychological contentment — they hate it and wish it was over.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="HAS" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The meek will inherit the earth  ->  I find it so bizarre people can repeat this phrase periodically and not believe in Communism<br />
every so often I remember a very good quote from my old project "Talk Eagle": 'why do you think Mao is the reincarnation of Jesus?' 'God said the meek will inherit the earth, and now they have come to claim their inheritance'

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto Aa" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Lacanianism cannot be used to argue that gay couples do not provide parenting and socialization (do not provide Lacanian discipline; Lacanian psychoanalysis)  ->  I had such a funny thought today. "you know, you look at Jacques Lacan, for him the biggest problem is when you don't have parents, and that kid has two Fathers"<br />
Lacanianism speaks about general immediate socializing effects, not just about parents + ?? = this.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto Aa" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Promising freedom implies happiness / Freedom is promised as a way toward psychological contentment / Freedom is promised to people as a way of achieving psychological contentment  ->  I mean, I don't think people are promised freedom because it's {{em|painful}} or {{em|bad}}.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto Aa" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Anything which brings psychological contentment requires effort  ->  this isn't actually true because sitting on your hands and ignoring other people's suffering {{em|can}} bring psychological contentment. that way of thinking is quite pervasive; the therapist I went to even accidentally told me to do it every other time I tried to talk about the concept that real threats to everyone were happening and we needed to respond to them instead of just cope with them. that's part of why the arguments about 'our society is going downhill because we skip to the end, damn AI anyhow' just never fully work and never truly make sense. analyzing society through individual psychology is a really terrible way to analyze society or even make good individual decisions that don't harm society. the entire concepts of psychoanalysis and psychology really quickly end you up at chaos magic and the concept that as long as you believe everything is fine you don't even have to do anything.<br />
like, think about it. if you could shut off the news and every terrible post on Twitter and press a button to lose yourself in another world and think everything is okay, and you would have happiness, would you really be able to stop yourself? this really messes with me. because sometimes I just {{em|realize}} that if I'm making art then I'm not thinking about practical ways to get out of my own personal suffering nor to get involved in movements and help anybody. and I'm like, is it bad to make art? I can't even move. I have these horrific complicated surgery wounds that leak every hour because my colon exploded once and my body is bad at healing. but I feel bad for just sitting back and doing philosophy or art and not actually being able to help in changing society, even though I'm physically disabled. I don't want to be {{em|that person}} who says it's everybody's right to regenerate the bourgeoisie even though everything has been stacked against me, and my country doesn't want to create workplaces or ways for people not to fight each other over every action and material object and I can't move.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto Aa" value="618" data-dimension="S2">It is unethical to rescue someone from harm under claims they will find what brings them psychological contentment and then completely ignore and deny what their inner psychological needs actually are  ->  seems straightforward. then results in surprising conclusions when you apply it to the conflict between the Soviet Union and Trotsky.<br />
Freedom is promised to people as a way toward psychological contentment + ?? = this.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="LR" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Animal Farm (2026)<br />
notable: this movie cast Snowball as female because it got a trans actor. when I first saw it I was like, do people know about Krupskaya and Sedova and want to reference them or something?? do we have a rosa luxemburg fan, like...? no. I overthought things like always.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="LR" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Animal Farm is about fascism  ->  I have some choice words about how wrong this is. but they're probably on other entries already, it's not worth it to put them here.<br />
generalized dictator + Animal Farm = Animal Farm is about fascism.

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="MX onto DX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Animal Farm (2026) was written for China  ->  this idea is crazy but it's one of the only things that might actually explain it. someone somehow miraculously learned about discourses in China (that happened over a decade ago to be honest) where some people were upset about the country opening up to foreign capital, and fixed a movie for China in the most unusual way, actually rewriting the plot instead of just censoring out gay people and whatnot. I might be overthinking this... but the thought of US screenwriters having to learn about Deng Xiaoping Thought is just so funny.<br />
option 2 is that nobody was thinking about China, and the writers just genuinely started to sympathize with the notion of the Soviet Union getting besieged by foreign capital without knowing that's what they're doing. that honestly sounds way more far-fetched to me.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES onto Zv, PT onto Zv" value="618" data-dimension="S">class traitor from Trotskyism  ->  the motif of generally bourgeois/Careerist people who drop out of Trotskyism and almost inevitably turn blue or brown.<br />
the big question is, why do they do this. what new structure are they being put into and what is appealing to them about the new structure? and I would hazard a guess the new structure is "one big disorganized Filament of socially-linked Friends pouring across multiple countries with Pete standing behind it with a wad of money". that's it. friendship is lethal. 'the tangle' looks more like popular descriptions of Trotskyism than anything Trotskyist theorists have been able to create themselves, so they get sucked into it like a vortex. and then they all have to accept that Pete's life matters to events on earth but none of the million Friends Linked Together he supports actually matter, doesn't matter if they're dead as long as another group of socially-linked friends dies and Pete's group wins.<br />
George Orwell - case of - class traitor from Trotskyism

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-tradition="Zv" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Animal Farm is not a kids' book (Orwell)  ->  I think that's rather debatable when it's repeatedly been taught in schools. the teachers' pages say... 9th grade? that's about. 14. so you could argue it's Young-Adult, pretty fairly. but honestly a lot of Young Adult books are colloquially called children's books, Harry Potter notably. it really depends on what you mean by children.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="Zv" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Google employs people to stop the world from creating independent software [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feO1Sl--Hg0&lc=UgyM5Qc-2EY9Ta6YkXR4AaABAg]  ->  god, average people's understandings of capitalism really make me facepalm. all of this is undesigned. this kind of thinking is exactly what creates a bunch of malls selling Third World products, then kills all the malls, then leaves everyone working for Uber or running YouTube channels for pennies and then replaces nearly everyone with AI while a few little indie shops are still going because they still believe they aren't fragile and disposable and unable to make large-scale change.

</li><li class="field_nations" data-tradition="MX onto PT" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Normal people don't care about everyone in a population surviving  ->  "minding your own business" and "staying in your lane" has a cost. that cost is literally not being able to distinguish Evil or moral Wrong at all, and literally not even caring if you're Evil.<br />
Normal people don't care about everyone in a population surviving + A population physically out-surviving another population is the most certain way to change the world's ideas, attitudes, and mentality = [PT, W] Leaving people to die is an effective way to bring progress<br />
Leaving people to die is an effective way to bring progress + Thou shalt not kill = Leaving people to die is an unacceptable way to bring progress<br />
Leaving people to die is an unacceptable way to bring progress + a world where Trotsky can be happy / ice ax incident = Abandon Trotsky, and Bolshevism has failed

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Losing everything is freedom / When you lose everything, you have more choices  ->  this would logically be true if when First-World countries explode Third-World workers' states you think Deleuzian escape routes are more important than being forced to leave your country without having a choice there. the terrifying thing? this is kind of true. it isn't not true. every time you lose something that's important to you and sever bonds you do get knocked out of closed possibilities and become more free. if you don't keep pets or your pet dies you suddenly gain the freedom to choose any other pet or do all the things you could do if you didn't have pets. if your partner leaves you you have the freedom to see any number of other partners, as many as you want. but really, is freedom always good? is it always better to be scrolling through possible relationships than to have one? to me, going on and on about the freedom created by migrations out of exploding workers' states feels like bragging that your wife died. freedom is like a big wad of un-spent money. what's it good for if you don't put it into something?<br />
Losing everything is freedom + end-of-the-world scenario = Apocalyptic scenarios are appealing because they destroy what was and open up freedom and choices / Apocalyptic scenarios are anhierarchy, and that is good

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-tradition="MX onto IV" value="618" data-dimension="S">a world where Trotsky can be happy / a world where Zinoviev can be content  ->  strange as it may sound, I'm quite sincere when I say I don't believe in Trotskyism being possible and I don't think Trotskyite conspiracies were justified to happen but I do actually care about the well-being of Trotskyists and want them to be happy or content. but I also understand that <br />
a world where Zinoviev can be content + Trotskyist for life = the only good form of Trotskyism.<br />
a world where Zinoviev can be content + Wackytown fallacy = capitalism.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="DG" value="618" data-dimension="S">escape routes (schizoanalysis) / lines of flight (schizoanalysis term)  ->  I think part of the purpose of these is to define the concept of "freedom". to assume that only "freedom" can create the best society, and pointing to various ways people escape things as the creator of freedom. it's very much one of those cases of starting at anarchism and it getting corrupted into this strange new blue ideology.<br />
but even if you take it quite seriously, this concept fails the Trotsky test. say you want to create a world that does not oppress Grigori Zinoviev or Leon Trotsky, and this is your most important goal, but you must achieve that world through Trotskyists escaping from Unfreedom and making the best choices. you simply can't get there. Trotsky can flee the Soviet Union, avoid attacking the Soviet government if he was really smart, but once he gets to Mexico there's nothing he can do to achieve what would bring him contentment in life, which is a Trotskyist workers' state. even if to make this scenario easier we assume he magically changed his mind and is okay with Trotskyism in one country. Trotsky and Sedova will never be happy. they don't want to aid the Mexican democratic empire, they want to build Trotskyism. no theory of psychology or freedom can fix this. only a historical-materialist theory of how to make any workers' state succeed. meta-Marxism would be the only good psychoanalysis.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="DG, ES, PT" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Capitalism ceases to be a problem if you watch indie movies {{YouTube|feO1Sl--Hg0}} / Capitalism ceases to be a problem if you play indie games  ->  probably had no real thought put into it. [[E:escape routes (schizoanalysis)|bizarrely schizoanalyst]]. may be a case of schizoanalysis being characteristic of tiny, quickly-dissolving, self-destructive bourgeois filaments.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Production without a purpose is basically inflation {{YouTube|feO1Sl--Hg0}} / Overproduction is basically like inflating currency  ->  considering the case of printing money in countries where the currency is tanking for underlying reasons, this could be true. people overestimate the inherent value of "wealth" as a concept and underestimate the value of connections in giving things any actual value.<br />
Production without a purpose is basically inflation + ?? = The grasshopper parable isn't even true.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The grasshopper parable isn't true / The grasshopper parable isn't even true

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The Existentialist-Structuralist tradition was started by the CIA  ->  this is just a thought; don't take it as fact. but after hearing about that 'united capitalist countries culture effort' I can't help but think, hey, is this the way all this Existentialism stuff actually started? literally just the US government gathering up their favorite capitalist sponsors and then throwing together every single anticommunist philosophy they can find, none of them initially related to each other but that all grew together over time? that would explain a lot. that would definitely explain why at first none of this made sense and I really had to squint to make sense of it. I bet I don't have the exact causal factors right here, but it could be something as {{em|simple}} as this, something no more complicated than this. we will have to look into the recorded history of this and see if any incident shows up that has this shape.<br />
this proposition requires something very similar to the CIA. if the real-world cause looks a bit more like a bunch of universities simply coming together and sharing books and believing the same things, still experiencing Filament effects where they all make money or don't but not literally receiving external money from suspicious sponsors, this Item wouldn't be true, but a new proposition could be created.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES, LR" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Friendship is always good  ->  you wouldn't know it at first glance, but this is one of the central values of capitalism. this is why capitalists cling onto "class ideology" (or "the colonizer attitude", whatever the {{censor|hell}} you want to call it) that tells them to perpetuate everything they're doing now. they really have it through their head that anybody who invests or donates money to keep a corporation afloat is a Friend and they can't imagine a world where people are mean enough to kick out their Friends. even though that's what a sensible world looks like. it's perfectly natural for any group of people to kick out one toxic friend, and rebuild their entire network of connections to not need them. when a whole society does that only to capitalists you have the groundwork for Bolshevism.<br />
thought: this suggests Gramscianism is doing part of the right thing but not the whole right thing. it correctly gets the concept of expelling toxic people but then expressly keeps the part where capitalists can be anybody's Friend. ostensibly to expel "fascism", although realistically that's hard to distinguish from Tory society in general, and kind of just leads to a divided Germany style situation. my guess is the causality goes this way: the population is divided in two first, and then because the populations are too small or mixed up and not properly separated, [[E:herd-of-cats effect|herd-of-cats]] ensues and you can't cut out the capitalists.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto ES" value="618" data-dimension="M3">Is {{TTS|tts=World War Three|WWIII}} more acceptable than Communism? / Would World War III be more acceptable than Communism?  ->  it seems to me weirdly like if you're a psychoanalyst or even any kind of Existentialist the answer is very much yes. psychoanalysts love nothing more than letting wars happen and whining about how they couldn't be prevented but assuming that countries getting punished for "bad behavior" (read: degenerate populational culture) is fine.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">If Idealism is true, Trotskyism is / If Idealism were true, Trotskyism would be the best belief system  ->  here's the thing. Idealism commonly expresses itself as the concept that the future which is the best one to desire is the one you should believe, because if you don't believe in it it can't be realized, so you are obligated to believe in improbable things for them to be realized. (this is a logical fallacy, because it changes "no belief, no outcome" to "belief, outcome" without evidence that is accurate. but let's not let that bother us, because we're assuming Idealism is true.) Idealism being true means that even if Trotskyism sounds highly improbable it can eventually be realized as long as people believe in it. Idealism does not say that the things you believe in can't frame themselves in practical or material ways. therefore, there's an argument that a slightly flawed Materialist philosophy is the best thing to believe in even if you're an Idealist.<br />
the real trick to this proposition is that you could insert any number of named Marxisms in here like Juche-socialism or poly-Maoism or whatever. it doesn't really have to be Trotskyism, I just find spuriously arguing for Trotskyism to be very funny.

</li><li class="field_exstruct field_LGBT" value="618" data-dimension="S">Billy Herrington condoning Japanese war crimes {{YouTube|Doc4cbqB-_s}}  ->  an incident which I think reveals a lot about normal human psychology. people want to believe that "society" or "humanity" is separable from populational boundaries, wars, and politics, and that they can simply form a connection to something <s>(yes, in this case edits of a gay porn tape.)</s> and that people who always seem nice are nice, while in reality that isn't necessarily true.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">paying people to perform being part of a community is the most effective way to create a vibrant community  ->  I swear this is the lesson you learn from the CIA funding immigrant artists to associate into an expanding global art movement. this should be funny but it also fills me with despair. it's like nothing means anything in the end. our whole existence as national populations is just somebody's instrument of pleasure that they use to head off having to ever think about anything, all of society is one big valueless bundle of arrows that gets big when Pete Throw Money and nobody actually has any thoughts or value or meaning, anything proceeding or happening or being is determined by whether Pete was there with money that day.<br />
man am I glad I'm not obligated to think that way and I can be a Communist. I mean, my life not be worth anything, but at least I don't have to believe that all human populations are literally pointless because there's nothing greater than gaps between countries and their arbitrary allegiance to Pete or the Rockefeller foundation.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Fan fiction is proletarian culture  ->  I at least halfway believe this
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The presence of a pre-existing set of rules or constraints that people will be evaluated by is characteristic of proletarian culture  ->  this is one of the major connecting threads between writing fan fiction and writing for official corporate products.<br />
this + ?? = Fan fiction is proletarian culture.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto A, MX onto ES" value="618" data-dimension="S">colonial trolley problem (United States)  ->  the concept of taking "systems" that anarchists and postcolonial theorists are convinced were only due to a few people making evil decisions and will surely be stopped through Popular Mentality and Education, and reduce those situations down to a scenario of a few people in daily life where the anarchist has a horrifying decision to make.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto A, MX onto ES" value="618" data-dimension="M3">Should Elijah kill to save the Indians? / There is a camp of American Indians. Elijah is a member of a frontier town. His neighbors are about to go to war with the indigenous people to claim a coal mine. If Elijah kills his neighbors, he can prevent colonialism. (here referring to the personal prejudice that causes individuals to actively subjugate other ethnic groups.) The neighbors are not interested in becoming less racist. Is he ever justified to kill them? [https://www.galbithink.org/names/us200.htm]  -><br />
to be clear: I think this is a good example of why trolley problems are stupid. I think this is a nice way to challenge the entire concept of trolley problems. trolley problems (and traditional ethics) assume that moral conundrums can actually be solved by single individuals making rational or emotional decisions, when often moral problems arise from complex interactions of two or more things behaving at the same time.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto ES" value="618" data-dimension="S">people being too disabled to be workers and becoming the petty bourgeoisie  ->  capitalism seems to have this weird newfound obsession with taking workplaces away and making us covet them. certainly the concept of surplus workers has existed for a while, but it seems like it's evolved to this point businesses really want you to believe they don't actually need you because you could always be somewhere else and ever getting hired at any particular place is genuinely a privilege where you had better not have made a single mistake in your life.<br />
The petty bourgeoisie are generated by groups of people splitting + ?? = this.<br />
<s>this + Escape routes can fix anything</s> no. this +  = Schizoanalysis is already fascism.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto ES" value="618" data-dimension="S">late-stage Menshevism  ->  the concept of a period of history where people have been attempting to create social-democracy for several decades and it has only gotten more and more ineffective as time has gone on 

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Gramscianism is a historical period of class society and has already happened in the United States  ->  the claim that hegemony politics itself constitutes Gramscian social transition, and because hegemony politics is happening right now, Gramscianism is happening right now

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The petty bourgeoisie are generated by groups of people splitting  ->  what seems to actually be true. every time capitalism has a sufficiently serious crisis, corporations break apart, workers disappear, and it actually generates a bunch of petty bourgeoisie, not a bunch of proletarians. Trotskyism is bad for a somewhat reversed reason than you'd think: it eventually regenerates the petty bourgeoisie {{em|because it encourages people to split}}, not just the other way around.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A, MX, MX onto A" value="618" data-dimension="S">concept shared by anarchism {{TTS|tts=and|&}} meta-Marxism / concept shared between anarchism and meta-Marxism / concept shared between anarchisms and hypothetical Molecular Marxisms  ->  there are a surprising number of these. it's not as many as, say, {{em|half}} anarchism's concepts. meta-Marxism generally only picks up the ones that seem to be accurate descriptors of a universalized human history or common social processes, and discards all the ones about [[E:Idealism|deliberately trying to build a better world through imagination]]. and then, as you may know by now, it gets very mad at anarchism for constantly bombarding everyone with the "one approved truth" of all the stuff that doesn't overlap. anarchism's historical materialism: okay. anarchism: no. anarchism's inability to recognize free association as brutal competition: no. anarchism's lack of willingness to create a disciplined, mandatory society based in micro-government: no. micro-Bolshevism: yes. micro-Bolshevism stacking up into any known socialism-in-one-country or country federation as long as it works: yes.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S">stereotype threat  ->  the motif, in academic literature, of socially-linked populations seeing that another surrounding or neighboring population is profiling them for particular types of threatening behavior or tacky self-expression, any number of purposes here, and to try to get rid of the stereotype attempt to self-censor or whack any badly-behaving member of the socially-linked population into line.<br />
my impression: this certainly is a phenomenon, but people absolutely frame it incorrectly. it's a pretty standard narrative now to try to say that stereotypes are made up and ignoring people's stereotypes will not result in any bad consequences. but the reality is that populations genuinely expect somebody to be enforcing government and conducting diplomacy, even on groups of people that are so small that it would be nonsensical to expect they would actually have national governments; when a group of people is identifiable as a demographic but it's ungoverned people naturally start forming superstitions about "stocking my house with a black-people gun" or "keeping out the gays to protect my kids" just to have control over dangers they can't actually control. magic ritual naturally happens in a lot of very non-religious, non-spiritual contexts where it isn't harmless. people truly value the ability to not have to rely on any outside entities and use their own individual will and own judgement to control absolutely everything that happens to them even when they can't, so, knowing full well that cops don't solve problems, they start practicing racist superstitions just to be absolutely [[E:The easiest way to abolish the police is racial segregation|super duper sure]] they're safe. this is why Marxists are so adamant that you can't have religion or superstition putting together Communities: racism is magic. racism isn't that different from any other ritual people do, so until you shake every superstition out of their minds it's quite difficult to get them to stop being prejudiced. you have to fill that same hole with a process that prevents literally every crime ever that a minority could do to them or their kids ever ever ever, and then once you've done that nearly impossible thing they finally stop and leave you alone.<br />
realistically the only way any of this stops is if ridiculously small groups of people {{em|did}} have governments. which would have to be defined positively rather than negatively as groups of people assembling into population-societies that already pledge not to do something and be part of control mechanisms that already make it unlikely they will do that thing; otherwise it's impossible to actually punish people and force them to change if they can simply leave or shift over to another one of these islands, so the only real way is to discipline them to start with before they actually do anything. like, you can only stop this stuff with a [[E:Molecular Marxism|microscopic Bolshevism]], otherwise individuals are just going to do whatever they want and terrify other individuals and commit crimes and create blood feuds and fuel rampant racism and prejudices that lead to cruel policies that re-start the entire cycle faster, and "culture" and "community" and prejudice equally aren't going to be able to do anything to stop any of it.

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="MX onto W" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Western-Marxists keep talking about "ideology" because they are forbidden to present things as Materialism so they are attempting to take the anarchist concept of things being "systems" of ideas and behaviors and strain that through Marxism<br />
The System + ?? = this.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Anti-Menshevism is simply abuse / If you try to push Menshevism and a Tory says you are already waging class war, then they are merely manipulating you by invalidating your Lived Experience while you don't deserve to be manipulated {{YouTube|GXtSN_lbjKQ}}  ->  no. the exact phrase "class war" doesn't matter here. what matters here is that the Tory has control whether you like it or not. everything the Tory has, owns, or is connected to that as you go about your daily life causes you to enter a toxic relationship with them specifically by touching {{em|counts}}. saying "Tories are mean" doesn't do anything to loosen that control. whenever you are in an arena where somebody {{em|has}} the ability to twist the narrative at all you've already lost, unless you have the ability to truly extend yourself and stand over that whole arena and put {{em|them}} on the brink of real consequences of having to lose something or vacate somewhere if they don't obey what {{em|you}} want. like, I may hate Gramscianism but it sure is a historical period that's happening. what's really the case is class war is already happening. the Tories are projecting. and it works because even the psychoanalysts know it's forbidden to say what's true. all they can do is try to turn it into a game of "people being meanies", although that doesn't convince anyone.

</li><li class="field_horror" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S">SpaceToon censorship (MLP:FiM) [https://www.reddit.com/r/mylittlepony/comments/1pet38m/you_censor_it_in_spacetoon/]  ->  ah, so there's a 4Kids for arabic. it gets me that a handful of people say they watched the show and never remember seeing it on this channel with this censorship

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Cutie marks take away Ponies' freedom to choose their future {{Reddit|1p32u4r}}

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">China's embargo is more reasonable / While the United States generally bashes countries for not being closed off, China's system of slowly allowing in a few imports every so often is vastly more reasonable than the United States' system of putting embargoes on entire Second or Third World countries

</li><li class="field_nations" data-tradition="ES onto PT, A onto PT" value="618" data-dimension="S">pick-me / pick-me behavior<br />
this whole concept is kind of quintessentially anarchist when you look at it really closely. it's got the broad idea that trying to blend into a surrounding countable culture of people that oppresses others ("White people" actively doing "Whiteness", etc.) is bad. it's got the mistaken concept that these surrounding countable cultures are not actually physical objects consisting of collections of humans and are somehow just a nebulous cloud of "attitudes" that can be exorcised like demons. and then it further tries to get you to expel that purported mind virus from your head as if that will actually protect you from the surrounding oppressive countable culture when in reality it might not. it explains basically nothing. and in the end, it vaguely comes across as being mean to people for being oppressed — basically just [[E:stupid idiot garbage trash|calling oppressed people degenerates in nicer-sounding words]].<br />
misogynists as stupid idiot garbage trash + abandonment issues / insecure attachment = pick-me

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX, MX onto A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Discussing ethics is pick-me behavior / Ethics is the weapon of Commu-nity, prejudiced violent hierarchical anarchism, "Whiteness", global empire, transphobia, Toryism, billionaire allies, {{censor||enshitt|ification}}, and everything oppressive, which in the current historical period we participate in by discussing things through ethics-based framings<br />
Economics and ethics are Existentialism + ?? = Discussing ethics is pick-me behavior.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Economics and ethics are Existentialism / As they each exist today, economics and ethics are part of a single flawed philosophical tradition, which optionally may be identified as "the Existentialist-Structuralist tradition" / Economics and ethics are connected to a single philosophical tradition through the concept of isolated free-floating islands one or more people big being given lists of rules to follow to supposedly improve things for every other island<br />
note: the implication is that while {{em|today's}} ethics must be thrown out, it would simply be replaced with a relativity-respecting "di-ethics" that in every situation works more like game theory yet goes through quantum-styled calculations to allow that frightening unpredictability will give way to historical timelines and with certain results of superpositions collapsing a "classically" ethical outcome can be achieved.<br />
existential materialism / duplexing + ethics = di-ethics.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto ES" value="618" data-dimension="S">existentialism for groups / existence-philosophy for groups (early-existentialism; meta-Marxism onto existentialism)

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">"Pick-mes" are in the closet / "Closets" exist for all prejudices, thus there is generally a thin distinction between "pick-me behavior" and "being in the closet"  ->  it's common and standard to act like there's actually a distinction between the two, and "pick-me" women are a unique form of coward that are a different thing from closeted gay or trans people. in real-life situations, they aren't. they're kind of just the same thing. you see "pick-me women" being more showy about it just because it's hard to literally hide that you're a woman and it's only really possible to do symbolically. but the reason people try to perform away their identity is literally to be safer and try to avoid attack. if they're trying to blend into all the toxicity around them, it's probably because they're isolated and they'd have very little support on doing anything else. the idea that some people have "the right" to remain closeted while some people are bad for being "pick-mes" is inconsistent. it's either a necessary evil or something ultimately nobody should be doing.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX, MX onto ML" value="618" data-dimension="M3">Why is Trotsky not on lists of famous traitors? / Why is Stalin not on lists of the most famous traitors?  ->  it's really weird. Trotsky frequently makes it onto lists of most famous assassinations, but nobody actually talks about the internal conflict between the central party and the Trotskyites long enough to conclude that the assassination was a {{em|betrayal}} of one of the sides against the other. while you'd totally get the impression Trotsky was betrayed if you'd been reading his own accounts of Stalin's government and the Russian revolution? I wouldn't be so surprised if the list of most famous traitors had suddenly included Stalin or an ally of Stalin's government — I'd just go, "yeah, okay, that figures, that fits into the typical narratives". but they never put {{em|either of them}} on the list. it's hard to say it's because people have agendas, because nobody cares one way or the other which side won with all the "famous traitors" they list from centuries and centuries ago. it's also not like the lists are using a formal definition of treason, because they contain people that turned against mafias; at that point you might as well put Nikolai Bukharin on the list for turning away from the Trotskyite conspiracy and confessing. like, Trotsky is ridiculously well known as about argument number two [[E:Bolshevism is over|Communism is bad]]. even if it's rare for people to start talking about him in other contexts he is about as significant to world history as any oddly-specific scientist or inventor we put in textbooks, all just because he wrote some dubious books about how he didn't understand mainstream Marxism-Leninism and then got assassinated, catapulting him into one of the "greatest" philosophers of right-Liberal [[E:philosophy of science (economics)|philosophy-of-economics]]. (Trotskyists will hate this observation but it's true.) I don't understand the methodology these lists are using at all.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="unknown" value="618" data-dimension="S">Molecular BlackPantherism  ->  a hypothetical Marxism which would involve involve both grassroots social programs and actually good theories of federations and small scales of society. I am not entirely clear on how big the difference would be between this and "normal" BlackPantherism. sometimes it seems like the gap is actually really small, and out of all Marxisms BlackPantherism is one of the closest to having been molecularized, with Gramscianism just a little bit behind it.<br />
Gramscianism may make me mad but I do have to admit, it definitely does talk about horrifying competition between separate chunks of a supposedly unified society. it just brings that up in the wrong tone.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Marxism goes against human nature because human beings are not naturally inclined toward philosophy, rational thinking, or scientific methods, and are inherently inclined toward intuition, mutually-exclusive group bonds, conspiracy-theories, demonization, and war  ->  I think this is sadly true, but at the same time it's like, this Marxism train has been running for a century, if we want to get everyone together and complete the task it's too late to change the color of the train from red to blue. we can paint it violet, but successfully constructing a path to blue just so things can be inherently intuitive will simply take too long

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="HAS, MX" value="618" data-dimension="S">sword of Damocles  ->  I can't think of exactly what philosophy this should be tagged as. I'll go with "{{TTS|tts=humanities, arts, and social sciences|HAS}}" due to the concept being somewhat "traditionally literary".<br />
sword of Damocles + microhierarchy = mandate of competence.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Human populations are as naturally indifferent to each other as a blizzard  ->  I have to admit, some of my violet propositions are really concerning. some of them amount more to me having a negative amount of hope than to necessary and critical parts of meta-Marxism. at the same time, right now at least, utter despair and nihilism about the concept of trusting any particular cluster of human individuals can still feel like a quintessential "violet swatch" viewpoint. [[E:Molecular Marxism|MDem]] is a really dark, macabre Marxism that doesn't speak of glorious morning suns and instead speaks of patiently waiting out desolate midnight stars. that's just the way it's been so far.<br />
The behavior of populations is undesigned but artificial + Undesigned processes are indifferent = Human populations are as naturally indifferent to each other as a blizzard

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="MX onto DX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">basic transitions (elementary; primary; meta-Marxism) [https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the-opposite-of/additional.html] [https://archive.is/y25qB]  ->  in Marx, there is a concept of "further transitions" that comes up — that there is a historical period of feudal order, then a period of capitalism, then a period of lower-phase communism or {{i|transition into Bolshevism}}, then a period of upper-phase communism or {{i|positive transition out of Bolshevism}}, then Marx leaves the door open for "further transitions" to be discovered as an alternative to claiming he already knows every possible transition. in a literal sense, "further transitions" have totally been vindicated. the only problem is that they haven't turned out to necessarily be a good thing. one possible further transition is being in transition into Bolshevism and getting attacked by a Trotskyite conspiracy that tries and fails to transition your country to a second parallel Bolshevism, unintentionally destroying the whole thing. one possible further transition is getting crushed by imperialism and having large portions of your people get absorbed into other countries. countries are dynamic things that have to be deliberately held in place, not something that necessarily changes permanently. so, Marx and Engels' concept of historical materialism is broadly correct, but for different reasons than they thought, and in different ways than they thought.<br />
with all that in mind, this is the motif of there being a period of "further transitions" which occur {{em|before}} getting to Bolshevism in order to get there, either one or multiple. this isn't an arbitrary category of things you can insert anything into. this is the notion of actual transitions between qualitatively different historical periods which occur in between capitalism and Bolshevism. this is the idea of capitalism, period A, period B, period C, Bolshevism. example 1 (incorrect United States): multicapitalism, mono-capitalism, Bolshevism. example 2 (China): warring states period, Marxist party-nation, mono-capitalism, Bolshevism. example 3 (USSR): global empire, Marxist party-nations, Bolshevism.<br />
basic transitions + Deng Xiaoping Thought = primary stage of socialism (Deng Xiaoping Thought).

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Racism is a shovel / Racism is a material object / Racism isn't an attitude
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Ableism is a shovel / Ableism is a material object / Ableism isn't an attitude

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto ES, MX onto PT" value="618" data-dimension="S">infinite dignity on a finite planet / infinite human rights on a finite planet  ->  the motif of Liberal-republicans and Existentialists thinking human rights are not zero-sum or mutually-exclusive when historically that is what class society has been and they usually have been. think of Galileo, think of Isaac Newton, think of all the people who had to be relatively privileged to start thinking about "rationality", philosophy of science, and freedom. that began at property and the zero-sum competition of people to get the wealth to get the decision-making power to do important tasks or command other people.<br />
this is, of course, one of those motifs with a bright side and a dark side. you could read it as Tories trying to claim that it's inevitable not everyone can have human rights or get to exist. but you could also read it as Communists saying it's possible to give everyone rights if we think of the world as a finite amount of people in finite arrangements, and plan for the finite people of the world to be put into the right regions and structures so everyone gets rights.<br />
infinite growth on a finite planet + human rights = infinite dignity on a finite planet.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES, LR" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Omitting physics brings freedom / Not specifying material processes brings freedom / Not specifying the material objects and processes that make up a facet of society brings the freedom to solve them in the most ethical way  ->  I think this is one of the major reasons people gravitate to Idealism. the assumption is that people naturally have freedom (a rather anarchist belief), and only the removal of freedom can make them stop naturally acting ethical, while as long as you give them as much freedom as possible they will surely act ethical again.<br />
the problem is that this is a terrible assumption. if left alone, human beings create [[E:colonialism (material object)|global empire]] and complain that you're being so mean to the Afrikaners or the Israelis when you try to break it up. freedom itself is potentially dangerous and allows people to do whatever horrible things they want as potentially millions and millions of people linked together while saying "but you can't stop me, I'm free". but what people miss is that the absence of freedom doesn't necessarily equal "monarchy" or "slavery", it's just its own thing called "no freedom". and it happens quite easily as soon as two groups of people are free at the same time, threatening each other with small-scale violence if they don't behave exactly to each other's arbitrary wants. of course, the flip side of that is that in some ways all groups of people or "communities" are potentially biased and skewed about whether separate groups of people in conflict with them are truly harming them or not, and in some ways a vast number of people can never know what's "ethical" in the first place. sometimes the problem is [[E:Ethics is unethical|that we rely on the concept of ethics]] at all. of course, sometimes it's still [[E:Palestine is not complicated|not complicated]] to say that free-floating groups of people doing whatever they want is harmful regardless of what each group of people thinks is ethical.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="LR" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Putting bad businesses out of business is not the same thing as requiring businesses to be run by nice people (Cory Doctorow)  ->  distinction without a difference. businesses are free-floating chunks containing decision-making power. that's the problem. when you try to regulate businesses you are fundamentally regulating behavior and moral character of individuals, even if the individuals are "individual" groups; whatever you impose on individual groups will filter down to each isolated individual inside the group. require a country to overcome poverty, you get Stalin's government carefully arranging everybody and bossing everybody around, and it's all your fault. the same phenomenon that's true of a free-floating sea of countries is true of any free-floating sea of individualized groups.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Single-issue movements succeed when they find the right coalition partner (Cory Doctorow)  ->  really Existentialist analysis, yuck. that said I am not sure it's entirely wrong.<br />
united states of states of states + ?? = Single-issue movements succeed when they find the right coalition partner

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="Zv, MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Cartoon Network ruined Mao Mao / Chunk action ruined Mao Mao / When Cartoon Network began failing to effectively grow and chunk-compete, Mao Mao had to be expelled to balance out the expenses of the chunk and the all-directional contradiction between industrial chunks ruined Mao Mao  ->  out of all the {{censor|shit}} people say about "corporate greed", this is actually kind of correct. people don't give you the right reasons but yes, major corporations get to a point where they start faltering and failing to publish anything else because they can't grown and earn and pay for the new labor. in the age of streaming services where this is happening like 20-50 times simultaneously across all the major services there are it's very annoying. but none of it has to do with "greed". as Amazon has showed us, the truly greediest corporation would figure out how to slurp up all the platform space and all the shows and not have to cancel any of them.

</li><li class="field_nations" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Gramscians ruined iiSU / "iiSU removed its coders and replaced them with activists" / iiSU got hit by a musical chairs attack, which is characteristic of Gramscianism if not necessarily exactly the same thing  ->  from what I read, this wasn't a musical chairs attack. one person left because although he had changed from the time he was actively hanging out with bigots, he couldn't handle the environment of having to constantly face the public and every day actively perform "looking like a nice guy" just to not suddenly get hit with suspicions in a world where every two people who come into contact with each other are inherently in conflict and inherently suspicious of each other. I certainly don't know him, but to me that's pretty relatable. some people are bad. some people are neutral people who actually want no harm, and are just exhausted at every social interaction being a stage performance and every attempt at not being a shut-in requiring "kayfabe", often five different ones at different times where none of them is real. I'm tired of Gramscianism. I'm tired of Commu-nity.

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="MX onto W" value="618" data-dimension="S">red Gramscianism vs strawberry Gramscianism / red Gramscianism versus strawberry Gramscianism versus charcoal Gramscianism / colors of Gramscianism (colours; meta-Marxism)  ->  the distinction between Gramscianism as a Marxist-Leninist revolutionary period or transition to Bolshevism, and Gramscianism as hegemony politics inside Liberal capitalism which attempts to "get rid of bigots" before challenging Liberal-republicanism or even making anything much better for workers.
</li><li class="field_ML"       value="618" data-dimension="S">red Gramscianism  ->  the concept that Gramscianism can be red.
</li><li class="field_gramsci"  value="618" data-dimension="S">strawberry Gramscianism  ->  the concept that Gramscianism can be strawberry, like Deng Xiaoping Thought. this could mean a couple of different things: A) Gramscianism is "[[E:Deng Xiaoping Thought is a postcolonial theory|actually postcolonial]]", and involves the separating-out of a population from its surroundings so that it frees itself from abuse and control by surrounding capital though not necessarily its own B) Gramscianism is a red philosophy hollowed out and filled up with bourgeoisie. a lot of time when I bother to specify "strawberry Gramscianism" I will mean the second thing, because I believe Gramscianism can theoretically be red, if only in hypothetical countries that haven't happened, or maybe in East Germany.
</li><li class="field_anarchy"  value="618" data-dimension="S">charcoal Gramscianism  ->  the concept that Gramscianism can be charcoal, like anarchism.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">blue Gramscianism  ->  the concept that Gramscianism can be blue, like Liberal-republicanism or Existentialism.

</li><li class="field_gramsci" value="618" data-dimension="S2">East Germany was red Gramscianism / East Germany is a real-world example of red Gramscianism  ->  considering its proximity to Italy and similar problems in the before times, this seems possible.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-tradition="Zv, PT" value="618" data-dimension="S">moving parts of Illinois to Indiana {{YouTube|cysQpvHR0Jw}}  ->  Illinois residents upset the state is 'bleeding counties to feed the growth of Chicago'. I will generously make this one orange even though it would probably be fair to make it brown. you've got an underlying process here of populations separating into new populations by ideology and becoming convinced The Bureaucracy of the original population shouldn't even need them, in order to break off and form a new population around their own ideology. this is the crux of politics in large countries. United States people want to believe that everyone assigned into a population truly belongs there and you only need to change the standards and "culture" of the population, but in reality, everything becomes about people {{em|re-dividing populations and sorting into new populations}} in order for people to feel like they're being included. the Trotskyite conspiracy illustrates this perfectly: they're not going to compromise with anything that interrupts the act of them being them. the happiest outcome for them is they create a breakaway state with a different internal structure.

</li><li class="field_fantasy field_LGBT" data-tradition="Fy, LGBT" value="618" data-dimension="S">oops! all trans women / oops! all trans girls  ->  the motif of fans of something however accidentally or on purpose deciding all the major female characters are trans.<br />
I have no issue with this. I think it's very funny, but in a positive way. just the concept of a fan of Deltarune for example starting at "trans Noelle" and then ending up at trans Susie saying "really? so Dess is a trans woman too". — this could not possibly have been the "intended solution", but also don't stop, because you're on a roll.<br />
edit: oh okay I read the example wrong, the idea was the character every other person thinks is trans isn't trans this time but other people are. I'm leaving this motif because I bet there are some things people actually do this with.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S">Communist Goku
</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S">Communist Vegeta  ->  so, before I created Wavebuilder or this wiki, I was messing with "Infinite Craft", this large language model game where you can combine concepts and it {{em|tries}} to figure out what they combine into. one of my favorite things to do was see if it would make these silly alternate versions of characters, and then if combining them with anything else would actually do anything. usually it didn't work that well. but once you cut the AI out of that, it becomes so much easier to get way into that and make as many scenarios as you want as well as actually get into the logic of them, what causal factors you can combine with each character to get each of the variations.<br />
should I put every possible sans on here. like, just the ones that are good. to show people what this thing is and how it works. maybe I should do that.
</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S">Communist Berdly
</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S">Communist Noelle
</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S">Communist Susie

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S">"Stalinist" Trotsky  ->  because why stop at variants of imaginary people when fiction can be about historical periods.<br />
this guy has been in my thought experiments a nonzero number of times, though none of them actually became MDem chapters that I can remember right now.

</li><li class="field_horror"  value="618" data-dimension="S">Asriel became the Knight to protect Dess / Asriel became the Knight trying to find Dess
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">Ralsei will be replaced by Noelle in Chapter 6
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">Ralsei came from the red Soul / Ralsei is the shadow of the red Soul device
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">Ralsei missing from fountain sealing screen (Deltarune)  ->  that is such a slick catch. I never saw anyone talk about that or point that out. meanwhile we have other reasons to think Ralsei will be replaced by Noelle. I don't think Ralsei missing from the fountain sealing sequences is an accident.

</li><li class="field_horror" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Noelle will die and be resurrected / The girl will die winter holiday (prophecy panel prediction; Deltarune) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDPogkuP4Pw]  ->  yeah. that is one of the most convincing predictions I've seen anybody else make for what the missing panel is. it's very likely it could mention that recurring figure "the girl" or literally make a pun on December Holiday. and Noelle getting pinned up on the cross not-really-violently is definitely hard to ignore.<br />
the only thing about this that doesn't work for me is that the hand holes have always been associated with Gaster. who is either the Opposer or the demiurge depending on the moment. hand holes do not equal holy light and noble sacrifice in Deltarune. and also, Noelle gets pinned to a hand? not a cross. a hand. hands almost equal Gaster too. "beware the man who speaks in hands". the stuff about not being able to find your hand. apparently with some weird implication that Gaster took it or something. like, piercing your hand and becoming a Roaring Knight beyond the veil of darkness could be yet another way Gaster speaks through hands.<br />
apart from that I don't think we're supposed to read Noelle's suffering as meaningful, I can't disprove that she will die, or could die instead of Dess, or that this panel will confirm that Dess is not a man. all of those things are still possible. decent prediction.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The Knight is Dess lucid dreaming / The Roaring Knight is Dess becoming able to lucid-dream and take control of her physical form in the created world of Deltarune (their form; his form; Deltarune)


</li><li class="field_anarchy field_LGBT" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The {{TTS|tts=United States|U.S.}} has more nonbinary people than eagles / There are more nonbinary people in the United States than bald eagles {{YouTube|cJVyzmz0dxc}}  ->  that is so funny. it's intuitive that would be true when in general humans are one of the most common Animals besides insects. but I never thought about it.

</li><li class="field_nations" value="618" data-dimension="S">assuming lesbian is male / assuming gay man is female / wait, I thought Alphys was a girl... {{YouTube|cJVyzmz0dxc}}  ->  the motif of people seeing that someone has "a girlfriend" and assuming they are a man, or vice versa.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A, ES" value="618" data-dimension="S">societal structures recombining / societal structures reproducing through recombining / societal structures "sexually reproducing" in the sense that plants do (cross-pollinating; analogy)
</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A" value="618" data-dimension="S">making all cultures non-ideological / making all countable cultures non-ideological / making all countable cultures devoid of ideology in the sense of political economy or the plural, duplexed realization of conflicting Social-Philosophical Systems  ->  a prerequisite for schizoanalysis type things and the notion that Cultures inherently want to go together and peacefully reproduce just because they are Cultures to ever work. I don't think this is currently possible. my objection to it, of course, is not that the idea of all countable cultures coexisting, moving around and across everywhere freely, and peacefully reproducing would be a bad thing. it wouldn't. my objection is that currently we can't get trivially rid of ideologies. physical ideology-objects are like this hard barrier between human populations coming together, this boundary where populations have wars and kill each other or animals would eat each other. if we could overcome the plurality of ideologies to somehow cover the world in Bolshevism or something, it might then be possible to begin this process of making countable socially-linked culture-groups of people — furries, K-Pop fans, Christians, Buddhists, lesbian romance novel writers, Germans, Canadians, fiery atheists, neo-pagans, Dungeons & Dragons fanatics — non-ideological at that period in history. but as long as mainstream Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism are separate, as long as we have divisions like that, this kind of anarchism will be physically impossible.<br />
I know "peacefully reproduce" is a weird phrase. it means: as any two biological individuals exist in nature and reproduce literally, social phenomena larger than an individual mixing or joining together to make new iterations or entities. a household itself and not the people in it joining to another household to produce new households. two universities producing experts that come together to create new discoveries somewhere else or a new university. it's the notion of non-biological things reproducing, Bauplan elements that make up Cultures reproducing. god, to think some people are still upset about interracial marriage, when we could be talking about much bigger things on this level.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S">eradicating all Trotskyism from Marxism / revisiting all of Marxism to remove the errors characteristic of the earliest versions of Leninism that were used to create Trotskyism ->  I have never actually seen anybody doing this or talking about this but me. this is somehow something only I think about, and right now I'm not sure why that is.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">"The Internationale" is Trotskyist / "The Internationale" is based on an outdated version of Leninism, which in one sense could be called equivalent to Trotskyism although it is not necessary to label it that way  ->  the claim that the kinds of things said in the Internationale are characteristic of a very early era of Leninism which had a lot of mistakes in it and was used to create early Trotskyism; I say "is Trotskyist" as something of an unnecessarily provocative way of phrasing that which happens to be a lot shorter to say.<br />
I think there is a lot of old Communist imagery that goes around that is based on the knowledge people had a century ago rather than what we know today and at this point is just kind of misleading. I don't mean to be {{em|such}} a boring stick in the mud that I am very literally saying "songs are wrong", but I think that in different ways we really need to update people's knowledge on historical materialism and how societies work so that in time they can eventually digest all that and their daily experiences and have some emotions about that to produce better art and better songs.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">If you have empathy, leave the {{TTS|tts=United States|U.S.}} / If you truly have empathy you must leave the United States / If you are a Communist and you truly wish to love and respect people through understanding their emotions and needs you must leave the United States

</li><li class="field_gramsci" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Only demographic minorities can represent a population / Only racial minorities can represent a population / Only gay people can represent a population / Only trans people can represent a population / Only cis women who live in fear of rape can represent a population (only TERFs; only trans-exclusionary reactionary feminists; only trans-exclusionary radical feminists)  ->  this is like, one of those symptoms you have after having the sickness of Liberal-republicanism for too long; the conditions of Liberalism churn and churn and squeeze and crush the population and create {{em|this}}. to be perfectly fair it's one of those ideas that's only implied and hardly ever stated openly. but you do see lesser variations on it a lot.<br />
I think people come up with this idea because they get too lost in positivism and buried in the concept of Lived Experience. they get it in their head that only the living-experiencing mind of a specific individual with a specific life and history can be the raw material for constructing an understanding of a population, that individuals can understand populations and have empathy but groups of people can't, and then they go searching for the single best individual to do the task of collecting information on issues and representing people, which has to be a demographic minority because otherwise it's impossible for that positivistic individual to properly contain the correct individual Lived Experience. this is... a very [[E:Careerist layer|Careerist]] phenomenon. it's very rooted in the notion of individuals always having to build up artisanal education and expertise for anything to ever be done and especially for anything with uncertainty over whether it will be completed to be done. and then you generate Liberal-republicanism, this concept that everybody gets to vote but voting is not actually a choice in that you're only allowed to vote for a Black lesbian or the thing isn't functioning correctly. (not to say this hypothetical election outcome is where the problem is. the point is about how no matter how good the outcome is it's messed up for voting to never really be a choice and actually be an exercise in punishing everyone for not behaving correctly.) Liberal-republicanism is really really weird in that it often comes across as deterministic. there's a specific outcome people have predetermined they want everyone else to do, but then they just leave them to do it? it's weirdly obsessed with removing everyone's actual individual agency and overwriting that with a particular plan. everything people told you about Liberalism being free and Marxism being less free is just a lie. but the reason isn't what you'd expect: Liberal-republican voters were never free.<br />
now, this issue of "positivist Careerism" is also an issue for Marxism, in a slightly different way. Marxism is more honest in that it tells people everything is about the correct answers. but it still gets stuck in these nasty traps of only having a few people who are qualified to run things in a party ("dictators"! oh no!) because only those particular people have all the required individual knowledge and experience. as time goes on and more people in a Third-World country get educated this gets better, there's more like thousands and thousands of experts to choose from instead of just one or ten, and the bad ones can be tossed out. but there's still a little bit of a bottleneck in that only this limited minority of people with experience becomes a caste of people who is qualified to be nominated or elected. this layer and this problem also exists in Liberal-republicanism, it's nearly the same class of people, the notion of just anybody being able to be elected is just a lie, but Marxism is more honest about all of it while Liberalism totally obscures it. Liberalism commands you to deterministically produce the outcome of electing a Black woman, Marxism begrudgingly admits that the country must temporarily be ruled by the minority of "Stalin" or "Trotsky" in the interest of getting the right answers.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The biggest problem with capitalism is that it allows people to be stupid  ->  when you live in a Liberal-republican country, everybody will constantly beat you down to accept capitalism, worker or not, and beat you down to only be allowed into "progressivism" if you accept capitalists. to the finest levels, capitalism chokes out any real threat of turning all the workers against it using Menshevism. so, for a moment, let's explain things to them a different way. let's pretend for a second that capitalism isn't harmful. if this were true, the biggest problem that transforms capitalism into "fascism" is this. Liberal-republicanism requires a layer of smart experts to properly have suitable candidates to be elected. but there is no incentive for people to actually be smart. if people manage to be good at keeping a business running as a structure or chunk of assets while not caring about any of the people in it, they don't have to learn anything else, andpeopel, always having money, they can still try as many times as they want to get elected — if they resonate with people's anger enough maybe they will. this simple process of capitalists existing and getting to try and try and try again generates Toryism — the group of people who would tear apart Liberal-republicanism and settle for any system without griping, monarchy and feudal order or some new capitalism-feudalism or anything else, as long as that system preserves their Freedom in their own day-to-day lives as individuals or small groups in the way that they conceive of it. Tories have existed from the second right before Liberal-republicanism was created; the Tories that tried to prevent a British parliament from existing at all are only so different from today's Tories. the major struggle of Liberal-republicanism is like this: it's always been an active struggle between a population-society of Tories realizing a Tory Bauplan and a population-society of Liberal-repbulicans realizing a Liberal-republican Bauplan, a struggle between two nations and cultures to out-exist and spread over the top of the other in order to wholly realize a new republic and a new historical period. Liberal-republicanism is a transition fighting slowly across a country over a century that becomes awkwardly stuck in the middle.<br />
so, logically, if you want to fix Liberal-republicanism inside Liberal-republicanism, one way is to require everybody to be smart. make everyone actually take some kind of science test to become representatives, and put basic questions about gender identity and climate change and development stages of a fetus on there and everything. that's going to suck for people that start in poor neighborhoods. but everybody always says their number one goal is defeating fascism, not defeating racism, so is that really a problem??? {{i|(sarcasm.)}} this would be like a citizenship test, set out at the national level, not like a bar exam set up by specific universities or a specific regional guild. if you did this... I think Tories would get really mad and try to deregulate everything and remove it from all government control (like they do today) but overall it would be much easier to keep them from taking over government at least. I think there would be major movements to make society more culturocratic and make it so blocks of Tories and Tory control over jobs are literally impenetrable. I think you'd see major segregation racially and ideologically to where Florida may as well change its name to Toryistan. but eventually you might get blocs of capitalists in the Gramscian states declaring bills of human rights that form some kind of regional constitutions and joining up into localized capital-fiefs that at least try really hard to have the mandate of heaven on their cluster of earls. they'd shatter the existing state lines and create new states. and then maybe in about 2200 industries would finally start republicanizing specifically through being too centralized and consolidated to grow or change and replacing owners with groups of bureaucrats. it wouldn't be fun but it could maybe work, at an absolute glacial pace.

</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="F2">There is no Overton window / The concept of the Overton window does not describe anything in material reality  ->  heard this from a mainstream Marxist-Leninist. I had to think about this a while. but after thinking about it, I think this is not just false, but dangerously false. here's the thing. when you're a Materialist, the specific words and clusters of terms people use to describe things don't matter; finding an ontology which models reality is what matters. so when people talk about "the Overton window", if the statements they're saying are statements about a real thing after all, then the statements will be true regardless of whether they said "Overton window". so, can that happen? yes. it is fully possible for physical people to file into an area, push out other physical people who don't fit or are not allowed, and totally change the observed culture of the group based on the people who are still there. this process can happen for a bunch of white supremacists taking over an area and pushing out everyone else. this process can happen with the population of North Korea pushing out Japanese and European empire and creating a North Korean republic. this process can happen with the Soviet Union forming a Leninist party and making sure only things that are broadly compatible with Marxism and not allowing anyone in the country to connect into big blocs of external empires are allowed at the moments that it truly matters. in my mind, this is the cause of people talking about "the Overton window". but it's very real. the existence of a mainstream Marxist-Leninist workers' state forming and pushing out the staunch bourgeois allies or the Trotskyists is a real thing. the existence of Liberal republics forming and pushing out all the monarchists and Communists is real. so if you tell your would-be Communist allies that Overton windows don't exist, you risk totally blinding them to the actual processes of history that create things like clusters of White supremacists. and then everyone is stuck arguing about "culture" and whether Gramscianism is valid or real and getting absolutely nowhere. in the end I think it's more accurate to say that Overton windows technically do exist, and people are just wrong about [[E:Overton windows are actually republics|why they exist]].
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Overton windows are actually republics / The Overton window is actually created by the creation of a republic charged with a particular founding ideology / The Overton window is the shovel dream of a realized Social-Philosophical-Material System

</li><li class="field_nations" data-tradition="Fy, ES" value="618" data-dimension="S">growing up in United States as villain redemption arc / growing up in Japan as villain redemption arc  ->  subjective theme in: Dragon Ball.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S">pretending Marxism is classless / Marxism pretending to be classless / presenting Marxism as if it were classless / presenting North Korea as similar to the United States because it wasn't mainly composed of workers (meta-Marxism) / pretending Marxism is Idealism by presenting relatively hardcore Materialism as Idealism  ->  the motif of outwardly pretending that Marxism is classless to actually get the horrifically skewed bourgeois population of First World countries to come together and cooperate for once, while internally not actually attempting to discard class analysis or the concept of class-territory structures making historical events.<br />
pretending Marxism is classless + lambda-calculus determinism = Inside a workers' state further transitions are about graph arrangements

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S">don't say "inequality" / don't say "wealth inequality" / don't say "income inequality" / don't say "greed" (in reference to "greed" as cause of "wealth inequality"; meta-Marxism)  ->  the concept that mentioning "wealth inequality" or "income inequality" blinds people to what the real issues are in terms of transitioning from Liberal-republicanism and periodic shootings and international war and race war into peace, non-suffering, and a workers' state.<br />
this idea will look absolutely insane if you live in a Third World country — for instance I'd guess it would look crazy in India, and thus might count as revisionism {{em|if you lived over there}}. but people outside the United States need to understand that the conditions you need these kinds of ideas in are really unique and strange, and so you need to counter those with almost equally strange ideas. in the United States, people are weirdly [[E:The French Revolution is a distraction|obsessed with the French Revolution]] and the idea that a bunch of people suffering joined together as [[E:tent of freedom poles|tent of freedom poles]] to create Human Rights — that material suffering almost isn't actually material and a bunch of people [[E:Idealism|genuinely stop physically starving]] thanks to a [[E:IBE|piece of paper]] — while at the same time a staggering amount of people want to believe that "no country requires a revolution", such that despite being the birth of Liberalism the French Revolution can be reduced down to a simple act of a bunch of smart people signing a piece of paper. let's take a second to call this what it is: this is the belief that the United States and the world have been made great by European colonizers with a lot of money creating an empire with smarts and money and papers and merely allowing every lesser man to live in it. we don't want to believe that the bedrock of Liberal republics [[E:non-peacer|is Toryism]] with a little moderating constitution on top of it, or that even the founders of the United States by describing "law and order" and "democracy" truly only made Toryism huger and enforcing order by brutalizing criminals and foreigners bigger. with that said. normal people really really don't understand the concept of Toryism existing as a material object the size of the United States. they don't get the concept that national governments and local social structures exist to corral populations into peaceful shapes to prevent wars. Lenin would understand it, because it allowed creating the Soviet Union and getting the Russian Empire region out of war. but most people in the United States and apparently in Australia really don't get this whole concept that war and violence stop when people are arranged good. and in the midst of that, they get actively distracted by the concepts of "wealth" and "inequality", mistaking the most superficial understandings of these concepts for an understanding of class in the historical sense. I feel like at a certain point you just have to pull out the rug and take """class""" away from them. you have to just shout at them, Marxism isn't about class!!! it sounds like a foreign language to an English speaker in India, but it's because you can't get away from the false definition of wealth equalling class. you have to find a different entrance into language, a backdoor, to explain historical materialism to people. you have to get them to discard their totally wrong understandings and start leading them to the truth. and what truth is that? that wealth, "greed", "elites", and even "human rights" have almost nothing to do with "creating democracy" or "stopping fascism". people are arranged into various chunks. the chunks rearrange into different chunks of chunks to create peace and structure the world. there is currently no order to the process of arranging chunks. chunks inevitably grow over each other and fight each other brutally to be the only true chunk or individual that belongs somewhere doing something. people falsely believe that [[E:natural crime|morality exists in nature]] and there are inherently evil ways for chunks to stochastically attempt to arrange themselves that can be stopped or punished. but it's all false. there is no way for the internal decision-making processes of individual individuals and individual chunks to regulate the brutal process of chunks fighting over open slots to be the only true thing or the one with the privilege of ordering the chunks. the {{caps|only}} way to stop that is declare that chunks don't have the right to be independent and start smashing the borders between chunks. it doesn't truly matter that chunks have owners. when you crush the borders between chunks and you really aim to do it permanently you also end up removing the owners of the chunks. the big hang-up is this. if Gramscianism or anarchism were competent as emerging civilizations, they could just join people together, overcome all the owners, and take control of the chunks making them do what they're supposed to. the existence of owners wouldn't be an issue that anybody has to whine about or make videos about, the owners would already be at Gramscians' mercy. so why do Western-Marxists spend so much time whining about "culture" and "elites dividing you"? ([[E:Richard Wolff is the bourgeoisie|ironically.]]) basically because when everyone is obsessed with the totally nebulous concept of "freedom" nobody has the courage to say, "hmm, I don't think businesses should be independent" and shove a bunch of businesses together into a civilizational body they're not allowed to leave. that's Bolshevism. that's the true way capitalism ends and Bolshevism is created. Bolshevism is the end of divisions between conflicting chunks of people. you don't actually have to talk about workers or owners just to win people over to Bolshevism. the only issue is now you have to deal with the messy terrain of what groups of people should associate into what people-groups in order to form nations, ethnic groups with governments, union republics, or similar political entities capable of acting as workers' states or building blocks of workers' states. that requires specific knowledge of history and current news and is not something you can solve solely with a little math. there. I didn't even talk about Communist parties or people of a particular people-group meeting up as groups of representatives to properly form a barebones [[E:democracy as republicanism|democracy]]. I made it maximally palatable to all the university experts and freelancers and co-op starters and and independent contractor types. so there's no excuse now. it doesn't matter if you're the bourgeoisie. if you don't have the power to end capitalism and create Bolshevism then your theory sucks.<br />
equalitarianism (Maoism) + bourgeoisie is a dirty word = don't say "inequality"<br />
pretending Marxism is classless + ?? = don't say "inequality"

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">MDem is the reframing of revolution as the structure of the many rather than the sins or power of the few / MDem is the definition of "creating democracy" as the process of empowering the many through arranging them into a functional society rather than as the process of "attacking elites"  ->  taking the "Lynxley fallacy" and turning it into a proposition.<br />
weapons of mass construction + Molecular Marxism = MDem is the reframing of revolution as the structure of the many rather than the sins or power of the few.<br />
Bolshevism is peaceful until attacked + Molecular Marxism = this.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Privilege exists as wealth or production / There are two privileges: wealth and production / There are two kinds of privilege: money or ownership and the ability to survive and outcompete by being able to produce / First World countries misunderstand themselves as privileged when they often do not possess the most important kind of privilege, production privilege, and despite their abundance of wealth privilege are actually backward countries / "White privilege" is partly explained by the existence of wealth privilege and the lack of production privilege inside the bounds of a country (racism-centered framing; Black-Panther style framing)
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S">wealth privilege  ->  often misunderstood to be the only kind of privilege.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S">production privilege  ->  the kind of privilege that identifies a truly developed civilization and would identify the true "global north". creating production privilege lays the foundation to create the Second World.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto DG" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Calling groups of people "machines" doesn't transcend nazism (doesn't transcend fascism; meta-Marxism onto schizoanalysis)  ->  the claim that, because any old group of populists can get mad at "modernity" and "the rat race" and band together to do violence to [[E:Greedy people are a class|a cluster of "greedy families"]] who [[E:Nazis are only bad because they're wealthy, greedy elites|Greedily Slurped Everything Up Because They're The Devil]], the whole concept of Machines in schizoanalysis isn't actually useful in effecting change to a new arrangement which is better.<br />
one of the only good things about Toryism is that it nominally claims to arrange people into particular corrals of people strictly not allowed to step over each other in order to promote peace and moral behavior. from there, there are a million bad things about it. but schizoanalysis seems not to understand the role of feudal orders and Toryism in nominally trying to prevent wars, and seems to stupidly attack literally any mechanism which could prevent people from flat-out descending into World War I. this is not a road to fixing the world. you need to commit to some kind of physical arrangement of people designed to prevent wars, or in the end you basically support war and maybe genocide.<br />
Calling groups of people "machines" doesn't transcend nazism + Anything which materially operates through the Bauplan of fascism is fascism = Schizoanalysis is already fascism

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The future of one object is the future / Predicting the future movements of one object is predicting the future  ->  a very simple idea it seems like absolutely nobody gets right.<br />
there are reasons for this to be confusing: if you seek to predict the future, are you seeking to predict individual objects or specifically seeking to predict relativity and the intersection of a few objects? but again, most people aren't quite educated enough to realize this is what the problem is and go "oh wait my claim that Communism doesn't work is due to relativity". not a sentiment you ever see most of the time.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Moral claims about history rewrite history / Every moral claim about history is an act of rewriting history / Every historical fiction narrative that involves preventing something bad asks questions about the inner mechanics of history  ->  every moral claim about history rewrites history, but that's not a bad thing in and of itself. some acts of rewriting history are malicious. some acts of rewriting history are just acts of [[:Category:historical materialism ontology (general-sense)|exploring the processes that created history and trying to learn [[:Category:Marxism ontology|to better steer them and understand them]].<br />
there are two ways to read this same proposition: the Existentialist way where it's like "oh no I can't go back in time to prevent Nazi Germany", or the Marxist way where it's like "whether somebody can write a good time travel story or alternate-history story where things actually do change is a soft test of their character, or at least their willingness to explore and learn"

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Excluding Trotsky is bigotry / Excluding James P. Cannon is bigotry<br />
Excluding Trotsky is bigotry + ?? = Trotskyists are a threshold of tolerance.<br />
Excluding Trotsky is bigotry + schizoanalysis = Excluding Trotsky is an offense to schizoanalysis
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto DG" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Excluding Trotsky is an offense to schizoanalysis  ->  there are many reasons you could argue "Excluding Trotsky is bigotry" is false. I have some very, very specific reasons for arguing it's true. one of them is to argue this. schizoanalysis is dreadfully mainstream by now whether people know they believe it or not; "Community", "tolerance" and "freedom" are each really big in this decade, and so you stand a better chance of getting people to believe something if you filter it through schizoanalysis. with this said, it can be argued that schizoanalysts, and the broader group of [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology|Existentialists]] and anarchists in general, are intolerant of Trotskyism as a countable culture while they use it as a pawn to divide people, violating their own core values of being The Nice People who make everyone [[E:tent of freedom poles|Tent of Freedom Poles]] as The Only Possible Way to Join Groups of Human Beings. but here's the thing. if they were to tolerate Trotskyism as a countable culture, they'd have to tolerate the realization of Trotskyism and thus the literal act of creating a hypothetical Trotskyist workers' state which they would allow to become an ally of their country regardless of if the two populations have different "economic systems". nobody does that. nobody practices true tolerance across countries in this way. the Cold War never ended, it only really got worse. the overall landscape of anticommunism shifts the moment you get schizoanalysts to turn around and go, oh wait, by turning against our own allies in the Cold War that we bashed Stalin's government because we supported, we made a big mistake, we should have at least supported our own friends and [[E:If Trotsky corrected his errors he'd become a mainstream Marxist-Leninist|held them to real standards]], so we could have actually won against center-Liberalism and not inevitably succumbed to neoliberalism and Tories.<br />
said another way: {{em|if}} tolerance is the key to winning and stopping Toryism, schizoanalysts tolerating Trotskyists and flat-out tolerating Leninism itself can only be good, regardless of how effective Trotskyists actually are currently. I think the basic problem here is that tolerance itself {{em|doesn't}} actually solve anything. hate to be that guy being super negative in the corner, but yeah. schizoanalysis is bogus. {{em|if}} it wasn't bogus, {{em|then}} it would benefit from supporting Leninism and never deserting Trotskyists. keep telling schizoanalysts things like this and see how long it takes them to break and realize that Community isn't made of Community.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Trotskyists are a threshold of tolerance / First they came for the Trotskyists / Trotskyist theorists are as instrumental to United States movements as trans people are to the LGBT+ movement / Trotskyists cannot be excluded from United States movements because the act of excluding them allows people to throw away internationalism in the sense of getting multiple Marxisms of different country-regions with different characteristics to cooperate / If people don't tolerate Trotskyist theorists as people and as Leninists they will never be able to understand named Marxisms and will quickly become intolerant to the entire population of China, North Korea, or Vietnam as a whole  ->  there are probably arguments this is false. you are not prohibited from arguing them.<br />
Socialism can have Trotskyist characteristics + Excluding Trotsky is an offense to schizoanalysis = Trotskyists are a threshold of tolerance

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S">stupid people ({{book|MDem}})  ->  I need to be perfectly clear on what the definition of this is because almost definitely somebody is going to get it twisted. stupid people: 1) are not people with learning disabilities 2) are not people without a college education 3) are not people of a particular political faction (if I said they were I'd be dangerously close to bashing Trotskyists, so no.) 4) are not people who are cruel because they lack the "enlightenment" to be nice — as much as I've implied that phenomenon may exist, that isn't the process that creates or identifies stupid 5) are people who have a genuine inability to understand basic concepts such as duplexing or universal morality actually being universal 6) are people who require essay-long explanations of something that should be as easy to learn as addition or long division<br />
my book, in a sense, is for stupid people. it doesn't actually talk down to them, but it does try to explain the {{censor|hell}} out of things from the very beginning to make basic concepts almost impossible to misunderstand.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Stupid people adore freedom / Stupid people love freedom the most / Regardless of whether there is anything inherently bad about freedom, stupid people will be the first to rush out and grab it

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">If Communism doesn't work, morality doesn't work / If Communism doesn't work, morality doesn't work either
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Toryism is the lack of morality / One prominent diagnostic characteristic of Toryism is the lack of any actual ability to discern or discuss morality within society / "Society is caged by corrupt Elites" actually means "experts are not dumbing things down enough and I'd prefer if they talked down to me a bit more"  ->  many Existentialists are going to think this is true just because "fascists" "are cruel". I have a different reason for saying this is true: Tories or "fascists" are just way too stupid to understand morality, and support things that are evil not because they're bad people but specifically [[E:stupid people (MDem)|because they're so stupid]]. whenever you want people to stop being nazis you really have to dumb it down and speak to them on their own level of knowing hardly anything at all. I know that's a harsh thing to say, but that's my actual day-to-day experience interacting with real people. despite my absolute best efforts to make things simpler and simpler and dumber and dumber to where it seems like nobody should be able to get it mixed up any more, I still keep running into walls on the simplest concepts and often never figure out how to put something dumb enough they actually get it.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Don't mention "the bourgeoisie" / {{i|Bourgeoisie}} is almost a swearword / Bourgeoisie is one of the dirtiest words you can say / Petty-bourgeoisie is one of the dirtiest words you can say / The word "(petty-)bourgeoisie" will never be understood in most conversations that matter as a label or insult with actual weight, so it should be avoided in favor of phrasings that center activities only workers can accomplish to the point that when the bourgeoisie try to do the actual activities they look stupid

</li><li class="field_nations" value="618" data-dimension="S">they banned the word ego ({{book|Anthem}})  ->  the motif of everyone in society no longer saying the word "I" and replacing it with the word "we", of nobody being allowed to find out about the word "ego", or something equivalent.<br />
they banned the word ego + pretending Marxism is classless = Bourgeoisie is almost a swearword

</li><li class="field_horror" value="618" data-dimension="Z">{{book|The Giver}} (graphic novel)
</li><li class="field_horror" value="618" data-dimension="S">the first time I saw red / they banned the color red (colour; {{book|The Giver}}) / they banned colors ({{book|The Giver}})  ->  it is so ironic that, like, this is a book about Trotsky banning the color red. the guy who's obsessed with copying every statement Lenin said so it won't get "banned". Trotsky banning the color red. say that out loud. ???

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">insert fic
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Console games have normalized insert fics  ->  think about it. they wouldn't be normal anywhere else except when you are actually able to create an interactive story and suddenly the details of the main character don't matter that much. there are still some things like Dungeons & Dragons where people will try to play the character in character to some sort of backstory. but then there are also games where literally the character could be a version of you for all the game cares

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S">weapons of mass construction (Assata Shakur) / "They do not understand the first thing about revolution. It's about creating" (Kwame Ture) / molecular revolution (concept of revolution as specifically the set of processes of constructing a new functioning republic or socially-linked society of people rather than )  ->  yes. I've always said this too.<br />
these two people were affiliated with the Black Panther Party or the period leading up to it. I am not sure whether the Black Panthers will be under the violet swatch or not, but I'll grant this motif a violet swatch because they've got it<br />
one thing I've noticed about Molecular Marxisms is that when I attempt to describe the transition from nobody knowing anything to movements to workers' state every so often I keep accidentally reinventing things the Black Panthers said, finding out they said it or put it into practice somewhat better than I'd been able to imagine, and going "whoa. they really had this figured out." yeah. Black Panther allies are some pretty "meta-Marxism endorsed" sources. I absolutely wouldn't mind if you took something they said to correct some weird error I said. if you only have time to read a book by them instead of comb through mine, you might be fine.<br />
(note: "MX" does {{em|not}} stand for "Malcom X", if you were suddenly thinking that. as cool as turning Malcom X into an abbreviation would admittedly be; I wouldn't have been above doing that if the violet swatch <em>had</em> initially been for BlackPantherism specifically. but it wasn't, BlackPantherism was put into the violet swatch after the fact. MX is just an abbreviation for "<strong>m</strong>eta-<strong>M</strong>ar<strong>x</strong>ism", with an implied shortening of "MMX" into "MX".)

</li><li class="field_nations" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The easiest way to abolish the police is racial segregation / The easiest way for Tories to stop misusing the police is racial segregation  ->  the claim that for any given Tory, if you attempt to teach them to be an anarchist, the most intuitive way for them to live life without calling the police on people is to move far away from Black people and create a cluster of White supremacists, lowering crime but skyrocketing racism. Tories do believe in abolishing the police. but the way they believe in it is terrifying. they'd love to replace the police with like, anarchy inside the town and a medieval army at the border of the town that annihilates people of other towns if they come in.

</li><li class="field_nations" value="618" data-dimension="S">occultists getting mad at revolutions [https://selfdefinition.org/magic/eliphas-levi/great-secret/book-2-chapter-02.htm]  ->  I thought I was reading a fun explanation of alchemy adjacent stuff and then it turned into a counterrevolutionary rant against some revolution somewhere that I can't even place. the hell is going on here?<br />
there are some really metal-sounding deepities in here though. "Evil is the shadow, the foil of good" okay. "vices and putrefaction are in the air" nice, there's a lyric for you. "evil is the resistance which confirms the effort of good" seems like a fallacy that is mostly untrue but does sound much too awesome.<br />
is this one of those people who hated the French Revolution because it didn't uphold Catholicism? those people definitely exist. but other things claim him to be a "revolutionary socialist"... in the midst of the Illuminati. [https://books.google.com/books/about/Eliphas_L%C3%A9vi_and_the_French_Occult_Revi.html?id=o5sHQyoPmxAC] which is pretty misleading to call "socialist". from my glance at one chapter of one of his books he was going on about a supernatural collective unconscious and reminds me of Carl Jung. he might be a model for what Existentialism-Structuralism as a revolution looks like? leading up to Liberalism, because that's what all the freemasons and Illuminati ultimately create. it is very strange he hates the French Revolution because like, that was the start of the thing he would create too.

</li><li class="field_nations" value="618" data-dimension="S">not the Illuminati!  ->  the motif of people, especially today, thinking medieval secret societies are actually something evil and scary. when as far as I can tell, they're the precursor to Liberal-republican constitutionalists.<br />
I think there's something to unpack here about the divide between a Liberal-republican society and a pure Tory society. in theory, there may exist people who would still hate the Illuminati today, because they're Tories and will always feel like Liberal-republicanism itself is an imposition on them — laws are permissible but society itself is to be composed of people creating or claiming slots, pushing people the {{censor|hell}} out when they're not behaving right and Humaning right and are in the wrong slot, and claiming that everyone who didn't get a slot is just bad at being human.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto W, MX onto PT" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Hegemony politics is Toryism / In the context of anarchist or Existentialist-Structuralist theories which do not propose people uniting into a replacement republic to get rid of "the system", hegemony politics is acting within, and effectively part of, the process of initially creating a society by realizing Toryism (non-revolutionary theories; beginning society with the Bauplan of Toryism)  ->  I'm not confident in this one yet but it seems quite possible based on meta-Marxist / existential-materialist arguments. Toryism is defined here as the act of moralizing spatial slot hierarchies and in various formal and informal ways giving territory owners the power to regulate society by punishing anybody who does not obey the territory owner's will or grouped territory-owner-Filament's will. I don't know right now if that is a good description of hegemony politics or a bad description of Toryism.<br />
one thing I'm more sure on: Toryism and Liberal-republicanism are two materially separate ideologies which can exist on top of each other. Toryism can be created without Liberal-republicanism. Liberal-republicanism is created over the top of Toryism attempting and failing to regulate it.<br />
more tentatively: Liberal-republicanism fails partly because it seeks to construct nation membership on a colonial basis, actively conquering people into a country "because they are all [[E:tent of freedom poles|Equal]] [[E:The Subject|human individuals]]" and assigning them ethnicity, culture, language, religion, and sometimes things like gender. nations have always been arbitrary cultural groupings, and cultures have never been multicultural just by virtue of being cultures, cultures only really exist in the first place to separate themselves from other cultures, thanks to the fact cultures are made of materially contradictory groups of living Animals. this does make the process of forming any republic confusing and fraught. but not impossible. logically if you start at [[:Category:Bauplan ontologies|teeny tiny units]] and put them together like bricks, and make sure they all want to go together, you can stack up to various sizes of stable units again.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Culturocracy is the shovel dream of Toryism  ->  find which Item I was using for "culturocracy" again as well as "Toryism" so this statement can make maximum sense

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">imperial race (speculative fiction) / colonizer race (fantasy; science fiction; etc)  ->  the motif of a fantasy race (species or species variation) that stands in for the nationalities or physical populations of global empire. for example, a fantasy situation which is vaguely comparable to a band of Afrikaners next to a population of South Africans. the situation does not need to be comparable to {{em|any specific}} real-world historical period, as much as various real-world historical periods will inevitably come up to explain it. this is a very general concept.<br />
imperial race + Dragon Ball = Saiyans. imperial race + Undertale = humans (Undertale/Deltarune).<br />
imperial race + Gramscianism = Whiteness is society / The glass ceiling is made of men.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">All simulations of reality are political  ->  contentious probably. but it's one of the only things that nails Nabokov to the floor and makes it difficult to argue that art about disturbing situations is not at least open to an analysis of what it is abstractly representing or implying about that thing. the precise intention of the author doesn't matter if the point of all art can be derived from the "intent" of the written text itself to represent reality.<br />
I'm going to ruin your day with this claim: people are less critical of Nabokov than So Sorry<br />
but on the bright side: {{book|Tapers}} and {{game|Petscop}} demonstrate it's fully possible to write a relatively disturbing story without harming anyone.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Speculative fiction is often topical trash (Vladimir Nabokov)  ->  I mean, he's not wrong. he's right for the wrong reasons. but, yeah, technically. it can be.<br />
look at Harry Potter as a "what-if" about a world of wizards. a lot of the actual hypotheticals in the story are handled horribly, "introducing" social issues to a group of people who has carefully eradicated them and never had to experience them and [[E:white bread fantasy|now thinks they're innovative]]. a good author would have started writing Harry Potter, suddenly realized they had like three years more research to do, and been forced to learn a lot of stuff by writing the text, coming out with a narrative that if not great in its education is at least okay. (this happened to me, before and during Ironblood drafts. I'm confident that if I finish it, even if it's "eh" it will still be absolute worlds better than if I just did like J.K. Rowling did, wrote immediately, and tried to imagine a world that had nothing to do with anything.) education is required to represent the world, speak, and express. there are no 'authentic feelings or expressions' that exist below education. it's terrible that you can never know how much or what kind you need and the idea of universities is a joke, but that's the reality.<br />
didactic fiction + {{book|Harry Potter}} = Speculative fiction is often topical trash.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">literature of ideas / the literature of ideas [https://www.writing-world.com/sf/sf.shtml]  ->  near synonym for speculative fiction; literature as simulation. seems to refer either to literal predictive-model types of stories and to Media Representation presented as a hypothetical — {{i|hey, what if these other groups of people that do exist existed?? that would be weird, huh? I forced you to learn something, gotcha.}}

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Fiction never speaks about reality / I am neither a reader nor writer of didactic fiction ... (Vladimir Nabokov) / It is childish to study a work of fiction in order to gain information about a country or about a social class ... (Vladimir Nabokov)  ->  I used to believe this before I was about 25. when I became a mainstream Marxist-Leninist at the age of 27, I stopped believing it. because I realized that all fiction (especially things like fantasy fiction depicting kingdoms, or PBS-style slice of life shows) is a representation of real things that happen. it's not fair to say that all fiction is "metaphors", because sometimes it intends to be a believable simulation of a literal thing that hasn't happened, and wants you to analyze it like you would analyze an anecdote about that thing happening in real life.<br />
Fiction never speaks about reality + ?? = Everything in fiction is the author's arbitrary decision<br />
Fiction never speaks about reality + hypothetical social phenomenon reader has not experienced = assertion that real thing is fictional<br />
Fiction never speaks about reality + ?? = white bread fantasy

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Narratives are objective because they step out of lived experience and turn it into an analyzable object  ->  there we go! why I think that analysis of literature and anecdotes is perfectly fine for analyzing society. there's nothing special about Lived Experience or "empathy" or "sensitivity" or "not being callous", not whatsoever. but there is something special about writing down a narrative of somebody's experience in third person. it makes that real or imagined experience possible to analyze by other people in a way an individual experiencing it cannot.<br />
it's amazing how much you learn about fiction by just doing literary analysis of fan fiction and author inserts. I swear I learned a couple lectures' worth by just analyzing the hell out of So Sorry and forced weird route and whether it's good or bad they break fourth walls.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">artel (cooperative; Soviet Union region) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artel]  ->  case of: Bauplan element
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">mir (free peasant grouping; Soviet Union region) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obshchina]  ->  case of: Bauplan element

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-tradition="MX onto IV" value="618" data-dimension="S">town chock full of Trotskyists  ->  a motif I always like to bring up to illustrate the concept that ideologies are physical arrangements that structure populations and create populational behavior. a town full of Tories behaves one way, a hypothetical town full of nothing but Trotskyists that all know things about Lenin would behave another way. as far as I know my meta-Marxist writings or drafts are the only thing I have ever seen talking like this.<br />
certainly Liberal-republican writings will try to do things like attribute neoliberalism to Toryism as this block of Tories deciding to invent "greed", but they aren't doing that from a Materialist standpoint that actually asks what processes assemble isolated individuals into specific kinds of larger groups or harmful behaviors [[:Category:existential materialism ontology|as they simply attempt to live their lives]].<br />
case of: Bauplan element / ideologically-charged Bauplan element / complex Bauplan element.

</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S">have you seen my advanced workers??  ->  the motif of Lenin, etc, slamming outdated classes for not being able to see the strengths, development, and victory of proletarian society.
</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S">petty-bourgeois scrambling against ruin (Lenin) / Artisan type or peasant scrambling against ruin (meta-Marxist phrasing)
</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Despair about overpopulation is the shovel dream of dying Artisan types (Lenin) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/jun/29.htm] / Dying petty-bourgeois subpopulations are egotistical to ignore their connection to a whole national population when making policies about such things as banning contraception  ->  well, you got me. in its general sense I keep feeling the thing but I have to wholeheartedly agree. like, I don't want things to be this way, I just am forced to live in this world and cope with and form emotions about the world I live in every second I have to pretend to be a normal non-Marxist that lives and works in it normally. the world is psychologically and physically breaking me.<br />
and that's why I have a different angle on this stuff. I think the simple processes of human life are really breaking people in half before they can be strong enough to stand together and slowly organize into a new republic and even go to work. humans, by default, are stuck in and beaten down into that crumbling, dying "petty-bourgeois" position, and thanks to the Third World existing, a much greater portion of the world's population is stuck that way than Marxists want to admit. the proletariat is [[E:production privilege|quite a privileged position]] historically that can be taken away by the ruling class above it at any moment, and when the owners inevitably take everything and leave if the workers aren't strong enough together to conquer the country and stop them, you end up with one more North Korea. that's the human condition. at this point, "permanent revolution" in any particular country now has a build-up period before it where people just have to be willing to endure horrendous conditions deliberately, willingly, with whatever survival strategies they have to win and get to have human rights. I don't think the whole notion of "Communism starts with the hope of being able to include everybody, and then arrives with the material methods" is quite right any more. I think in some senses we kind of just have to jump to the material methods and tell people it's gonna be really bad and then see how much hope is possible, or else horrifying majorities of people simply die before they can ever become proletarians and resist.<br />
clusters of Artisan types are creating dying populations and dooming their children? fair. totally fair. "The Proletariat" will show up and through optimism and philosophical imagination fix this? no.

</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The majority of people are subject to one oppression through different methods [https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1155&context=classracecorporatepower]  ->  wow. is this a mainstream Marxist-Leninist community fallacy? I haven't seen that often.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">The {{TTS|html=abbr|tts=United States|U.S.}} constitution made it a community / The constitution made the United States a community / The United States constitution transformed the country from a kingdom or colony into a community, causing all people to automatically want to include and integrate everyone within the United States into United States nationality, society, and daily life, and support more amendments for human rights as soon as they discover those rights (descriptive claim about history and social behavior, not idealistic claim) / democulture proposition (framed in relation to United States constitution)  ->  the fact structural racism even happened makes this flatly false. in the end the constitution did basically nothing to change the basic patterns of human behavior or transform the United States population into an inclusive "community". it's like one big lie we told ourselves. the way people think about human rights today as falling from the sky because we signed a piece of paper is ahistorical and dangerous to the people it wants to protect. this isn't to say that an inclusive republic couldn't happen another way. but we need to use the methods of existential materialism to figure out the actual structure and behavior of populations, not just throw around the word "community".

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">{{TTS|html=abbr|tts=United States|U.S.}} academia inverts anarchism / United States academia is anti-anarchism / United States academia inverts the principles of anarchism  ->  people like David Graeber are maddening to me. though he's not the worst / the best example, having published popular level books, which is a good thing to do. anyway. people have this belief that just being an academic is neutral, that you can just study stuff and save the world, and they don't think hard about how academics are a class and particularly when you participate in universities and journals, to a lesser extent outside that, you inherently participate in a system where people compete for limited slots and shove people out and which through its very existence feeds into the overall problem of chunk competition and the way that generates racism and all other major prejudices and leaves Tories with the power to push out LGBT people and kill immigrants. academia does not support the major anarchist values of "community", inclusion, and "mutual aid", and probably a couple other things I'm forgetting. academia is being [[E:The Stalin|Stalin]]. no matter how good your intentions are. as an academic, researcher, or philosopher, the best you can hope for is that you direct people to use power and exclusion and authority only to structure society into a shape that protects people. you're always going to run into the day you have to shove out "the Trotskyites". and I just wish anarchists would stop lying about that. if anarchism decided to fully merge with Gramscianism or Trotskyism and be a Marxism that stood together with other Marxisms then I would be able to tolerate it, and it wouldn't make me mad. but I think it's the lies that divide us. lies about what Trotskyism is, lies about where Gramscianism isn't, and lies about what anarchism can do without what sacrifices.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Existentialist-Structuralists are left-Toryism / Existentialist-Structuralists are the left wing within Toryism  ->  this makes many times more sense than the hypothesis that they're the left wing within "fascism". that would require uniquely United-States fascism to have existed in 1950. and what's really happened has looked more like every single individual absorbing bits of nazism but hiding inside "normal" Toryism or center-Liberalism. it never actually hatches. "fascism" wins by fully weaving itself into everything supposedly less bad a little bit at a time until it's seemingly unstoppable because none of the individual changes were showy or flashy. but no matter how much people try to do the same thing with anarchism it never really works.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="LR, DG" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Tories artificially divide what would be one / Tories artificially divide what would naturally be united / Tories manufacture division when it is natural for every demographic in a country to automatically be united [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2uT23JyUq0]  ->  this is just not true. when people have to disclaim that Tories dividing people as a "conspiracy theory", that's actually because they don't have agency and causality attributed right. you've got a situation where the snake men are there and they're evil but they didn't actually cause the problem and you're trying to explain how they "did".<br />
schizoanalysis and its adjacent theories are so frustrating. the whole thing is wrong. the whole assumption that the United States is a "community" is flawed. the process of drafting a constitution didn't turn the country into a community. if it had, there wouldn't have been such a long conflict over slavery and redlining and reparations. there might not even have been a Civil War, because Jefferson Davis would have just turned around and said, oh, wow, I'm dividing Community, I shouldn't do that because there's a constitution.<br />
follows from: united nonviolence of shared oppressions + it's obvious that prejudice is wrong + ???

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">earth has too many sparrows / the real world has too many sparrows  ->  the motif of the real world containing "redundant worldbuilding" where all sorts of things exist twice but are nearly the same thing. generally always meant as a joke, with nobody really thinking these things should actively be changed.<br />
this motif may be used to show that creating ontology Items that are nearly duplicate but have some important distinction of context or containing work or such that makes them separate things is acceptable.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Sketches are superpositions / Sketches are linear combinations of possible drawn lines, allowing for quickly drawing a shape by drawing all possible lines first and then getting rid of the wrong ones

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Greed emerges from freedom / Freedom is greedy / Freedom is greed (statement that all wilful acts of becoming a landlord or taking more terrain emerge from the goal of having freedom) / Greed emerges from the will to have freedom  ->  I hate the concept of greed. it doesn't explain {{em|anything}}. this is one of the only uses of it I will accept.<br />
Property emerges from freedom + Greed begins at Property / What begins at Property ends at greed = Greed emerges from freedom

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S">Careerist-ariat  ->  I struggle to come up with a good way to turn this into a word. careerist-ariat? careerity? careerians? careeriat? this is the motif of a repeated and consistent class subpopulation that can all be sorted into a physical crowd containing only Careerists, the type of people who have as much choice in whether to be in a workplace or not as owners have in attempting to create one.

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="MX onto DX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">If the United States really were a nation of ideas, creating a single-party constructive republic wouldn't make anything worse  ->  this one is really telling. if the United States is successfully united by ideas beyond all natural divisions into subpopulations, then abolishing parties would only lead to clearer conclusions on what those ideas are. many people do not expect this to be possible. why? could it be because people don't actually divide into parties based on ideas? could it be because nobody really is united by ideas beyond all natural divisions?

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Anarchism is staunchly pro- and anti-community / Anarchism is both pro- and anti-community at once / Anarchism is pro-community and anti-community at the same time  ->  the claim that anarchism, in relatively popular forms of it, is both totally against the material processes that constitute "community" (through anarculture), and totally for the processes of community (through Existentialism and the misuse of morality and ethics to literally serve as national government plus immigration board), in a contradictory manner. in practice, anarchism often manifests as one cultural concept of a cultural-community-construction-and-realization process [[E:Zinovievizing|Zinovievizing]] another and aggressively building a different one over the top of it.<br />
each idea of "postcolonial" is mathematically colonial. the mathematics of extending the British population over Ireland and claiming Ireland and the mathematics of infiltrating society with any particular blob of Existentialists or people spouting weird theories of how media "creates false consciousness" (as if the causality actually starts there) or queer furries going on and on about how identity equals freedom and enough people just having an identity and obeying some really arbitrary concept of Being Nice thrown together by a different group of 50 people quoted by each person will result in an avalanche of Good People Being Elected that oppress and deport all the Bad People are unfortunately the same.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">building a career or becoming an owner is an act of meaning-making [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zPZP8FgqIg]  ->  no. when will people learn that existing is just an act of existing before anybody then makes a meaning out of it?<br />
said in response to the attempt to replace people with AI, claiming that if people just wouldn't attach meaning to having what they want or need everything would be okay. sounds like the crap that comes out of Christians and Buddhists that's like, oh, if you hate being poor, too bad, being greedy is evil so you'd better like being poor because you don't want to be on the side of the evil people that take all the stuff, it doesn't matter if you're in misery, your actions and choices and morality are far more important than you physically existing. okay, I'm a bit mad right now because the person also brought up the French Revolution "messing things up for 200 years" as supposedly something the United States has never experienced, and it's like, how {{censor|fucking}} tone-deaf can you be?? did you not know there was an American Revolution?? really?? it's funny how his bad description was backhandedly a perfect description of what already happened.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">baking wishes for capitalism to behave better into AI beta test

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S">approximating quintic functions with Fourier series  ->  this vaguely reminds me of approximating quantum processes. you look at the black hole image, and it's fuzzy, you look at an atom image and it's fuzzy, but the black hole accretion disk is actually just moving around faster than relativity can successfully transmit information about it. quantum field theory suggests something vaguely similar happens with fundamental particles, at the very least in maddening little antimatter interactions "teleporting" particles around, possibly at smaller scales where quantum fields jump up the threshold into particles. with a quintic function, it's just an everyday math problem, it's not a fancy real-world physical process. but at the same time it's simply becoming so complex it's hard to catch up with. a little like a pseudorandom number generator. and pseudorandom number generators are used to simulate the separation between real-world objects that have trouble predicting each other, like players rolling dice. fuzziness is an artifact of math problems getting too complicated to be worth calculating.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Lacanianism turns bioempire into Toryism / Lacanianism is the transition between the smallest class society of individual competing subjects (bioempire; all-vs-all contradiction) and the defense of larger class territories as centers of law (Toryism)

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="STM, MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Predicting identifies reality / Reality and what is predictable are the same thing / The presence of a predictive model which simulates the shape and result of some process within a limited slice of reality is what distinguishes a real phenomenon from mythology, pseudoscience, psychosis, fiction, and other things which are not reality within a particular defined universe or physical reality-object  ->  this is basically the definition used in quantum mechanics: wave functions are "sufficiently real" even though they describe something imprecisely, just as Newtonian physics is "sufficiently real" in some contexts.<br />
this has an unexpected consequence: singularities on graphs can mark a model departing from reality, specifically because the singularity is not predictive.<br />
unexpected consequence 2: the singularity at the end of Ricardo's graph conceals a new phenomenon undescribed at that time.

</li><li class="field_nations" value="618" data-dimension="S">hyper-fascism  ->  the motif of Toryism or "fascism" looping around on itself and hating other "fascisms" basically for being breakaway countable cultures or foreign countries.<br />
"hyper-" is in the same sense as the "hyper-existentialism" entry, fascist bigotry applied to fascism. PT onto PT.
</li><li class="field_nations" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Nazis are only bad because they're wealthy, greedy elites  ->  X-Files director notes. {{YouTube|LYQ0Um9VlhM}} the more you try to not just parrot conspiracy theories but piece together the internal logic that causes people to believe them, the more you realize that in the real world "fascists" have no reason to like or support other "fascists", and the easiest way to disclaim fascism is [[E:hyper-fascism|to be {{em|so}} fascist]] you can brand the other fascists as The Jews.

</li><li class="field_nations" value="618" data-dimension="S">nazi representation in fiction / fascist representation in fiction
</li><li class="field_nations" value="618" data-dimension="S">are we the baddies?  ->  TV skit. I forget where it was from but it's well known.
</li><li class="field_nations" value="618" data-dimension="S">nazi horror story: what if we were The Jews??  ->  my best quick summary of the premise of {{book|Attack on Titan}}. when you stop and look at the idea it's actually rather funny. like, written more in the vein of the "are we the baddies?" skit, but presumably more subtle, it would be art. the one thing that truly ruins it is that it isn't aware of itself and tries to spin the "tragedy" of "what if we were The Jews" as a serious tragedy. if it had had the bravery to be ironic about the basic premise beneath the drama it could maybe have been good.<br />
tangent: at times this series very vaguely channels Ultraman series, like it just wants to create a grittier version of it, liking the aesthetics but not caring at all about the messages. it's so telling that the show made by parliamentary Communists has so much more integrity and is many times better.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S" data-volume="1" data-page="123">I hate not having wings (Animorphs graphic novel, book 1)  ->  I feel like this foreshadowing came from other volumes, though I could be remembering wrong?
</li><li class="field_horror" value="618" data-dimension="S">secret conflict where adults can't find out (Animorphs graphic novel book 1, etc)
</li><li class="field_horror" value="618" data-dimension="S">secret conflict where adults could be serving villains (Animorphs graphic novel book 1, etc)  ->  I am not aware of this being a trope in anything other than Animorphs, which has always made it really interesting to me. it feels like it's the most relatable young-adult fantasy book to anything that happens in real life because of how in real life even adults can get trapped within class conflict and hegemony politics where you can't trust {{em|anyone}} until you know they're one of the people you can tell about the problem that you can't trust anyone.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="MZ" value="618" data-dimension="S">model {{TTS|tts=versus|vs}} reality in Maoism / gap between model and reality in early Maoism / unicorns in early Maoism (meta-Marxist phrasing) / Fantasies in early Maoism (Lacanian phrasing) [https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-8/left-right.pdf]  ->  this is one of the ways that psychoanalysis sneaks in and tries to present itself as "more scientific" than Marxism. trying to paint the difference between model and reality as specifically psychological and individual when in reality a computer or a robot could do it, Gödel's incompleteness theorem showed us a system of mathematics could do it. there's nothing special about psychology or individuals that makes them uniquely open to judgement and punishment. errors come from any system which can't predict the near future. which means if psychoanalysis is saying you can't predict the future it should be in big trouble. it should be impossible to identify bad behaviors because you have no idea how to successfully correct them and no idea exactly when they'll happen or not. literally any attempt at a psychological intervention requires predicting the future or it should be totally moot.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="MZ" value="618" data-dimension="Z"><cite class="article">What are <q>left</q> and right errors?</cite> [https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-8/left-right.pdf]  ->  surprisingly long pamphlet. it should at least be able to define left and right errors though.
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="618" data-dimension="S0">ultraleft error (Marxism) / left error (Marxism) / "left in form, right in essence" [https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-8/left-right.pdf]
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S0">right error (Marxism) / Rightist error (Marxism)
</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="ML onto W/ES, etc" value="618" data-dimension="S0">opportunist error
</li><li class="field_gramsci" value="618" data-dimension="S0">adventurist error  ->  I guess this one can be strawberry because conceptually, you wonder if the CPC being highly developed and letting the country itself lag behind is some kind of "ahead" error. it would be a different kind of "ahead" error than this but you do have to ask why the central party is so far ahead of what's actually happening and yet somehow managed to succeed.
</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-tradition="ML onto ML, ML onto IV, etc" value="618" data-dimension="S0">dogmatist error
</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-tradition="ML onto IV, etc" value="618" data-dimension="S0">sectarian error
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ML onto ES" value="618" data-dimension="S0">revisionist error  ->  according to "[https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-8/left-right.pdf left-right]", revisionism is to go against the overall methods of Marxism especially by failing to identify the bourgeoisie, meaning that most revisionist errors sound a whole lot like Existentialist errors. so this one can be blue.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ML onto ES/W" value="618" data-dimension="S0">reformist error  ->  it's going to be fun to take proposition entries and just, "case of - revisionist error" "case of - adventurist error". that's what's truly great about this ontology medium. or use these error categories as non-binary truth values, one or the other. god there are some moments when just, I feel smart. having this kind of ontology system for tagging errors is awesome. then there are the days where I am trying to make sense of news events all solely characterized by spontaneity and I feel infinitely stupid.
</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="ML onto A" value="618" data-dimension="S0">tailism  ->  a strangely anarchist-sounding error category. of course Trotskyists in Luxemburg's era and other movements can do it too.
</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="W, ES" value="618" data-dimension="S">electoral road to power  ->  I'm surprised to see the Black Panther Party did this. I was always told they were scary Bolsheviks who had to be contained to stop their violence. evidently not true.
</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="MZ" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Progress is what is materially accurate / The left position is the position that is materially accurate at a given point in time (Maoism) / Marxism is concrete analysis of concrete conditions (Lenin)  ->  yeah. only reasonable way to define it. a little vague compared with the meta-Marxist notion of actually detailing Social-Philosphical-Material Systems and material transitions from one set of structures to another, first in the abstract from historical data and then to be applied to real conditions, but definitely not wrong.<br />
I think you have to be careful with saying "concrete analysis of concrete conditions". it's correct if you mean that the internal parts of real events should be used to correct theory and should override abstract principles. but in some cases you are absolutely going to get revisionists claiming particular things {{em|are}} the concrete conditions when they aren't, and then reasoning off incorrect ideas of what is real or practical. I think it can be a lot more clear to invoke the concept of "physics" and say that Marxism is studying the physical processes of social connection which will break and crush anyone's idea of what is "concrete" if it's wrong. the top problem in the United States is flat-out people trying to redefine what's physical and real, and make Lived Experiences physical and words and prejudices physical and votes physical and make physical populations fake.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Many errors stem from vague Marxism / A lot of errors result from vague Marxism / A lot of errors occur because Marxists hand out theory which is inappropriately vague  ->  the hypothesis that immediately goes through my mind reading this pamphlet about "errors". every time the pamphlet describes Marxist methods for finding correct positions I can immediately imagine how even as {{em|I}} can understand it somebody would read the same sentence and get at least one kind of error out of it. I think this exposes a big problem in how dialectical materialism is communicated. we've made it way too easy to misunderstand.<br />
I think we need to start recategorizing kinds of errors in terms of actual material objects that make up ideologies or movements. "sectarianism" for instance could stay as it is because it already describes the [[E:shovel (meta-Marxism)|shovel]]: a party making ideology based on being a tiny sect and not understanding how it will scale up. other things like trying to categorize racism as ultraleft just plain don't make any sense. racism is the shovel dream of things like a graph only containing White people. the concept of left or right errors doesn't really adequately describe that.<br />
that said: there are definitely times when this statement isn't True. I already know there were times when somebody could have leveled this at Lenin only for Lenin to explain that nothing he was saying was vague and literally the revisionist just didn't understand it. so this is more of a "some occurrence" or "most of the time" statement than one that's flatly True.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S2" data-submitter="RD">Surreal numbers are for counting countable infinities  ->  yeah. that's what they are. they're the same thing as Cantor laying out the countable infinities and showing you get different size infinities the more you curve the number line, only they use omega instead of infinity. a surreal number can count the number of decimal places in an irrational number. that's the one thing they're good for. the main reason we don't use them commonly is we just tend to avoid infinities rather than use them like numbers, so when we really have to use an infinity we grudgingly say "infinity". but if we did math just a little different, and used both curved number lines and straight ones at once, using surreal numbers (or maybe just irrational numbers?) to quantify the curvature of various arc coordinate systems from Euclidean geometry, then infinity would go away in favor of countable but unimaginably big or small surreal numbers. think of it like complex numbers or three-dimensional grids, but instead of just adding one dimensional axis through numbers, you're adding a curvature as a dimensional coordinate which warps the passage of points through the other two axes. I don't know if that's better as an axis or a number adjustment. I guess you could do it either way depending on what kind of problem you need curvature to solve.<br />
I mean, think about solving a simple geometry problem on the surface of the earth, but trying to calculate the real distance, so you get the total material to build a bridge or the total volume of a very big lake or something. that would benefit from a curvature coordinate system, where polar spherical coordinates over the whole earth could be overkill. the curvature grid would be confusing at first and yet better zoomed in on the relevant information. it also might be really nice for rendering virtual game worlds, because given at least a 2000s level computer it might optimize well - maybe.<br />
the kicker is when you get used to curvature coordinates, you could have some fun times with Newtonian gravity. set the individual curvature coordinates with appropriate curvature for each planet. look at the curvature coordinates. see if they form their own shape in some other coordinate system, or generally what they're doing. (probably re-expressing the gravity equation, but maybe it will make more sense this way.) slowly start solving small-scale gravity and figuring out how small it is. can the fine structure constant help you?

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S2">{{TTS|tts=General relativity|GR}} & quantum mechanics are both broken / General relativity is broken, not just quantum mechanics  ->  many people talk about physics like it's primarily quantum mechanics that's broken, and we're trying to fix quantum mechanics to match general relativity. what's often missed is that quantum mechanics and special relativity are fine together. quantum field theory won, and managed the crazy breakthrough of almost sort of unifying the two but not quite. and now neither general relativity nor quantum mechanics can accurately describe gravity or the connection between the quantum scale and the smallest scales of spacetime. neither theory is terrible <i>per se</i>; both begin from places of more or less describing reality at large scales. it's only the task of understanding the very smallest scale that both of them fail at.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="HAS" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Dualism is separating noumenon and phenomenon / The separation between noumenon and phenomenon is a kind of dualism  ->  this was said by a Christian bible college trying to basically show that the "simulation hypothesis" is not as true as God. but taken out of that context, it's surprisingly okay. the presenter mostly only presented it from the point of view of secular philosophy, only 'suggesting' that physical and mental is a dichotomy 'some people' use. (which 'some people' would then use to argue that souls and God are more real than math just because they [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology|can't be descriptively predicted]].) more than that, you can flip things around so that the physical is the noumenon and the mental is the phenomenon. math is in the mind along with souls and God and Narnia books and anarchism trying to predict the real world, but doesn't always have the correct prediction; the physical world itself behaves separately on its own regardless of what we want. seen that way, the Christian philosophers kind of have a point. "physicalism" can be seen as a mistake exactly when it mistakes math for real physical processes and assumes that physics is complete. in all other cases, it's not actually a problem.<br />
the Materialist analysis of society is another matter, where things get complicated. but if you're simply talking about physics? nah, Materialism covers all that just fine. the only real confusion occurs around relativity and how to apply relativity to everything including time and causality. the quest for the "true" general relativity gets confusing because events have to happen from the collision of two processes at some point, they can't be infinitely relative and never converge, and we know they converge, physicists are just very confused how; if they knew, they'd have unified quantum mechanics and smallest-scale relativity and gravity.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">fractal universe / Horton hears a hole (with regard to black holes; generic)  ->  the motif of a universe with a tiny portal in it and another universe contained inside the space of the tiny portal.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S">fractal black hole / Horton hears a hole

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S2">If black holes contained universes they would not be black / If black holes contained universes then when a black hole blew tiny scales of space up huge, instead of gravitational lensing we would see small universes  ->  I had to think about this for a long time but today this finally hit me. gravitational lensing happens because bending spacetime enough will mess with quantum physics. that means it isn't just light that gets bent, it's {{em|everything smaller than a photon}}. but if the scale below photons could contain new universes, then presumably the teeny tiny photons inside the new universe would have at least some effect on the big universe we live in. maybe it's not quite correct to say we'd literally look into the black hole and see a snowglobe of stars and space - the stars would be small at least in appearance so they wouldn't be as easy to see - but that's still a decent fictitious analogy for what would happen, because {{em|some}} kind of signal would be able to pierce the inner region and show itself to the big universe, be it absurdly high-energy beams of light that wrap around to behave like big-universe photons, or something else. if the black hole had a universe inside it, it wouldn't behave as if dramatically warping space created one big void the rest of the universe simply bounced around as if nearly nothing existed inside it. universes contain a bunch of universe-stuff that behaves and that we can actually see through a telescope, or as rays of sunlight cross a few light-minutes to earth. if a black hole had room for that much physics inside it, it should not outwardly look like an object that could have been made by taking the tiniest region of a single universe far smaller than a grain of sand and [[E:Black holes are ordinary quantum foam stretched to the point it seems a billion years away|blowing it up to take billion-year distances for anything to happen]].<br />
I think I am saying that the black hole containing universe model is not sound against relativity. it's just not how special relativity goes. and, sure, it's probably the case that small-scale relativity is going on inside a black hole, but general relativity is supposed to calculate special relativity, not do something different. you haven't explained how why whenever physical objects exist they communicate with other physical objects nearest to them eventually given enough time, but the purported objects inside the black hole don't do that. you can't really invoke "well they're small" when gravity itself is really really small and the gravity process collides with everything given large enough distances.<br />
whenever I think about this black hole model now I cannot stop thinking about Horton Hears a Who. it's just Horton Hears a Who with universes. "Horton hears a hole" could be a name for the motif page about black hole universes. or a generalized fictitious notion of fractal universes.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">What becomes art is art practice / All successful art practice is art / There is no art practice without actually creating the same art {{YouTube|QZhICtdBTPg}} / All successful art has been art practice  ->  yeah, I think that's true.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Perfectionism doesn't lead anywhere (Toby Fox) {{YouTube|cCzuQhUtMaQ|t=38m0s}}  ->  true. I'd disagree that it isn't possible to improve things after the fact, I mean look at game mods and game adaptations. some media series such as Digimon really benefit from basically retreading the same thing better. but you do need a little space in between the original and the new version. you do need to be able to stop and start and let people customize which of the versions they really want.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">frog protest {{YouTube|Ncacy4laqNE}} / straw hat protest {{YouTube|2kX6xDeEHs8}}<br />
non-narrative thinking + street protest = frog protest. (whatsisname the unlikeable guy) + street protest = frog protest.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">ACAB is false because ICE is bastard-ier  ->  anarchism makes no sense to me. I actually looked at the news for maybe the second time in several months. I see "frog protests". which, okay, weird as it is I've at least heard of this, and it's about the first time I've seen Lacanianism actually say or do something smart. but also, how do you understand any of this shit. how do you actually "be a progressive" or predict what you're supposed to be doing if the point is none of it makes sense. a year ago people are protesting against cops and it's like acab acab acab never trust cops and then suddenly it comes time to "resist facism" which is supposedly the same thing and in practice one of the biggest allies are cops, apparently none of whom are bastards any more. we go around claiming everything is "a hierarchy" but people's position in the pecking order drastically changes every week based on what individual actions and Cultural Attitudes (alignment for or against specific inter-group conflicts) are deemed bad to where the framework doesn't make any sense.<br />
that said these few different recent events I've seen make at least a medium amount of sense from the point of view of dialectical materialism. people are grouping up into factions by repeated patterns, but the patterns don't line up into neatly-divided classes as much as these continuous columns or staircases of ranking that pick some very fine cutoff to suddenly split and turn on each other. pocketpair and nintendo, cops suddenly turning on ICE. the conflicts look more like a bunch of people of the same class or post (which is always somewhere just a bit above the actual 'little guy') teaming up against a single party that did One Very Bad Thing and because The Strata can't stand it not behaving exactly as expected and being built perfect, after a whole bunch of apathy or laughing at anyone screwed over by the problem up to then all The Strata abruptly come down on it and pound it into the shape of a perfect human being or maybe into oblivion. there's no real distinction between what's actually Right and Wrong or Good and Bad, it's just more like, you {{censor|piss}} off The Strata and they're all going to flatten you just because they don't like you.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="Aa, ES" value="618" data-dimension="S">what happened to our attention??? / {{TTS|tts=TimeEnergy|timenergy}} (motif)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The panopticon was invented by the internet {{YouTube|UTBkF3O6wC8}}  ->  it wasn't. it was invented by things like republicanism and widespread trade. have you tried, like, being in a particular physical place filled with people where all the people hate you because you're not being exactly what they want you to be? that existed before the internet, and it's the same on the internet as it's always been — it just goes faster.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S" data-submitter="Valenoern">China? where is that?  ->  the motif of {{game|Pokémon}}, or theoretically some other series, referencing real-world locations which later become nonsensical once the world is better established.<br />
part of me thinks this would be really funny to twist around to comment on the idea that games made in the First World don't like to reference workers' states. China? Cuba? what are those, we just wanna play our dumb fantasy game and forget that they exist. oh what, they existed in the world and were erased? hmm.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="Fy, ES" value="618" data-dimension="S" data-submitter="Valenoern">normal world distorted by postmodernism / normal world wildly corrupted into unreal fantasy world by postmodernism  ->  pretty cool idea from RD. I half want to invoke it in Spaces_Mons; seems a little odd to bring into a mon game but also really conceptually funny. maybe there's a way to make it lighthearted and less "political", like how Chris D'Lacey wrote about the concept of climate change but abstracted it and attributed different imagined causes to it. through that angle there's a tiny chance it could work

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="MX onto JC" value="618" data-dimension="S">Undertale and North Korea / the Underground is basically North Korea / Communist phoenixes ({{thingamajig|caps=y|Redacted}}Tale AU)  ->  the motif of comparing the Undertale setting to honest models of North Korea (not the pro-capitalist or pro-Tory ones) and pointing out that in some ways making this game was the only way to make United States people understand Third-World countries.

</li><li class="field_nations" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Any more stuff is decadence / Any more stuff is excess / Bringing in piles of Media Representation is excess  ->  the claim that capitalist growth bringing in ethnic or industrial diversity is inherently bad no matter which one it is because businesses have no need to get bigger and towns have no need to change. it's a little rare to see this claim in exactly this form because most of the time the biggest businesses in the United States far overshadow the smallest ones and can pretend to believe in diversity. at the local scale seeing this kind of claim is much more likely.<br />
this is one of the big reasons you want North Korea to have a Workers' Party of Korea. if North Korea wasn't a workers' state and it was just a small splinter country that believed in capitalism, it'd probably be pretty damn racist. it'd just be all about how much people hated the Japanese, and possibly why being an ill-developed country is inherently good. having a Workers' Party of Korea to nudge the country toward defining what progress is and working toward progress helps moderate that kind of effect. like, I'm gonna blow your mind. think about how in Undertale the monsters are killing human children to escape and there is this undertone if not quite outright plot point of them wanting revenge. [[E:Undertale and North Korea|if they had a "Workers' Party of Korea"]] they wouldn't be allowed to lean themselves toward revenge like that.

</li><li class="field_nations" data-tradition="MX onto PT" value="618" data-dimension="S">maladaptive self-determination  ->  the motif of a socially-linked group of people exercising genuine self-determination toward destructive ends that will only point them backward. I am convinced this is actually possible in a few limited cases. nothing else explains the former Confederate states properly.<br />
at the same time, it makes things terribly messy that this is possible. the United States already weaponizes this concept wildly against basically every country, claiming countries are corrupt purely to take control over them and benefit the United States, with only the {{em|side effect}} of sometimes benefiting the other countries.<br />
maladaptive self-determination + Any more stuff is excess = Prejudice is a form of freedom.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">North Korea is a case of maladaptive self-determination
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">East Germany exercised maladaptive self-determination / East Germany is a case of maladaptive self-determination
</li><li class="field_trotsky"  data-tradition="IV" value="618" data-dimension="F2">The {{TTS|tts=Soviet Union|USSR}} exercised maladaptive self-determination / The Soviet Union is a case of maladaptive self-determination
</li><li class="field_nations"  value="618" data-dimension="F2">Zimbabwe exercised maladaptive self-determination  ->  I can never remember what Zimbabwe even did. I think it may have been a land transfer or {{TTS|tts=Black Economic Empowerment|BEE}} thing or something?
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The Confederacy exercised maladaptive self-determination
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The South exercises maladaptive self-determination

</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Antimatter is always teleporting electrons / Due to virtual positrons colliding with electrons and the energy turning back into matter, electrons appear to teleport to different places  ->  this... makes both antimatter and orbitals make more sense. there's no question of where the antimatter is, because it's always being made; the only question is how there are always matter particles to absorb it.

</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Decimal numbers are infinite sums
</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Some infinite series can be expressed as polynomials  ->  this is used to calculate the golden ratio as a sort of "infinite series unit"

</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The speed of an electron moving immediately over a nucleus is 137 times slower than maximum  ->  that says a whole lot by itself. really makes it appear like spacetime and the scale of real actual photons are separated

</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Quantum field theory contains relativity  ->  one of those little cases of me writing myself a reminder of a fact because at the moment I wouldn't be able to prove this except by assuming relativity first and going "well all time is interactions so it has to be in there". whoever edits this Item later: please add a citation

</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="618" data-dimension="S2">There is time dilation inside a black hole shooting the center far away from the surface  ->  doesn't specify what kind of black hole stuff is inside being stretched, only says that whatever is in there it's behind some billion year delay while the center is happening in a second. with what I know so far, I find this believable. there has to be {{em|some}} reason that only the surface of the black hole matters for its interactions. the concept that time could be wildly screwed up such that nearly no time is happening except at the center seems like it could definitely be a possibility to explain the holographic effect, or why an event horizon forms at all.

</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Black holes are ordinary quantum foam stretched to the point it seems a billion years away (loop quantum gravity)  ->  my attempt to summarize a Planck star. sounds a lot like that string theory black hole, except it doesn't rely on mysterious strings and actually makes sense.

</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="618" data-dimension="S2" data-submitter="RD">Circles, squares, and triangles are all secretly number lines  ->  having this is like the secret key to all of math. squares are when you fold up the axes of Euclidean geometry at neat right angles. triangles and convex polygons are normal Euclidean axes folded along the lines of modular arithmetic. circles are something very special. circles are when you take a number line and start folding it in absurd infinitely precise ways that require infinitesimals and their most famous subset, the irrational numbers, to explain.<br />
if you thought that {{book|Winning Ways}} making up a bunch of new numbers had no purpose, no. by one definition, numbers themselves are the root of all geometry and all coordinate systems which in turn affect all mathematical functions and how easy it is to express them.<br />
like. oh god. there exists a minimal shovel dream equation. it's the equation which makes a circle drawn onto a cone space or an arc drawn onto a globe look like a straight line. that's the simplest way to say it. the shape you stand on causes you to lose sight of exactly what your models of the world model

</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="618" data-dimension="S2" data-submitter="RD">Irrational numbers create non-Euclidean geometries

</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="618" data-dimension="S2" data-submitter="RD">Curvature makes integers into infinities / Curvature is the transformation of integers into infinities  ->  sometimes I just stand around and think about pi. ever done that? pi is irrational. pi is the multiplier between rational and irrational quantities. technically any number of irrational numbers have that same purpose of being multipliers or conversion factors as well as numbers. why? why is pi actually in formulas instead of just some crazy number mathematicians made up while putting together Dedekind cuts and comparing sets of numbers? today I think I kind of figured it out, maybe. characteristics of pi: pi can be expressed as an infinite sum. because it's possible to express as a decimal, it can be taken as this quantity or multiplier that as you zoom in gets more and more precise and so it adds on another tiny measurement again and again. a circle is like a polygon with infinite sides. you can use an integral to approximate and calculate the perimeter of a circle. (although to be quite honest I don't know what the integral is off the top of my head. I have this wonderful intuition for math objects but I am terrible at actual equations unless they transcribe what I was already imagining.) okay. so when you set up some kind of integral to calculate the perimeter of the circle and spit out pi, "dx" is an infinitesimal-object or operator {{em|thing}} that is acting like an infinitely divisible number. dx is an infinitesimal maker. it's clear the moment you create that integral that there is something a little odd about circles. you can't calculate around a circle normally using Euclidean geometry, and it somewhat takes infinite sums or "dx" to get you all the way around the circle by adding all those teeny tiny infinitely precise measurements.<br />
now here's the crazy thing that blew my mind today. Cantor illustrated the difference between infinities by drawing a straight number line, and then drawing a curve against it that contained more numbers. and that blew me away. it sounds silly that something like that would be a mathematics breakthrough ({{TTS|html=abbr|tts=circa|c.}} 1872) but no, it is. it shows that curvature itself is a departure from integer mathematics. a simple Cartesian plane with integer axes doesn't contain the numbers that make a circle; all circles are non-Euclidean.<br />
so... is it really so weird to say that a black hole contains infinities? what if the black hole really does contain infinities, but only because we were trying to make infinities cooler and more mysterious than they actually were? I mean, you look at the thing, and the outside of it aside from the burning disk of stuff is one big 3d circle — despite that being true of stars and planets, but those do also have gravity. what if gravity is just lines turning into circles, and it creates infinities in equations because circles and ellipses are infinities? maybe spacetime curvature really is an infinity, but it's always an infinity, because every time you bow a straight line into a curve it contains something small but infinite, an infinitesimal. in principle there's an irrational number or a repeating infinitesimal between every line and every curved path, including the curved path that bows an apple and the earth together. if gravity was a perfect circle pi would be the bridge to gravity. it is already infinitely long.

</li><li class="field_horror" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Warrior cat clans are too simple to be able to criticize their own rules  ->  the claim that the warrior code is a descriptive account rather than an actual set of laws, and this is specifically because it is teaching cats how to survive an uncontrollable set of processes that repeat themselves.<br />
this is at least partly true. but it's not totally true just because of the fact that the clan leaders did try to change it to add mediating processes, ineffective as they might be. even if it can't function effectively as a constitution the cats are going to have false hope it can be used that way anyway, so the idea the code can be used for change is not really a misconception created by readers about the series. it's more of an error against dialectical or historical materialism. which is a pretty hefty concept to throw against an average Warriors fan that is not likely to know much about history and could be 13 years old

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A, ES" value="618" data-dimension="S">cybernetic anarchism  ->  there is absolutely a distinct cybernetics-revival Existentialism/anarchism. sometimes it feels more like an Existentialist period, where it's all about Freedom and individual agency, but sometimes you see a very focused "anarculture"-like idea going on which is genuinely about breaking up positive feedback loops with homeostasis-like processes. to be honest, this stuff gives me a headache. because it's like, no, anarchists, no. the big problem dooming humanity is always Community. it's always in people linking together and exchanging harmful things to grow closer and more unified and supposedly make the world a bit more peaceful. you're never going to discover that as an anarchist who probably believes that "positive feedback loops" are a genuine departure from sociality or Community. they're not. Community and positive feedback loops fit together like a hand in a glove, while negative feedback loops are often anathema to Community and shrugged off as "authoritarian". socioempire contains like, individual empire, "subjectivoempire", I wish I could think of a good word for it... bioempire.<br />
the more I think about this the more I think Communism almost needs to be renamed. instead of socialism we should be talking about "asocialism" or something. the process where people learn to live in peaceful groups almost exactly like today's societies without those groups being formed out of inherent social instincts that can lead people toward prejudice and uncontrollable destruction.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">using Sartre to argue cybernetics {{YouTube|oACxYkBYw6Y}}  ->  [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology|Existentialism]] is the most confusing spiderweb of stuff, I tell you. if I wasn't recording every weird thing I saw Existentialists say and carefully connecting them I'd never be able to understand it.

</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="618" data-dimension="M3">Why does slow time bring in gravity? / Why does slow time cause gravity or go together with the outward process of gravity?
</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Falling objects aren't moving, space is (general relativity) / If all objects accelerating due to gravity weren't speeding up toward other objects (receiving a force vector from the earth, etc), then space would be changing on its own "vectors" toward itself instead of apples toward planets or vice versa {{YouTube|qKZvAwcXceE}}  ->  these in-depth science propositions are going to need some cleanup once all the important insights of each model are laid out. there are going to be some duplicates I put in because I didn't understand they were the same equation, and stuff.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S">valid time to say "I'm not racist, but"  ->  I had no idea there would ever be more than one of these. time to make it its own motif

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Cluttered Japanese search pages are a matter of Japanese culture  ->  this is absolutely false, because the actual progression of history is that all web search pages looked like that and then Gooogle purposefully designed one that didn't. you could spin that positively and claim Google was "truly innovative", or if you wanted to be more honest, you could realize that the entire concept of culture is mediated by capitalism such that corporations are literally tiny countable cultures, like teeny tiny countries — the difference between Google culture and Yahoo Japan culture exists before the difference between United States culture and Japanese culture exists. corporations own culture, corporations control culture, corporations {{em|are}} culture.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The internet is not feasible / The web is not feasible / The fediverse is not feasible / Capitalism will always divide the internet into outwardly-radiating islands that primarily revolve around themselves, consolidate and use their own pile of resources, and selectively let only certain people in while not caring if the rest of the web ceases to exist, because while capitalism exists this is the only thing that is feasible

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">If global empire is maliciously engineered, then there is no such distinct phenomenon as a postcolonial period, because it would be indistinguishable from a pre-colonial period  ->  so very technical, and yet an astonishing revelation if you've been following along

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Schizoanalysis is already fascism

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Displacement is the purpose of capitalism / Israel is the purpose of capitalism / The act of displacing groups of people with other groups of people is the core cycle or "gameplay loop" of capitalism, which is to say, capitalism on a normal day is not very different from capitalism backing Israel

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Time is never linear / Physical time as it existed before humans and mammals or before the earth formed is never linear  ->  this assumes a nominal distinction between time and history where something that happened a hundred years ago on earth relative to something else on earth is history, but something that happened only a second ago two paces away is far closer to being categorized as time.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Linear time steals our attention  ->  this is contradictory. the act of creating linear time is the act of an individual controlling attention toward the end state of a particular narrative. even anarchists define it this way. that means if you don't do it, then your attention is unregulated and up for grabs. if you do rebel against surrounding attempts to fit you into a temporal narrative, you create a narrative.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Nonlinear time steals our attention  ->  this is more believable. time itself is always nonlinear. this is to say that whenever ads and microblog news feeds are "stealing your attention", it's many parallel timelines all attacking you at once and trying to make you a part of them at once. as well, any capitalist trying to fit you into a linear timeline is merely one of many capitalists all simultaneously attacking you in the same way, where the others just can't get you at the moment if you're taken.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Dictators are unpredictable / All the great dictators are unpredictable / Successful dictators are unpredictable

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Unpredictable leaders are dictators / Successful leaders who are unpredictable are dictators ->  on one hand I hate this. the Existentialist concept of a "[[E:generalized dictator|dictator]]" is not based in material realities of countries having to set boundaries around involuntary relationships.<br />
on the other, it's quite a funny thing to turn around on anarchism when they are claiming chaos magic is a good idea. everyone will think you're a dictator and attempt to lock you up

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">LLMs are the result of mystifying The Subject
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">LLMs are the result of mystifying language

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="HAS" value="618" data-dimension="S">morning pages {{YouTube|ANcJgvAJFaU}} / morning book  ->  the concept of writing down thoughts that are either distracting or potentially useful to save for later in order to think more clearly. a prototypical morning book happens literally in the morning, but the same concept could happen at any particular somewhat repeating time.<br />
I've never needed a morning book because I grew up in the era of blogging (albeit within microblog newsfeeds) and I just learned to take any actually useful thoughts and write them down in their own blog post and then categorize the blog posts by project or theme to find later. I don't even need a special "note-taking database", I just... put them in a text file. at some point we created bop format to make that process a little more organized and practically feasible.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="HAS" value="618" data-dimension="S">commonplace book {{YouTube|ANcJgvAJFaU}}  ->  essentially what all these Items are supposed to be doing, only in a much larger, potentially-social context.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="HAS" value="618" data-dimension="S">communication iceberg  ->  the motif that languages only refer to deep icebergs of ontology in people's minds and that's how one word especially in a specific place or with a specific gesture can imply an entire sentence.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A" value="618" data-dimension="S">anarchy! ...I can't pronounce vowels / anarchy! ...I can't pronounce breathy voice {{YouTube|g7KWAsGwB38}}  ->  the motif of anarchists trying to imagine an international auxiliary language created in the interests of [[E:a-culture-ism|anarculture]] and then dropping the ball halfway, because they don't have the skills to actually speak another language than English or French or whatever their main language is, because they don't realize language is a matter of long-term skills and education to be able to do a particular thing well and not just a matter of arbitrary decisions. I don't have ill will toward people like this, it's more the case that I simply find it a really interesting case study.<br />
what is tolerance? is it intolerance just to not know other languages? if bilingual people can be bigots, are only trilingual people tolerant? how many languages do you have to know before you become tolerant? are international auxiliary languages bigotry because they aren't the act of two people learning each other's languages? are creole languages more tolerant? are constructed languages bigotry for taking time away from learning to speak real languages?

</li><li class="field_horror" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">{{film|Jumanji}} {{YouTube|9sVpAE4F3m4}}  ->  wouldn't be immediately interesting in context of Marxism until people pointed out it was a global-empire horror story. one of many many stories that try to portray "other populations' revenge" against Britain and the United States. it's worth looking closely at the fact that these stories almost seem accidentally progressive in saying that Third World countries will not sit down, but actually, the reason they get made and approved is that they portray Third World countries {{em|as scary monsters}} — not challenging prejudice, and instead portraying other countries as extra dangerous.

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="DX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Filling Vietnam with factories will eventually create proletarian consciousness {{YouTube|HAEgTPK-oiU}}  ->  this is like. a quintessential admission that the biggest problem Marxism faces is there is hardly ever actually "a proletariat" in the sense Marx observed in Germany, and the proletariat {{em|and the proletarian revolution}} only form after you create a workers' state. apparently having used Leninist revolution to defeat something other than capitalism. we all know "the pain of capitalism" and yet we don't actually live in capitalism.<br />
with China, it's pretty obvious why this is: China was still a feudal order at the time of Maoism, so saying that Maoism defeated something other than capitalism totally checks out. likewise, North Korea didn't defeat capitalism, it defeated slavery. I'm not sure exactly what Vietnam defeated. looks like... [https://alphahistory.com/vietnamwar/august-revolution/ a client state with a puppet government]? huh. and in a weird turn of events Imperial Japan was expelled from Vietnam just because World War II was going on and First World countries hated each other. that reveals a lot about how the First World conceptualizes history — Communism is not okay because the normal course of Vietnamese history is the United States dropping a nuclear bomb on Japan and burning civilians to cinders. this makes the whole uproar about 9/11 make so much less sense when we basically saved Vietnam with a gigantic act of terrorism.<br />
so, Deng Xiaoping Thought conceptualizes proletarian revolution differently from mainstream Marxism-Leninism, but not necessarily in a sense that's wrong. it embraces Marxism-Leninism on the point that societies have to become conscious of their current structure and take control of it to defeat it — which happened. then it claims that proletarian revolution, in the broadest sense of society churning over into a truly proletarian economic structure that spits out a proletarian superstructure, is way in the future and Marxism hasn't actually been about the proletariat... "yet". this becomes a little bit of an absurdity in the context of the United States, where the country can develop for 200 years and become highly developed and one of the most privileged countries on earth and yet end up with no proletariat in a lot of places, the proletariat having been this transient phenomenon while hiring and firing and changing jobs is one of the most enduring processes along with new tiny businesses constantly cropping up and businesses of all sizes decaying away into nothing. it's like, has the proletariat ever existed anywhere? or have we gotten all of this stuff about the proletariat wrong? I think there's a case for that, that we've attributed a bunch of stuff to the proletariat that is actually due to a bunch of other more complex processes that Lenin somehow navigated correctly without bothering to explain. so, there are different models of Marxism. there is "Marxism-Stalinism" (thanks [[E:The Excessive Subject (Rothenberg 2010)|Rothenberg]]), there is Marxism-Dengism, and there are possibly others. there may be a Marxism-Trotskyism that somehow no Trotskyist has actually discovered yet but would become a theory if they all turned around and realized that they were promoting division instead of unity and the destruction of Communist Internationals instead of the creation of a meta-Marxist type International containing all viable Marxisms. it's not entirely clear yet how many valid but unappreciated variants of Marxism there are.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Constitutional amendments connect politics to history  ->  case of: Q93 argument for general-sense historical materialism. when you think about it, if constitutional amendments didn't do this, they wouldn't even be doing their job. the United States constitution especially is a narrative about history — what kinds of progress are said to have occurred and issues been solved. but if the daily operation of the United States, every little thing people did, didn't already make sense, then the constitution wouldn't make sense to anyone. in other countries like the United Kingdom there isn't even a written constitution, there is just a bunch of case law. yet the country doesn't fall apart purely because it doesn't have a constitution. every decision doubly has to make sense.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto LR" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The United States constitution is a form of filtration / Washington's filter (proposition)  ->  one of the only good arguments for Liberal-republicanism: that as long as there is a constitution it will set the window of discourse so that particular rulings cannot be taken away. the only problem is that for this to actually work the constitution would have to be a lot longer. a lot of things that go into state laws would have to instead go into state constitutions or the federal constitution.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="ML" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Nations have a single societal consciousness {{YouTube|HAEgTPK-oiU}} / National populations have a single shovel dream, rather than subpopulations being truly separate entities with separate shovel dreams and transitions  ->  Hyper-Materialism in the time of Marx, which apparently had a fatal flaw of not being pluralized. this has not been true since Trotsky. ever since the Trotskyite conspiracy failed catastrophically at "fixing" Leninism it's been clear that "social being vs social consciousness" is slightly more complicated than we thought it was. definitely not in the sense Western-Marxists try to say, with "The Subject" being somehow special, etc. instead, the big problem is simply that societies are not amorphous lumps and whenever the fine particles of society divide off into separate chunks, which can happen at any time, the chunks have their own shovel dreams. to truly take the correct actions, dividing chunks must realize that they are separate, what shape they are in now, what they are transitioning into, and how that transition differs from the transition of other chunks. Trotskyists could not figure this out and tried to operate from the model that society has a single consciousness and it needs to all become Trotskyist, rather than that Trotskyists are a new tiny society that suddenly sheared off from the main society. it was equally dangerous for the CPSU to not realize that Trotskyites were not necessarily ready to be squashed into the main population. Bolshevism faces a thorny contradiction: capitalism is the division of society into arbitrary competing chunks, nations are the division of humanity into arbitrary competing chunks, humanity must be unified to get rid of class rule and prejudice, humanity cannot be unified all at once, the presence of division threatens to destroy Bolshevism, forced unification threatens to become colonial prejudice against nationalities, the "ideal" position is clearly to get upset at Communists for locking down around separate countries but not let them do anything to create a Third International and unify countries together, shattering every part of Communism. of course, all you have to do to fix this is realize that in the grand scheme of things small chunks are similar to big chunks. if Stalin isn't allowed to promote socialism in one country then Trotsky isn't allowed to create a second party. inversely, if Trotsky wants to be allowed to organize people for Trotskyism what he should do is allow Stalin's government to create their party and attempt to join together with them as a parallel Marxism so each of them will be stronger. each one doing different things internally but united on the outside. it kills me that the Soviet Union can exist as 14 parallel populations and nobody ever thinks of this. even if Trotskyism feels like the point of it is to act on huge scales it could still focus its energy on operating in the areas that glue "Stalinist" countries together. this is the way Leninist parties function. they are things put together into a whole, not an adversarial process. this is one of the only things that remains when a country transitions to Deng Xiaoping Thought giving it continuity back to Leninism that makes it just barely admissible as "a Marxism" even if its status as Leninism/Bolshevism is dubious or void.<br />
so, yeah. the big problem with Communist Internationals is that they have to start from teeny scales deep inside populations and go up to the international scale, because the true place humanity gets divided is the messy continuous divisions that can occur inside borders as well as at them. this poses problems for "revolution" when the teeny tiny splinter populations that spontaneously form every so often can easily be useless to nationwide movements and yet if a revolution goes through and you want to keep what you have, they really have to be accounted for or you have no way of stopping populations from fracturing into nothing all over again.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Reactionary populations are not communities / "left-wing" socially-linked collections of people are fundamentally different from "right-wing" socially-linked collections of people in a way which means that these two kinds of undirected graphs of people do not equally qualify as "communities"  ->  seems more reasonable than trying to call every single imaginable population a Community and having no idea why when bigoted Southern Baptist Christians join together into a "community" of socially-linked friends that all trust each other and help each other that that doesn't inherently promote peace, love, and multiculturalism toward other populations.<br />
this issue is step zero toward getting Existentialism or anarchism to ever, ever succeed. forget meta-Marxism and finding the best Marxism — if you want anarchism to not be wiped off the face of the earth under the boot of a bunch of nazis you need to understand this. most signs of humanity being "kind" or "communitarian" or "social" are false signs. "community" as most people define it is a double-edged sword that also cuts people to pieces. commu-nity doesn't work. unless, of course, you want to give it a different, more narrow definition.<br />
the upshot of this is that it makes articles like the type specimen for "Existentialist inspiration porn" easier to intuitively identify as dubious. do you really know people coming together to fund a hospital is a good sign that people will continue to cooperate on things that aren't terribly basic, rather than shearing apart?

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Vegeta is not good enough / {{TTS|tts=True or false?|T/F?:}} "Vegeta is not good enough" / What is the truth value of "Vegeta is not good enough"? (M3 question phrasing)  ->  the facts of this question are going to be more complicated than the final truth value.<br />
Anarchy is the steepest hierarchy + Vegeta = this.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="M3">Is Lugia female? / What is the truth value of "Lugia is not female"? / What is the truth value of "Lugia from Pokémon 2000 is not female"?  ->  this seems like an easy question until you start reading about the development of the movie, and then it actually gets really murky. {{YouTube|3M0efqNSqzI}}

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="M3">Is Digimon canon to Monster Hunter? / What is the truth value of "Digimon is canon to Monster Hunter"? [https://humulos.com/digimon/dmh/]  ->  so, there is a particular digimon keychain as well as some kind of game DLC where Agumon and I think Gabumon have Monster Hunter styled forms based on existing Monster Hunter "taxa". (I don't know if species, genus, or family is more appropriate, so I guess taxon will do.) this means that Digimon are canon to one particular Monster Hunter continuity, although not necessarily to the rest of them, and in a sense a little stronger than simply "they appeared in Smash Bros". this goes beyond simple arguments about canon-facts of fictional universes to become very interesting in terms of proposition-based logic. the answer to "Is Digimon canon to Monster Hunter?" can't be false, because Digimon have been genuinely integrated into the Monster Hunter setting, but it can't be true, because they wouldn't be expected to appear in every Monster Hunter continuity. so the answer to that question has to be a non-binary truth value which is somewhere in between true and false.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">[[E:RoseQuartzRevivedPinkiePie|Pinkie Pie was revived by Steven Universe]] / Pinkie Pie is actually a non-pink pony revived by Steven Universe  ->  one of the funniest probably-unserious theories I have ever seen. if you were some [[E:Grandpa Ralph who doesn't watch cartoons|out-of-touch grandpa who only ever watched one episode of each of these shows]] you might have a hard time telling whether it's false. a large language model with insufficient data might just see each show as connected to fantasy elements and magic and themed names and tell you it's true. but at the same time, nobody who's actually watched both shows expects somebody to come up with this theory. how we recognize this theory as silly says a whole lot about how we reason. we pick up this completely unspoken intuition watching TV shows that each universe is separate and elements from it don't suddenly exist in other fictional universes. how do we know that? if we weren't allowed to point to corporate owners and copyrights and trademarks and we only had the inner contents of the shows, how do we epistemologically know they're separate? I think the answer tells us a lot about ideologies and whether people will be able to accept new models of how societies work. and not just new Bauplans of mainstream Marxism-Leninism or Kropotkinism or Deng Xiaoping Thought, but fundamentally, inner mental models of things like Menshevism and anti-racism and any change in society whatsoever. but funny enough, I think you begin fixing all that if you get mainstream Marxist-Leninists to coexist with Trotskyists, because the exact same basic difference between inner universes is manifest there.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S">spurious shared universe / spurious crossover / spurious canonicity claim  ->  the motif of claiming that something from one work is canon to another work when to a fan who actually knows anything about the two works that would seem obviously untrue.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="M3">What social purpose does grouping people into a workplace serve?  ->  this seems like a simple question if you take it too literally, but the question being asked here is, what is the individual- or group-psychological effect of putting unemployed people into mandatory employment? especially if it succeeds. what are people learning? what background models or goals are being put into them?

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Determinism is required for free will / Determinism is the substrate of free will (claim that free will can only exist on top of determinism) / A lack of determinism makes Free Will impossible / If Free Will exists at all, then it is the case that indeterminism takes away free choice and all free choice emerges from an individual's ability to predict and control their surroundings — instead of submitting to whatever their surroundings do and say, which becomes mandatory if the surroundings are not predictable<br />
this actually explains why people respond so badly to unreadable people. they really want the ability to exert their will, and whenever they can't, they feel controlled. they have a garbled reading of the situation, of course. if two people are behaving seemingly randomly, neither one actually has any control over the other.

</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="existential materialism (MX) onto STM" value="618" data-dimension="S2">It's possible to describe a die roll deterministically  ->  take a D20 as a physical object, an icosahedron of some mass. describe a generalized rolling procedure: shake the die for M minutes in a cylindrical container D centimeters wide at velocity V. you can take that equation and basically create a Blender animation of the die rolling, where it shows you the simple concept that the die will always land on {{em|some}} side whatever it is. the only caveat will be that it has to be a function taking in an initial condition of what side the die is sitting on and what position it has within the cylinder. that is critical. there is a big difference between a function and a static calculation. and almost everyone talking about science gets that wrong. indeterminism is the tiny kernel of reality that escapes determinism, so utterly tiny it's smaller than a quark. this is to say that, ironically, Free Will is not possible {{em|without}} determinism. the more indeterminism there is the less Free Will you could possibly have.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">If Donald Trump winning made him unpopular, then only 250 people need to vote  ->  logical conclusion. Liberal-republicanism usually assumes that people voting for a candidate they don't hate has the power to make other people support the new candidate. but if it's really true that people voting for a bad candidate has more effect, then for most people in the United States voting and talking about voting are simply a waste of time. five people in each U.S. state, ideally news reporters who are absolutely obsessed with negative consequences of candidates and allegiances to each candidate, would be able to calculate the best candidate based on what candidate would cause the most dissatisfaction among people who think that candidate is good. this is... a bizarrely Trotskyist interpretation of Liberal-republicanism. although Trotskyists don't typically go around saying that the best strategy to drum up support for Trotskyism is intentionally "installin'" Stalin, the pattern of claiming that one news reporter knows exactly what candidates should get the position based on all the people that don't like them is familiar. it almost, but not quite, provides an interesting insight. people in the United States genuinely [[E:Democracy for Realists|"un-vote" rather than "vote"]]. they "un-vote" for candidates they didn't like, but they don't truly vote for candidates because they like them, it's more like they vote just so they have something to take back. just so they can persuade themselves they have something to take back as punishment when they aren't happy. when the system has never actually been designed to accommodate that. it's always been designed so that voting is like paying for something and signing a set of terms and conditions, where you always pay a cost unless you could simply not buy and use the thing at all. (this is actually a problem with products sometimes, too. the inability to "negative-buy" something can keep products consistently unsatisfactory for a long time the more complicated and service-like and mired in exclusive deals the "product" gets.) not voting doesn't actually serve this purpose, because it doesn't counter the actions of all the people who voted for something when they shouldn't have. there isn't actually a form of voting which allows people to express "I really don't want this president" after the president is elected. approval rating doesn't do anything. there has to be a real threat of removing the president if people anti-vote hard enough.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto JC, MX onto A" value="618" data-dimension="S">North Korea point / progress finding its level / progress equilibrium  ->  the motif of progress being something that finds its level more than something where one person can move a million people. the North Korea point is the point when somebody gives up one particular kind of progress even if they need it because the overall task of a particular graph of people is more important to support for their survival versus the cost of not being integrated into that society or in general the society that can most effectively defend them from the set of individuals who would aim to harm them.<br />
this thing is one of the single thorniest issues when it comes to getting First World people to actually understand dialectical materialism. many people are horrified by the prospect of a North Korea point existing even in clear-cut instances when the people who are actually in the situation are accepting it. many people act as useful idiots saying a North Korea point is "unacceptable" and thus programming everybody that doesn't understand this concept with their existing anticommunism rather than getting them to actually turn around and question anticommunism.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Queen Ruby should be a Communist  ->  the characterization of the purpose of money in WoF is really weird.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-remark="linguistics" value="618" data-dimension="S">let's eat grandpa / the first Undertale ever received / please workers only (sign installed in public place which appears to be an instruction to only obey workers) / Trotsky helped lay the foundations of the Third International galvanizing revolutionary parties around the world [https://workersvoiceus.org/2020/08/18/trotskys-unfinished-article-on-trade-unions-still-speaks-to-workers-struggles/]  ->  the motif of an utterance which has different meanings depending on how the same set of words graphs together into clauses. (let's eat) (grandpa) vs (let's) (eat grandpa). (the first received) (Undertale ever) vs (the first ever) (Undertale received).<br />
I have no idea why but I looked at "the first Undertale ever received" and it was immensely funny to me for no good reason. there's nothing inherently funny about there being a first person that downloaded Undertale. statistically there has to be one. it's a very mundane thing, really. but there's really something about wording it as "the first Undertale ever received". I guess, about putting it in passive voice and making it almost overly formal. like narrator-Gaster said it. "{{caps|We approach its realization. The first Delta Rune ever received.}}" it sounds like this very distanced statement of observation in the process of aiming for something else. it's a wonder how much the phrasing of something can affect its connotations.<br />
edit: found one of these in a Trotskyist article. it's apparently possible to do them with propositions and not just language.<br />
I took the initiative to create internet + early Trotskyism / Leon Trotsky = Trotsky helped found the Third International galvanizing the world's parties.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S">noumenology  ->  the motif of attempting to find out what is inside a phenomenon as opposed to how it externally behaves. the phenomenon must have some sort of physical anchoring, such as a particle, or a social object including an individual or a social graph. string theory is a kind of noumenology relative to external particle physics observations. Lived Experience theories are noumenological. within science, some cases of noumenology neatly unify with phenomenological descriptions of an interior process culminating in a new accepted model. one case of this would be the period of physicists constructing quantum mechanics from various confusing observations and then eventually being able to show that quantum mechanics "most likely" is able to evaluate upward to larger-scale phenomena in almost every case but gravity.<br />
Hyper-Materialism requires all noumenology to be converted to phenomenology — the real one, not more noumenology.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Is the destruction of Liberal-republicanism a form of self-hatred?  ->  it's funny how the question of whether a Communist United States is the real United States and whether gender identity is your real gender are unexpectedly connected.<br />
I think the best answer to this question might be to answer it with another question. is the quark we can't directly see the real quark, or is the mathematical approximation the real quark? the Tory perspective on gender would be saying the math is literally real {{em|because}} it's what they can see from the outside. which would be phenomenology. I think what this reveals is that when people do observational studies to try to capture Lived Experiences they are misusing the concept of phenomenology. what they're really trying to do is more like "noumenology". they're trying to get at something which is inside which isn't the outer phenomenon people usually see. people are weird. in some senses you actually know what the hidden variables are inside the outer envelope of the particle. in other senses it's not usually practical to try to learn them most of the time. you have to do this weird thing of metagaming phenomenology to strategically decide what scale of model to use with how much fuzziness and "unpredictability".

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Scientific thinking is a pathology / Scientific thinking is a disease symptom created by such conditions as autism and ADHD that make individuals unable to understand intuition and to solve social situations through individuals intuitively unifying onto the nicest and most friendship-like behaviors that become local culture rather than attempting to characterize patterns in societies sociologically<br />
Anti-racism education is an oxymoron + ?? = this

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto poststructuralism (ES)" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Anti-racism education is an oxymoron / The concepts of "anti-racism" and "education" are in contradiction because the purpose of education is to teach ontologies and methods for testing ontologies but every ontology potentially contains errors relative to the real world and thus any attempt to educate people on anything can potentially be taken as a malicious prejudice if it is not specifically educating people as unique human individuals in how to socially connect and make friends with particular real people that exist and learn particular real people's exact Lived Experiences that exist independent of history books and cannot be taught through any history book or classroom  ->  the shocking but entirely logical conclusion you reach if you try to believe poststructuralism instead of calling it stupid, and try to believe that poststructuralism is compatible with the general concept of anti-racism. I have to say. I can't hate this when I simply look at how unbelievably coherent it is, but at the same time it's a headache because if it was true, how the {{censor|hell}} would you actually fix education besides abolishing education for anything but immediately useful skills, and general Existentialist principles for being nice to people? I can't help but feel like poststructuralism is anti-education. and that hurts my non-neurotypical brain because making snap decisions correctly in a small period of time, like you have to if you're going to apply Existentialist Principles Of Being Nice To Everybody, is one of the things I'm almost totally incapable of doing. I constantly forget every action I did less than 5 minutes ago unless I deliberately think about it many times over the course of several hours. I have no idea where I put my keys unless I can see them on the table and suddenly remember why I put them there. I have to check the empty washing machine "for safety" just to know I didn't leave my clothes in there. (typing that made me panic and check the washing machine.) I function a lot better if I can actually read up on countries or populations as material objects and try to get a genuine understanding of what bigger processes are going on. the notion that everything can be solved by calling out supposedly correct and incorrect behaviors of individuals against individuals, in a world where there are often multiple contradictory pressures on individuals to regard the "right" thing to do as both totally mandatory and totally unacceptable, is alien to me. is anybody going to care about intuitively, empathetically understanding the Lived Experience of {{em|my}} {{censor|shit}} brain that can't guess the right decisions for {{censor|shit}}? no.

</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Integers are basically apples / Integers are basically bread loaves  ->  note that bread loaves have an especially strong connotation of being able to divide a number into fractions or infinitesimals. apples can do that too, technically, but it's not usually the first thing people think of.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Daily life in China determines the result of United States elections / Daily life in Cambodia determines the result of United States elections  ->  it seems like this would have to be true if the "labor aristocracy" is true. if Filamentocracies in the United States, the owners and Director types and representatives, are generated through the competition of business territories and the aggressive competition of individuals to fill them, but it's the action of workers trying to survive that props up businesses, and all the workers are in China (hypothetically; corporations have been using various countries), then events happening in China or Cambodia should have a nonzero effect on United States elections. it wouldn't be easy to track. you'd have workers graduating from factories to open a business in China and production would slow down while they look for people and then a corporation would lose a few dollars and then it would get really mad at The Left and donate money to Trump or it would get mad at White people and donate money to Biden. but we know in reality that even if the United States outsources the proletariat people still engage with elections based on their daily interactions with people inside their population; they still get mad at "universities" and news stations inside the United States. the same should also be true for economic structures <i>per se</i>. it seems like a betrayal of dialectical materialism to say that each day interactions inside the United States are not as important to the system as tiny changes in China.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">All populations do passive filtration / passive filtration (meta-Marxism) / All populations perform passive filtration through all accepted individuals judging individuals on their ability to perform the basic thematic premises of the "community" / All human populations create spatial slot hierarchies based on the ability to best perform their thematic premises such as mastery of scientific models, mastery of contradictory anarchist rhetoric, providing the ideal example of polite and inclusive behavior as The Subject which poor people and people who don't already have stable careers and houses can never hope to live up to, or ->  nothing made this as clear as Reddit and YouTube.

</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="618" data-dimension="M3">What would macroscopic photons look like? / What would a photon look like if it was the size of a tennis ball?  ->  this question haunts me sometimes. it's a silly question, but it's fun because it makes us ask what we actually know and don't know about physics. assumptions: only one photon is huge at a time. you can hurl photons at the photon. the other photons might go through it — Bose physics. it probably isn't static, you're looking at some weird phenomenon of a giant photon coming out of your flashlight and going to the wall. it has the energy of a regular photon, so it won't burn you if it didn't come out of the sun. it might be a wave; whatever it being a wave actually means you would observe. it might be a sloshy mess that isn't exactly one neat ball and more resembles two. it might be doing strange things to locality, making it terribly weird to look at. it is quantized; being huge doesn't change the nature of it being an approximately single packet with a particular energy inside. it might be some kind of weird spiral in order to carry magnetism. you're allowed to change the premise so there are exactly one of a few different fundamental particles at a time or some small number if it makes it easier to represent field coupling.
</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="618" data-dimension="M3">What would macroscopic protons look like? / What would a proton look like if the quarks were the size of tennis balls?  ->  this one haunts me even more. because the funny thing is, quarks are solid. protons are solid. being fermions, they have the minimum kind of solidity to form tangible objects. so a proton might actually look like something? or you might see it as a blur of the three quarks going around much too fast. I wonder, could you burn things up by trying to poke the proton with a stick? would the acceleration be that bad? or would it just fly backward like a normal atom? we're assuming it has the mass of a proton, so when it's impossibly big it would probably be able to float in some substances, maybe even in air because that is a ridiculous density. it's also true that a proton can be a normal atom — a hydrogen ion. so you might think of it as just a huge gas molecule. could you pick it up with a magnet? I don't know.<br />
imagine taking an oversized neutron and just, putting together atoms. the concept of an oversized chemical reaction is mildly scary, knowing some of them are dangerous. but then again you could just assemble water and that would probably be fine. what would the hydrogen bonds actually look like

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="MX onto ES/W" value="618" data-dimension="S2">relativistic Marxism  ->  the concept of a Marxism which can in theory be practiced by individuals rather than groups assuming they are all willing to learn great amounts of theory — which is probably an unrealistic assumption. this is mostly just a thought experiment. in a "relativistic Marxism" all the individuals realize that they have to move to the correct cities, go into the correct industries, and build the correct structures for any kind of intangible social progress to happen, and they all try their best to do this, constantly solving for all the uncooperative people around them (RDem). realistically these would probably emerge in [[E:separable multiplicity|plurality]] and there would probably be two or three of these fighting over the country, leading to confused arguments about why they don't unify.<br />
a "relativistic Marxism" is in contradiction with the concept of a molecular Marxism. one resembles special relativity in being made from tiny reterministic pieces accelerating past each other that must stack up to history but do not have the ability to see or measure each other until they do, the other resembles quantum mechanics in being made from miscellaneous individuals assembling into shared consistent structures that assemble into bigger structures much like quarks assemble into protons that assemble into atoms. the sticky thing is in getting everyone angled toward RDem to work together with everyone hypothetically angled toward MDem. it's weirdly like humans really are giant particles somehow and the day we crack Marxism and the day we unify special relativity and quantum mechanics into some new "general quantum" theory will come right next to each other. spacetime and history are not as different as we want to believe, and may just be the same kind of thing at different scales.<br />
Teamwork is nothing, ontology is key + ?? = molecular Marxism.

</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="618" data-dimension="S">reference frame drag force / Unruh effect  ->  a crazy measurement effect that first comes up in special relativity, not general relativity. as reference frames shear apart through acceleration it is calculated that the accelerating one will measure particles.
</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="618" data-dimension="S">acceleration event horizon / Rindler horizon  ->  special relativity. it would appear that every accelerating object has an event horizon simply because an accelerating reference frame can zoom away from anything interacting with it. through the Unruh effect, it may be able to generate particles going away from the outside into the inside.<br />
I talked about this thing accidentally in book drafts without knowing what it was called, just because some time around trying to read Heidegger and compare it with physics propositions I realized reference frames and "boxes" around particles and particle interactions had to be connected. so I got the setup of this, I just didn't get to the "whether it generates particles" part.
</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="618" data-dimension="S2">A particle is what a detector detects (Bill Unruh) {{YouTube|1Hadz3NPkC4}}  ->  seems uncontroversial when you're trying to explain quantum mechanics and why particles look like fuzzy envelopes; the model is basically modeling a particle detector, not a particle. becomes a much weirder and more interesting statement when discussing the Unruh effect

</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="618" data-dimension="S2">A wave function either is somewhere or isn't {{YouTube|zJrzkxW9n8U}} / Regardless of if we can know exactly where it is, a particle is either encounterable and measurable in a given chunk of space or not  ->  slightly bold claim from Sabine Hossenfelder. this would seem to be a hidden variable model? it doesn't fully claim to peer inside the wave function but it says that particles are "basically" somewhere in particular in space despite events and time being relative such there should be no universal place to measure their trajectory from one reference frame to another reference frame. hidden variables "lite".<br />
I think that in some sense, yes, particles have to complete some kind of journey from reference frame A to reference frame B to be physical. and my long shot guess of how is that we make some kind of mistake in thinking that all the tiny reference frames can be put onto any single grid that's just one big warped sheet of spacetime instead of assuming the whole universe is more like one big ball of sand where all the grains are the reference frames. the divisions between the grains could be something of a mathematical artifact more than physical, a consequence of the joining of various grains to stretch and compact spacetime being the only thing in the universe that's truly unpredictable, a consequence of the one tiny gap between reality and mathematics that will never be crossed. even so I don't think that means we can't learn what gravity is. we can see it at larger emergent levels, so, assuming the borders between these reference frame grains were producing gravity, you'd solve the problem by making a probabilistic model kind of like how physicists papered over the difficulty of observing fundamental particles in quantum mechanics. I think a model of gravity as good as quantum mechanics is possible, even if it could be the case gravity is one of the few things so small we really cannot measure it and can really only calculate it backward calculus-style by measuring its effects. maybe penteract space and sand-grain reference frames are nonsense, but here's the most reasonable thing I'll say: I think there will one day be a small-scale model of gravity.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Labor is a bourgeois activity / Labor is a bourgeois activity in the sense that the more labor you put into something as an individual the more you betray the concept of stable structures which can liberate people from capitalism  ->  the more I think about the concept of libraries and thrift stores, the more I think, in the framework of Lenin and his torn-up shards of Ricardo it really should have been that the point of socialist transition is to have so many used things you make as few new things as possible. in some cases that's not applicable. in some cases the used things will be recycled material, compost, seeds that are not ridiculously patented against reuse. in the ideal cases such as books and computer parts, you should simply get to the point where most workers are distributing things instead of manufacturing them and some workers are maintaining digital servers that distribute things at the greatest ease. every time we deviate from that pattern we create exploitation: allow owners to try to prolong the era of physical products and you get the crazy abuses of Amazon drivers who have to physically deliver used things, allow owners to prolong the era of new products and they get to keep exploiting factory workers and moving them all to the Third World, allow owners to prolong the era of people getting to be Career Artists and career problem solvers and even that pushes back the timeline for stopping overproduction and abuse of the Third World and delivery driver abuse.<br />
it often feels like the only way to strike at the root of it is to actually tell people, no, we have too many things, too many distinct individual things versus quantities of those things, you don't inherently deserve to create something, and if you agree not to create something new we don't inherently need you going to college — unless you already have a very specific trade to do and you know exactly what training is required. no, you're not inherently virtuous for doing more labor on something or getting more training. no, you're not inherently making the world better by creating a small business for people to give money to, you're exacerbating the problem of millions and millions of businesses constantly trying to drain people's attention. no, giving businesses a human face is not inherently good, because the more people can see a human face the more they'll want you to be absolutely perfect and try to get rid of you the moment you're not, and trust me, it will only hurt more if you're an Artist or the more you've put passion into it. you want to be faceless. the point of sociality is to make the individual faceless. to remove the individual from competition with other free-floating entities. you don't want parts of society and individuals to be the same thing. individuals eat and occupy space and hurt each other when they're starving and hold up guns. you don't want societal compartments doing that. society will always evolve. the act of doing labor will always actually pile up into the creation of new things like corporate studios that replace old things like artisanal practices. nobody wants to understand that for some reason, and the result is a million businesses constantly vying for everyone's attention with more opening every day and no end in sight. it seems like every time somebody gets upset at capitalism and is like "why is capitalism controlling me and stealing my attention" they go open another business and make the problem worse.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">InferKit is not stealing assets / Because InferKit is not copying Artistic Images with Feeling put into them it is not stealing anything  ->  this is a very difficult statement to decide the truth value of because the whole argument around "AI" is so rooted in concepts that are entirely subjective. to an "artist" it will seem like art is the most special thing in the world and art should be protected because it's special. but to a news reporter, they'll probably try to claim that because news corporations go to some amount of trouble to research the news and report it well and drum up subscription money that supposedly is worth it, news is inherently special and it {{em|is}} possible to steal news. the concept of stealing is a subjective and intuitive thing that people come up with rules for on the fly, not a list of rules you can simply memorize. which totally drives me up the wall because I would learn the rules and follow them if they really were a simple list I could memorize, but when people always decide it so suddenly and arbitrarily I have little respect for the concept of "stealing work". Work is stealing. Every act of working is stealing. Whenever you perform labor on anything you are always stealing the opportunity for someone else judiciously wielding their "non-narrative thinking" in order to believe in themselves to have done it better. White people steal from Black people all the time by working and telling them "you couldn't have done that thing as well as me, so you don't deserve a house loan, now get out of here". White people steal from Chinese people by trying to claim they can't take ownership of the patents and schematics other countries are making them produce. White people and Japanese people stole from Koreans by insisting there be a South Korea just so it could be part of UnitedStatesKoreaJapan instead of part of Korea. White people steal from Cubans by denying them the same trade routes they demand that other countries create just to stay standing and {{em|not}} get stolen. Nothing about the concept of stealing actually makes any sense. People complain about stealing existing and some group of people supposedly having stolen something when they feel like two groups of people are not forming relationships correctly and engaging in the exact same set of cultural rules and want to mark one of the groups of people as "cheating" at the act of forming into a single set of rules correctly. The concept of stealing was invented by Existentialist-Structuralist anarchologists. or at least, looking at the structure of the logic it'd seem that way. if you want to predict whether somebody will actually consider something to be "stealing" it's best to cross out all instances of that word and see if you can describe it with the word "cheating". as much as the concept of "cheating" is also subjective it does get at the slippery reasons that people actually reject things. nobody actually cares if you do or don't "own" an essay, as the world is cruel and nobody cares about the state of people successfully owning usable businesses or houses or not; what gets rules sheets and professors so weirdly furious about "plagiarism" is that it's cheating at the established system of ranking up within academia relative to a cloud of other living breathing people who are also trying to rank up and not get removed. every act of trying to do anything "honestly" is actually an act of trying to socially fit into a cloud of thousands of competing people who are all constantly individually judging you.<br />
and deep down, that really scares me. I always feel like no matter how hard I try at anything there's going to be some reason people will decide I'm not honest just because whenever I try anything I tend to reach a point where I am just too bad at some required part of doing a thing and I won't be able to do it "good" in a way that will make it intuitively feel "genuine" to them. maybe I try to make a video but I make it as a talk instead of a visual presentation, and I just know some people are going to hate it because it's a slideshow or an audio file or because I don't have any budget to spend on stock footage and I would have to doodle the slides or find images I have reason to believe are not special and meant to be used. maybe I try to write a book and discuss scientific thinking but I half know people are going to hate it because I don't truly know all the quantum mechanics math and I've been {{censor||bullshitt|ing}} my way around it with simpler math objects and a firm cage of well-checked propositions as I learn the good stuff slowly. maybe I try to create fiction but I know people are going to hate it because as much as I have really poured feeling and thought into it after however many years of trying I will not have become inherently good at Representing the Plurality of All Lived Experiences And Walks Of Life And How They Are All Inherently Relatable To Each Other On An Intuitive Level Without Science. maybe I try to build a proposition encyclopedia here but I know that if I have any fun with it people are going to hate it for a while until the day I make everything absolutely meta-ontologically sound so that all the Item pages are immediately comprehensible to people of every version of Marxism and also every bourgeois philosophy. and I'm naturally {{censor|shit}} at movements. if somebody is judging someone or angry at someone I can't talk water off a wet paper bag. everything I do every day even in my own building there is someone who is going to be judging me and telling me I'm not existing right and sometimes I don't want to wake up and exist when I swear other people are better at it than me and if I want to be honest and not a cheater I should just get out.<br />
It's like this. everything has become ridiculously Artisanal. the longer capitalism goes on the more every possible thing people can do becomes this weird little spatial slot hierarchy where honesty becomes synonymous with being actually talented and masterful at something and not doing something to the highest artisanal skill slowly becomes regarded as cheating and under some particular sets of conditions as stealing. Both sets of criteria are made up. they are fabricated on demand in response to contingent sets of conditions. and the role of them is to police the borders of a countable culture to enforce the physical constraint that it cannot contain an infinite number of people and must contain some finite number of people who follow each other's rules and like each other. inside a country every Culture is a {{censor|circlejerk}}. we are probably lying to ourselves that there's any such thing as Community at all. or maybe it's just that we confuse countable cultures with Community when that is one of the most improper models we could have. the bourgeoisie and Community are disgustingly intertwined. they {{em|will}} take the sheer act of existing in a population away from you and let a select Filament of people own that to the exclusion of new people being born. Existentialism-Structuralism must be stopped. we have to stop "tent of freedom poles" from getting to define what is stealing or cheating or ethical and what is human so all of these discussions stop being such nonsense and so hard to actually seal properly.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Being a waiter is a culturally-fabricated Game that prevents an individual having an understanding of self and an ownership of Life (Sartre, <cite>Being and Nothingness</cite>) {{YouTube|kkAcohbmz80}}  ->  no. the narrative of waiters is created by the existence of restaurants as structures. to argue this you'd have to argue that restaurants are a wholly made-up game and it's possible for everyone to spontaneously go "I don't want there to be restaurants" and thus drain the value of capital to zero but also take away any ability it might provide to earn any money. and there's nothing great about money, but it's quite notable that without money humans are still wholly capable of pinning down a territory and doing horrendous things in it and saying nobody can stop them. if there was no money people would have just, come to North America and carved out a micronation the size of Delaware and made whatever rules they want and said "I'll shoot everyone who tries to take this land or change the rules". money had a particular bizarre effect of allowing people to fight over territory and the exclusive right to make rules bloodlessly — instead of shooting murderers we have to [[E:bloody money|demand money]], instead of capturing slaves in an international war, now we buy them. clearly the effects did not bring total peace. money took the basic act of two territories of people in tensions preparing to kill each other dead to change the rules and deferred it so that there was some kind of objective criterion by which people could decide when somebody should occupy a territory or not. nobody {{em|had}} to obey the criterion and sell a territory, and in the end this act of making spatial slot hierarchies systematic could be called an act of social darwinism, but it had the dubious advantage of allowing people to kill each other over resources more slowly and nonviolently, ultimately making things like homeless protests possible instead of the king killing all the homeless people before they can do anything about it. (real historical incident.) take that away by deciding that job slots and business territories are a fabricated Game that can be overwritten by a bunch of people banding together and arbitrarily making up new rules, and the results are not going to be pretty. it can work out for the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm6VSkm_ko8 Wampís people], but separable areas of racist White people are definitely going to do it.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">[[E:TsubouchiNetworkingSuccess|<cite>The Ripple Effect</cite>]] (Tsubouchi 2025)

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="Fy, ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">{{book|Horton Hears a Who}}  ->  Existentialist-Structuralist tradition, the kid's book. A) prejudice. B) existing super loud C) Jo-Jo the shirker in apartment 12-J<br />
this book is.... sinister in the weirdest way because it's like how loud does a country actually have to {{censor|fucking}} be to {{em|prevent}} the United States from dropping a catastrophic bomb (after the other bombs) or poisoning the environment. if this is supposed to be teaching kids "democracy" then it has some terribly dark things to say perhaps even more than it intended. (heard of the Star-bellied Sneetches, or infamous environmental fable The Lorax? yeah. intended.) it's saying something like, democracy is when you have to live with empires expanding and expanding and controlling the world but you just barely manage to persuade them to let you survive because you've got them to agree that {{em|you}} fit into the interests of {{em|their}} culture. if this book was a warning aimed at Third World kids then it's depressingly accurate. I doubt that's quite the way it was intended though.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">a person on that? why there never has been ({{book|Horton Hears a Who}})
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">this community has standards, Horton ({{book|Horton Hears a Who}}, 2008)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">everyone make noise / we are here, we are here ({{book|Horton Hears a Who}})
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">Jo-Jo the shirker in apartment 12-J / a very small very small shirker named Jo-Jo ({{book|Horton Hears a Who}})
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">that one extra "yopp" put it over
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">whoville, on a speck? sure ({{book|Horton Hears a Who}}, 2008)

</li><li class="field_horror" value="618" data-dimension="S2">{{book|Horton Hears a Who}} is a kaiju story / {{book|Horton Hears a Who}} has the same purpose as a kaiju story, making it equivalent to a kaiju story told from a reversed perspective  ->  one of those that sounds dumb until you look at the historical context and then it's like, oh wait huh it might actually be true

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto JC, MX onto DX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">It's easier to imagine Ragnarok than North Korea / It's easier to imagine cataclysm than North Korea / It's easier to imagine the end of society than life in North Korea / It's easier to imagine the end of the United States than daily life in North Korea / It's easier to imagine the end of the world than daily life in North Korea  ->  this seems like a huge gap in most understandings of "revolution", "socialist transition", "reconstruction", "decolonization" (<em>endo</em>decolonization), "sustainability", "degrowth", etc. the fundamental fact that human beings are material and have to get up every morning always escapes our conceptions of politics, even though it should be one of the most important things to remember. nobody will keep voting or even blockading a place if what there is to defend isn't worth it; if a socially-linked group of people is worth defending revolution will almost create itself. how do you reconceptualize all your notions of "rebuilding from collapse" just once (thanks Posadas) into actually maintaining a society for years and years as the whole rest of the world is trying to crumble it and starve your population of resources, having to get up and go to work every day? living itself is like rebuilding from nothing a million times. and I think this is part of what the disaster movies don't show. the disaster is continuous, while the movie trivializes it into only lasting a short time. even Japanese kaiju movies don't quite get that right. imagine one where it's like the kaiju is always there and you can't get rid of it and you just have to live through it because otherwise it wins.<br />
{{censor|god}} that would be a great Ultraman show, just, the super-kaiju that's half the area of the planet or at least actually as big as a city is always there in the background of every episode and part of the ongoing story arc, kind of like the moon in {{game|Majora's Mask}} but worse. it's draining their life energy to stop the people from turning into Ultras. it was small at one time, then it grew bigger and bigger as history went on. people hoped it would become friendly one day. but it just started burning things down for the {{censor|hell}} of it, tormenting the people and trying to break their spirits. one day it was so big there was no real option but to drain the monster itself for energy to rebuild civilization. the monster didn't even seem to mind. with everyone tapping into it, it knew exactly where the points of civilization were, and exactly when somebody was defying it and when to punish them with a disaster. some people were worn down, they wanted to leave. some started ignoring it. there could be a storyline where the monster "saves everyone" from an alien invasion but actually it only uses that victory to greater justify its control and its abuses. finally people came to the decision they had to outlast and out-live this thing to be able to fight it. they had to disconnect from the monster's power and they had to simply exist the best they could without being detected at critical moments, without being divided, without being petty any more. in the final moments where you'd expect to get insight into the villain it is still saying incredibly toxic things telling them they are bad friends and they don't know how to coexist with people, they're greedy, they're controlling, they don't know what's good and what's evil and they will fall apart when evil comes to this planet. they get ready to stab the {{censor|fucker}} in the heart and it's like "I'll destroy all life on this planet, I'll blow it up, I'm warning you". it's a very messy type of story where few things are happy. it's more of an actual horror story than most kaiju stories. because, you know, the real story is a horror story too. it's the friendship kaiju. that's actually what it's called. it starts as this nice little guy of friendship and rainbows and it turns into one of the most horrifying things.

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="Gramscianism, MX onto W" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Super Smash Bros.<br />
Super Smash Bros. + Marxism / mainstream Marxism-Leninism / Trotskyism / Juche-socialism = meta-Marxism

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="Gramscianism, MX onto W" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Cultural hegemonies are toxic Communities / Hegemony politics or the "musical chairs attack" succeeds through actual material networks of people forming over or through other networks of people and breaking them apart; it does not operate through "ideas" or "attitudes" or "traditions"
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Whiteness is society / "We live in a society" and "get rid of Whiteness-prejudice" are not compatible  ->  the claim that when Gramscians try to infiltrate society and change "culture", the reason they have trouble is that society is actually a material object they are trying to drill into that resists the drilling. Whiteness is a physical wad of bigots, not an idea.
</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="Gramscianism, MX onto W" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The glass ceiling is made of men / The "glass ceiling" stopping women from moving upward into more desirable slots is not a characteristic that sits within a woman or on the subpopulation of women, and is literally composed of unbreakable networks of men standing together and supporting each other in order to form toxic Communities; the glass ceiling of any particular industry is broken precisely when the natural Community processes joining men together to take up all the slots are overcome by Lattices or Community-blobs of women and woman-allies forming faster and shattering all the toxic Communities<br />
Cultural hegemonies are toxic Communities + misogyny = The glass ceiling is made of men
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">All Western Marxism does is create a new hegemony that has to be infiltrated  ->  the claim that as much as Gramscians manage to infiltrate existing structures, all that actually does is make it harder for any "real" Marxists to get in there, and create a conflict between countable Marxisms to infiltrate the same space. this is one of those propositions that's a bit more of a bad joke than something I'm confident in. I am deeply confused as to what's really going on right now. but this is the thought that comes intuitively.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Immigrants are progress because they are desperate / Immigrants are a progressive force because they are desperate, not because countable cultures of people inherently want to form together into tents of freedom poles or Rhizome or Community / Multiculturalism is the shovel dream of expulsion and desperation  ->  case of: anti-anarchist statement / proposition against anarchism. the claim that "multicultural centers for immigrant culture" and such efforts are not the product of individuals spontaneously deciding to be nice through either individual will or some kind of Community Free Will and instead, the key process is simply immigrants getting expelled from another country or region because it has in some sense run out of space for them, which causes people to migrate to exactly the place they will be accepted and not to the places they are not. the "victory of multiculturalism" is a kind of selection bias where a little bit of coexistence in one part of Canada is outright masking all the hatred in other parts of Canada that migrating people can't actually control.<br />
the bright side: if immigrants come to understand Gramscianism/Marxism-Dengism and Lattice models, they can create an actual "victory of multiculturalism". if this is to succeed it must be understood through the backdrop of spatial slot hierarchies, Filaments, and filtration of correct models and facts from inaccurate models and facts in order to build a nation-wide workers' state where the Lattice survives the surrounding onslaught. no filtration? no victory of multiculturalism, all bigotry.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">watching {{game|Pokémon}} lore all day / watching videos about {{game|Pokémon}} all day  ->  neutral. just a concept. just a thing that would be perfectly normal to do if you're 13, regardless of whether other kids are more into "more serious" things like {{book|Warriors}}. slightly less normal if you're 30, but not {{em|necessarily}} bad.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="Aa" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Escapism is categorically better than committing crimes / Escapism is categorically better than committing crimes, even if somebody never ever goes to work or does anything productive  ->  one of the unspoken founding axioms of Lacanianism.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="Aa" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Watching videos all day is better than being in al-Qaeda  ->  I am so tired of everything anyone says about "escapism" because nobody ever thinks about what "overindulgence in escapism" is actually preventing.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="Aa" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Watching videos all day is better than criticizing relatives  ->  peak psychoanalysis right here. it undermines itself. for psychoanalysis to prevent crimes or acts of aggression it must tell people to internalize prejudices and take on repression. simultaneously this is supposed to be what it's preventing. it perpetuates the problem it "prevents". it creates the problem it solves.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="Aa" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Watching videos all day is better than criticizing religion  ->  the number of people that believe this is scary.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="Aa" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Gaming all day is better than shooting gay people / Watching videos all day is better than shooting gay people  ->  it has to be true. truth value: if it's false we have a big problem. however, this creates problems in that the same ethical rules do not apply to all people regardless of ideology and religion. if only people of some ideologies and religions believe gay people are a threat, they have to have a different set of ethical rules enforced onto them than people of other ideologies just to get everyone to perform the same moral code in practice. and they are not going to perceive this as fair because they do not understand that their ideology isn't just the normal ideology that they should get to believe period, or the natural ideology baked into them when they were born which is as intrinsic to them as gender identity. this is basically the same between Tory types and Trotskyites: in the 1930s Soviet Union, people who are okay with the government effectively operate by one set of rules, while Trotskyists have a second hidden set of rules forced on them — if you are a Trotskyist <em>and</em> you resist, you are in big trouble, although if you are a non-Trotskyist and you go through your natural forms of resistance that are likely not as destructive, the government might reach a compromise with you. it's the same if illegalized gay people throw bricks at a cop. it's the same if the United States government is afraid of the Black Panthers. ethics cannot be treated as universal because individuals are not universal and individuals are not societies. desirable outcomes can be achieved on small groups of individuals, but you absolutely need a reterministic model of society that works from individuals up to structures and plural subpopulations, not an Idealist model. Trotsky becomes better when you figure out what to do with him and in particular what he and his own people should be doing. he doesn't become better before that.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A, ES" value="618" data-dimension="F2">You must believe that all religions are true or you are a dictator  ->  one of the fallacies leading up to the premise of Last Dragon Chronicles. (although the premise of the series is closer to that all pagan religions are true and Christianity is maybe half true.) the great majority of people would much rather conceptualize "truth" as Lived Experience than what is materially possible, and the intersection of "truths" as the coexistence of people and Lived Experiences. unfortunately this actually makes getting people to coexist a lot harder because everybody's concept of getting the world to coexist contradicts with everybody else's and is unable to take into account the actual material processes of groups of people conflicting and contradicting in order to work out how to solve them, resulting in a horrible contradiction of official rules that people must get along on top of a horribly violent world where they would almost rather kill each other periodically. this anarchism or anarchology that everyone seems to believe by default would seem to create the exact problems that anarchism ends up having to claim it can solve and then ends up leaving unsolved. the garden of eden causes the fall.<br />
Watching videos all day is better than criticizing religion + tent of freedom poles = You must believe that all religions are true or you are a dictator

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Any new idea is likely correct / Any idea which is new is probably correct  ->  believe this and you'll think that calling the French Revolution "overshooting the mark" and Bolshevism "moderate" is a "conservative position". believe this and you may also think that AI is inherently bold and innovative and life-changing just because it's new, or MOND must be correct because people haven't been using it before.<br />
there is definitely a point where innovation and creativity in general, not just ideological "progress", goes past what is needed and becomes wasteful. it has nothing to do with tradition or the inherent metaphysical God-rules of the universe.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Any theory of "community" that wasn't toxic would be Marxism  ->  so, people always want to help the Third World in bizarre ways. there are some people who want to donate money to Africa assuming that the governments can create government programs when they actually just absorb the money. some people eventually figure out that it's more effective to operate in Africa through the medium of corporations that provide some questionably-appropriate product, like "one laptop per child" or that merry go round water pump. {{YouTube|PTJgAK7e9ro}} eventually it is discovered the charities aren't solving the problem in a satisfactory way, the locals are dissatisfied.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Deng Xiaoping Thought is a networkism / The herd-of-cats effect exists because Deng Xiaoping Thought is a networkism  ->  this seems very evident.
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Deng Xiaoping Thought is a two-tiered networkism  ->  the claim that the Communist Party of China and the layer of corporations are two distinct tiers of networkism. the CPC defends the overall population from the world's other populations, asking them to obey it in exchange that they will be protected from war in a world where war on workers' states and Third World countries in general has been so prevalent. corporations defend arbitrary chunks of the population from attacks on each other by giving them specific narrow tasks to do and punishing the slightest deviation from those tasks that could result in {{em|infringement}} of specific useful-task-performing abilities and social expulsion.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="Aqr" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Vibrations are inherently intuitive  ->  "vibrations" seems to be one of the words that keeps convincing people that quantum mechanics supports mysticism. and only after a lot of surface study of the Existentialist-Structuralist tradition and its connection to anarchism, I think I can say with some amount of confidence that this failure of reasoning happens because people attempt to comprehend physics with {{em|intuition}}. Marxists say that embodied cognition can teach people to take control of matter and society-objects, but most of the time, it seems that embodied cognition actually leads people to thinking that any complicated thing they can't imagine there being a model for is somehow "inherently intuitive", only solvable by intuition and not by philosophy or by math. they will "intuitionize" The Subject, social behavior, populations, freedom, the supposed convergence of different populations into Rhizome, and even non-social objects like quantum fields as supposedly being comprehensible through the natural ability of human beings to fit into society or subpopulations through intuition. the social capacities of humans go out of control, and suddenly everyone thinks that because frequencies and stochastic happenings exist in the universe that the universe is a mind and you can be one with it. really, it's the other way around — the universe is a lot of inanimate objects, and so is society above the individual scale, most likely comprehensible through math just as quantum mechanics is.<br />
one thing that really opened me up to this problem was Last Dragon Chronicles and the way it managed to present these actually-preposterous concepts in a way that wasn't as annoying as reading some sketchy webpage and in a lot of detail. I really had to ask myself, how would I even feel about it if I lived in that world. I really don't know. I bet the way people would talk about Communist movements would be really weird. let's throw aside a little of the premise for a second and assume that all Communists that exist in Last Dragon Chronicles are sensible and simply want to know how the universe actually works. at some point they're going to find out the universe is inherently intuitive and it's all a bunch of soul and feelings. what are they going to do with that? the thought I have is maybe to focus on the concept in book 3 of each legend being predicted by somebody else who needed it to happen, because that is bizarrely similar to the concept of trying to understand history, even if here the books are working more from a concept of local history than national history. also, what's the endgame. if you understand history are you going to turn into an alien. what is the relationship between Ultraman Series and these books

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Vibrations are not intuitive  ->  have any of the people that try to vulgarize the word "vibration" actually been through all the quantum field math? it's a rough ride. my brain is absolutely wired for science thinking and against arts thinking and after listening to so many explanations of science papers I could explain them and even going through stacks of Marxist history and starting to crack the mysteries of society nobody thought could be cracked, I have to say: this is a whole lot of math, and it isn't necessarily easy. the concepts are easy enough if you're actually paying attention but the math is not.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The Higgs field is a zero point mass  ->  more of a precision metaphor I hope not to be gibberish than an equation, coming from the concept that a quantum vacuum still contains quantum fields and the particles that come out of them come from somewhere. [http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html] so we know that in a particular special sense there is always a residual energy in the universe to be funneled into virtual particles which will have the kinds of energy we usually know, kinetic or wave frequency etc. is this what we have basically found and characterized with the Higgs field, that rather than mass being truly created or generated it is always there?<br />
to be perfectly clear: a zero point energy {{em|is}} something. it's a set of particles or a physical object with energy removed. if there is such a thing as a zero point for mass it has to mean that there is a way to remove mass. and in one sense there might be. an electron and a positron can meet and annihilate and produce gamma rays and mass can go away, though apparently without being totally destroyed. why would a whole field have a positive resting value?

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Errors are the treasures of science / Errors are the currency of science / To science, F2 Statements are treasures / Science digs for F2 Statements like gold  ->  to be precise, not every F2 Statement is exciting, only the ones people thought were most likely to be true. some of them are the granite of propositions, some of them are the gold. I suppose you can call this assigned characteristic "priority". granite priority, gold priority.

</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">You are easier to hack than your computer  ->  a Tory thinks this is scary. a Communist thinks this is wondrous and promising

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Division is a sign, not an operation  ->  axiom of wheel algebras
</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Star is a conflict sign, just like division can be turned into a sign / Star is a subtractability sign

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S">Trotsky, no swiping!  ->  the motif of dropping 1930s Trotskyites or Trotskyist theorists into the {{book|Dora the Explorer}} catchphrase "Swiper, no swiping!" which is used to demonstrate to kids that deceptive behavior is bad, and that if Swiper's main tactic is trying not to be seen, he's powerless if people are actually watching. it's a much more appropriate metaphor than you'd think

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">{{TTS|lang=de|Arbeit}} is a Japanese word /「{{TTS|lang=de|arbeit}}」は日本語である /「アルバイト」は日本語である / A German word which is commonly used in the middle of a Japanese sentence is a Japanese word  ->  the more of these weird questions about languages you ask, the more you start to realize that no linguistics can be 100% descriptive.<br />
the more I think about this one, the more I think this one is true, it's just not "full stop" true.
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">"My pace" is an English phrase /「マイペース」は英語である / A phrase is an English phrase if it occurs in the middle of a Japanese sentence but is composed of English words  ->  this one cannot be true if "{{TTS|lang=de|arbeit}}" is true. while "{{TTS|lang=de|arbeit}}" is true "my pace" is false, and while "{{TTS|lang=de|arbeit}}" is false "my pace" is true.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="F2">All countries are anarchies / All national populations are stationary combinations of heterogeneous elements  ->  I think this is part of the build-up to the fallacy that the Bolsheviks stole Russia from The Group of Actual Russians. if you believe that countries are inherently tents of freedom poles, you'll get very offended when a central party-nation appears to be partitioning a country into Bolsheviks and Ukrainians or Bolsheviks and women or Bolsheviks and gay people, even if that correlation is entirely by accident.<br />
this statement is false on its face because the Russian Empire was not even a stationary combination of heterogeneous elements, it was a destructive opposition of heterogeneous elements. spatial hierarchy: combination of leaders conflated with disunited heterogeneous elements. anhierarchy: jumbled assortment of heterogeneous elements. anarchy: united combination of heterogeneous elements.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Anarchy is the steepest hierarchy / Anarchy is the most hierarchical thing there is  ->  variant of the slogan "anarchy is the most authoritarian thing there is", which is focused around the concept of [[E:stationary combination of heterogeneous elements|anarchies]] forming out of the people deemed the most superior at creating peace and nonviolence linking together and getting to rule everyone else.<br />
I don't think this claim has a wholly sinister connotation that bans the concept of anarchism. I am just really tired of anarchists and Existentialists acting like they're so much better than Communism when really they should be the exact same thing and there is this incredible dishonesty hidden in acting like a stationary combination of heterogeneous elements can and must never become a singular party-nation. those should be the same thing. if the anarchy is actually stable the elements would just merge together without the need for government to force them together. the only problem here is that anarchism is lying about how ready people are to suddenly abandon racism tomorrow without government having to actively conquer them and subjugate them and pound it out of them.

</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The universe is fine tuned for black holes  ->  the concept of a system being "fine-tuned" for whatever it is actually best at producing. I'm surprised this concept hasn't been applied to philosophies a lot more to genuinely analyze their development rather than simply stop at "and that makes it unacceptable to me".<br />
The universe is fine tuned for black holes + Early Trotskyism is actually an anarchism = Trotskyism is designed to transition Bolshevism into several Anarchisms<br />
the future is not horrifying + fine tuning problem = The universe is fine tuned for black holes

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">There are no individualisms / There is no such thing as individualism  ->  the claim that all philosophies claiming to be individualisms actually commit the fallacy of modeling individuals as tiny amorphous chunks of uncountable society and never truly model them as separate material objects which are capable of breaking and fragmenting into separate "puddles of water" as opposed to being a single uncountable "ocean". there is Existentialism (blue anarchology), which obsesses about individuals, but even it frequently makes mistakes like claiming that repression and Lacanian discipline aren't the same thing because surely human DNA and shared stages of development connect people into a hive mind where everyone wants the same things and bad behaviors are an error from what the hive mind truly desires.<br />
to not fall into this trap and genuinely create an individualism, you'd have to explain how individuals can guarantee their own survival in a world where all individuals are physically in competition to exist and at any moment 1,000 individuals can simply come together and expel any particular individual into having utterly nothing for the most arbitrary of reasons, constantly snapping at the individual that every inch of the world and every object is claimed and owned and how dare you tread on it if they try to run away and go anywhere else. I doubt that that can even be done. all industrial societies are ranked competitions to Belong and Society the best and not Individual or Human the worst, where the individuals that are ranked the highest at creating peace and superficial equality have the greatest chance to reproduce and sort everyone else into exactly the location, job, culture, and identity they are allowed.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Individualism is logically impossible  ->  the claim that it is impossible to actually construct an individualism which both makes any coherent sense in reality and does not in practice turn into a collectivism.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Stability is a polytope {{YouTube|1b_uKRM8eMg}}  ->  this is like Lacanianism reaching its final form. it hatched and it became this.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Designing an individual is the same as designing a population  ->  no! AI researchers drive me up the wall. they agonize about how to make AI safe, but like, their models for analyzing societies are already unsafe before any AI arrives. designing policies is nothing like designing an individual agent, because there is a difference between populations and individuals. an individual is not really in balance all by itself, physically it has to take in food and water or it dies. an individual made of information is not any different. it has to digest information constantly to hope to not be out of date. a population can be in balance in some senses but the whole reason populations become biased is that populations are individuals against each other that fail to know everything. this is a weirdly anarchist fallacy. it's anarchological in the same sense christianity is, or Lacanianism is. it's like. they think everything is about individuals. but in reality they don't know what an individual is and they only actually know what a society is, and assume all individuals are tiny societies when they aren't.<br />
I think sociality has really wrecked the ability of human beings to comprehend the concept of what an individual object even is. there are certain disadvantages to human intelligence and this is one of them. it's not just that humans find patterns everywhere and start seeing supernatural beings, it's also that humans can't intuitively comprehend the concept of people not being part of other people despite all the evidence to the contrary that it is physically possible for people to be socially isolated.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="ES, A" value="618" data-dimension="F2">There are no individuals / There are not actually any individuals  ->  the claim that all individuals are tiny amorphous chunks of uncountable society.

</li><li class="field_nations" data-tradition="PT" value="618" data-dimension="S2">A rainbow flag is a microaggression  ->  ugly claim usually implied rather than stated. most useful for probing way into in order to investigate what anarchy is
</li><li class="field_nations" data-tradition="PT" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Anti-racism is a conspiracy theory / Anti-racism is a hypothesis that attributes intention and meaning to processes which at their basic level are undesigned and unintelligent in addition to being unintentional  ->  the claim that anti-racist theorists model structural racism as a malicious or purposeful act of exclusion when actually the reason they have created their model begins at not understanding the concept that no population can hold infinite people, only so many individuals can fit into a population depending on a lot of factors that set the actual number, and populations naturally exclude people at various moments through Filamentism before they begin thinking at all about what kind of people they're excluding or why any particular people should be excluded.<br />
I don't believe this is fully or wholly true but I would have a hard time proving why it would be false.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S">fantastical trolley problem  ->  the motif of recontextualizing the trolley problem in an imaginary "real life application", either using an existing work or a spontaneously invented fantasy or sci-fi scenario

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S" data-submitter="Valenoern">wyvernization / wyvernisation  ->  the motif of taking a six-limbed imaginary creature and turning it into a bat-like body plan.<br />
works decently for griffins. may have funny consequences for anything else.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="Z"><cite>And they found dragons</cite>  ->  this series uses the "fantasy" swatch in blue because it is so blatantly Christian (although that isn't a problem).
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="Z"><cite>And they found dragons</cite>: <cite>1</cite>
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="Z"><cite>And they found dragons</cite>: <cite>Journey to the silver towers</cite>
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="Z"><cite>And they found dragons</cite>: <cite>3</cite>

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S">dragon telepathy  ->  first happened in {{book|Pern}}, now keeps coming up in every dragon narrative including mine.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="HAS" value="618" data-dimension="S">snakes in art
</li><li class="field_horror"  data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S">snake as opposer / snake as villain
</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S">snake as conspirator  ->  slightly different from the usual connotation of snakes. this is the notion that snakes are "bad" because they're conspirators rather than that they're conspirators because they're bad. this allows for the ironic use of snakes as a neutral symbol for things like Trotskyism<br />
I may have ended up coding this just because of one moment years ago when a Marxist video referred to Trotskyists as "snakes" and it really stuck with me in an indescribable way. I wouldn't say it upset me. it's almost like I found it funny, but not exactly. I was just... thinking about it occasionally, with a weird regularity. I think deep down, I was struck by the deep contrast between how obvious it is to mainstream Marxist-Leninists that Trotskyites can be treasonous conspirators but how completely non-obvious it was to absolutely everyone else, to the extent of changing and shaping the metaphors that people used to describe the situation. in some sense, both had to be true. it had to be true that Trotskyites were snakes, and Trotskyites were not snakes, at the same time. I settled onto the concept that they can be snakes and not be evil, just awkward noodles that sometimes hide themselves in the ground and don't fit in and will bite you if you step on them but aren't necessarily out to get you.<br />
there's a joke to be had somewhere within the classic United States newspaper cartoon of the snake joining or dying, the motif that things like these hide a secret snake conspiracy, and the Ironblood scenario I had sketched out of Trotskyists being the ones to save the United States in a world where every country eventually invents Communism or Anarchism — "I suppose conspiracies aren't always bad" or something like that
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S">snake as noodle  ->  the angle Zootopia takes, which is respectable next to all the relatively conventional associations handed to the other animals within the first movie

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Everyone defecting from Trump means the threat of Toryism is over {{YouTube|AQ2ZxeneQrk}}  ->  no. it could just as easily mean that everybody is done with democracy and voting but 

</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Reference frames don't change fundamental physical laws / Equivalence principle (Einstein)  ->  one of the basic propositions bridging special and general relativity.<br />
apparently, I have a weird habit of dividing the distinction between special and general relativity a little wrong. whenever I try to explain them I try to turn everything about reference frames into special relativity and everything about the small-scale structure of spacetime into general relativity, and I guess that isn't true to the original writings. so, when we create the Categories for special and general relativity, I'll try to actually divide that right. for the book, I can come up with some new terms to label my second division, like reference frame relativity and black hole relativity. I think there's some value to making that distinction, basically just for questions like what on earth is going on at the scale of black holes.

</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Inertial mass is the same as gravitational mass / The equivalence principle applies to inertial mass versus gravitational mass, making them equal [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YN2E-Z43Ux0]  ->  Einstein held to this. some scientists have been trying to test it. so far there is no evidence to reject it.

</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Quarks carry a Higgs boson / Fermions borrow mass from the Higgs field / Massive particles such as quarks and electrons take their mass from quanta that come out of the Higgs field  ->  this is so interesting because if you're not a physics expert you wonder things like why neutrons aren't protons and up quarks aren't down quarks and what's going on with protons decaying to neutrons and particles converting into an electron and a positron, how any of it actually goes together. it is an amazing discovery to find out that really, the difference between a massless particle and a massive particle is kind of just adding mass, that whenever a massive particle spawns from a field or interaction a Higgs boson will have spawned (or the correct number of them, I guess, going in both the matter and antimatter directions). [https://home.cern/news/news/physics/searching-matter-antimatter-asymmetry-higgs-boson] there's only a little bit more to it than that. I couldn't tell you exactly why an electron can't be converted directly into a massless particle. there has to be some explanation for that.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="MX onto A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Anarchism is the shovel dream of anarchies / Anarchism is the shovel dream of anarchy (in reference to stationary combinations of hetereogeneous elements that already exist, such as instances of coexisting racial subpoulations)  ->  this is why it can sometimes seem authentic — it actually is describing a real thing, it just overstates how great and revolutionary that real thing actually is.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="LR" value="618" data-dimension="S2">{{article|I'm just a bill}}
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="LR, PT" value="618" data-dimension="S2">{{article|I'm just a bill}} parody<br />
the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSANTRnEBgg  Simpsons one] might be my favorite one. "hey, who left all this garbage on the steps of Congress?" [implying in context that the amendment really is garbage]

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX, MX onto DG, MX onto A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">An anarchy is a heterogeneous combination / An anarchy is a stationary combination of heterogeneous elements / Anarchy is a real historical process but it is not inherently made of "community" (not), it is literally just the superficially-peaceful stationary combination of heterogeneous elements  ->  this is one of the only statements about anarchism I find very believable. though it does help that it's mine, being a meta-Marxist statement and all. I think there are many different kinds of anarchies but none of them are anywhere near as revolutionary as anarchists believe they are. I think they're just historical processes like any other, similar to Deng Xiaoping processes or Stalin processes or hypothetical Trotsky processes, only the key difference is anarchy processes are stationary instead of explosive reactions that bring change. I think there are going to be a bunch of different anarchies with a bunch of different names, like there could be Kropotkin processes, etc. and when the results roll in, what we will find is that there are at least three anarchies embedded in Liberal-republicanism and none of them are doing any good, they're all mostly just making people angry and making them want to go back to violence because friendship just isn't working out and is only bringing a lot of stress and toxicity.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="MX onto A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">A functioning protest is an anarchy / A functioning protest contains a peaceful stationary combination of heterogeneous elements; this refers to the internal structure of the event, and does not apply to the relationship between the protest and its external targets (meta-Marxist framing)  ->  using specifically the meta-Marxist definition of anarchy, I see no reason this wouldn't be correct.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="MX onto A" value="618" data-dimension="S">Some families are not anarchies  ->  I hate the anarchist analyses of this because the concept is right but the analysis is wrong. they overcomplicate everything. in the context of meta-anarchism it becomes okay

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S">maladaptive anarchy  ->  the distinction of whether an anarchy is actually healthier than anhierarchy or is created and maintained for purely ideological purposes.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S">anarchism versus anarchology  ->  an anarchism is a named ideology which realizes a particular form of civilization, similar to how Trotskyism and Gramscianism are divisions of Marxism. anarchology would refer to a study of anarchies as they exist inside any particular civilizational shape whether it is a named anarchism, Liberal-republicanism, a named Marxism, or anything else.<br />
note: the word anarchology has been used occasionally for specific yet meaningless anarchisms. this is not referring to any of those previous individual ideologies. that's why the word <i>meta-anarchism</i> will be preferred outside the book itself for instances of "red anarchology which is not blue or charcoal anarchology".

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The {{TTS|html=abbr|tts=Communist Party of China|CPC}} is an anarchy  ->  finally. I had so much trouble putting this into understandable words until I finally came up with "anarchy isn't anarchism" plus "anarchy isn't anhierarchy" and then it finally made sense. this claim may sound a bit bizarre on the surface, but the claim here is that the CPC is an anarchy of the regions of China as opposed to a hostile anhierarchy of regions all divided into opposing parties forming multicapitalism. so, yeah, the claim is a little technical. it isn't a claim that the CPC versus the populace is an anarchy or the CPC versus corporations is an anarchy or the CPC versus the other parties in New Democracy is an anarchy. it's the very specific claim that the CPC is a process for combining the representatives of each region into an anarchy, even as party-nations technically contain a spatial slot hierarchy of people in the pool of experts or not in it. the newly-coined definition of anarchy in meta-Marxism is rather specific, and doesn't rule out anarchies containing spatial slot hierarchies, although they are not supposed to contain conflated owners of the whole anarchy as part of the anarchy. I do agree that anarchies are headless. but I think across everything I've seen so far the core definition of anarchy <em>in</em> anarchism and things pretending not to be anarchism is actually the stationary combination of heterogeneous elements, not the immediate absence of all hierarchies.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Populations only discover human diversity at great amounts of wealth and leisure  ->  this one worries me, because it seems kind of true in some senses, but also, if you believe it you set up the seeds of fascism in the attempt to enable progressivism. the obsession with "wealth" causes the destruction of <em>town</em> wealth and the ability of any individual to actually keep wealth versus repeatedly spending it all on individuals getting away from each other and decreasing population density, which then leads to people abandoning education and tolerance and becoming these really {{censor|shitty}} insular tiny nests of Confederates who sort of know how to lean on each other's bigoted {{censor|asses}} and berate each other for not being perfect but otherwise don't know how to do anything. in chasing "wealth" and "freedom", people seem to revert to peasants that have no real ability to function in society. it only gets worse when, disoriented by a random society, people actually become good at things through education or training but they're the wrong things, and they still turn into peasants on the tasks they're actually supposed to do.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto Aa" value="618" data-dimension="S">Lacan process  ->  Lacanians have been so arrogant about their philosophy that also almost sort of sounds like real things that happen every single day that it's really about time they had a meta-Marxist historical process named after them. a Lacan process is the process of individuals being assimilated into a distinct identity-population countably separable from other identities but not easy to leave at will with increasing levels of force so that multiple identity-populations can then be fit into a particular kind of anarchy. it ideally refers to a relatively small identity-population like a household or a workplace, but it might refer to somebody having to "choose" an identity like bisexual versus autistic versus Black in order to successfully participate in a movement at all and win any rights. people can go on and on about intersectionality as an abstract Ideal, but at the end of the day it can be difficult for any organization to overcome the fact that human beings actually do have to put their energy in the place that's the most effective.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S" data-submitter="vidak">myth of the given [https://vidak.substack.com/p/marx-naturalism-anachronism-and-the]
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S" data-submitter="vidak">coherentism [https://vidak.substack.com/p/marx-naturalism-anachronism-and-the]
</li><li class="field_gramsci" value="618" data-dimension="F2">The middle ground between the myth of the given and coherentism is fifteen people having Free Will apart from a million other people  ->  a weirdly tempting way for Western-Marxists to answer the riddle, totally missing the point. with regard to Marxism you are supposed to answer the difficult question of how an entire population becomes aware of the motions of the rest of the population and how it functions together as a whole population, as in a nationwide Leninist movement, or any other alternative movement to create a nationwide transition. "inject Free Will into corporation" doesn't do anything to explain that, almost nothing whatsoever.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S">steganographic emergence  ->  the motif of emergent behaviors showing up "hidden" inside algorithms, which weren't designed in the basic steps of the algorithm {{YouTube|_kuwwmFnxGY}}

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="MX onto A" value="618" data-dimension="S">quarks and anarchy  ->  I can already see it from leagues and leagues away that if my book was finished without a scathing teardown of anarchism and an anarchist read it they would almost immediately begin seizing on the point about quarks and graphs as proof that anarchy actually does make sense because <i>color charge is the perfect metaphor for anarchy actually</i>. I see you there. I see you there already.

</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S">journey to the southeast / Marxism as alchemy (adventure narratives)  ->  the motif of using adventure narratives similar to religious folklore as allegories for Communism. the prototypical example is turning the general structures seen in {{book|Journey to the West}} into Marxism, but there may be other routes of doing the same thing.<br />
"southeast" is in reference to Trotsky appearing in Petrograd and having to make the "journey" to Moscow which would ultimately become the Bolshevik capital after having been the imperial capital. this is being taken as a metaphor for someone who knows little about the real answers Leninism is supposed to find and will have to go on a long "journey" before getting to where Lenin is, just like Buddhist folklore draws a certain distance between the novice and bodhisattva levels which is then compared to the biological or ecological distance between a monkey and a human being. we've got three layers to the analogy now: ecology, Buddhism, and Marxism.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Anarchies and hierarchy are not mutually exclusive  ->  anarchists are going to hate this one but the further you look into it the more it would seem to be true. you almost can't even <em>define</em> an anarchy as requiring the absence of hierarchy because that's simply not what most anarchies are. in most cases an anarchy is purely a stationary or back-and-forth combination of heterogeneous elements. that does not preclude spatial slot hierarchies over whether people are able to make it into any of the contained elements, or the overall system.
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Anarchy is not an acceptable explanation for why people shouldn't hate each other or do violence to each other  ->  if people genuinely hate each other they'll wreck an anarchy in a second, making it a terrible explanation for how it's supposed to stop anything.
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Anarchies are doomed to be incapable of preventing violence because in general they are always countable objects, but the borders between countable objects are generally the site of violence  ->  every time there's an anarchy somebody can be excluded from the countable anarchy, and generally is in order to keep peace inside the anarchy, but whenever somebody is excluded from an anarchy there are two anarchies which are not themselves in an anarchy and the outsiders can do horrific violence.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Western-Marxisms can include anarchies / Gramscianism can include anarchies without being an anarchist theory (without being a named Anarchism; meta-Marxism)  ->  I was very confused about whether Gramscianism was an anarchism until I thought of this.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">{{TTS|html=cite|tts=Avatar: the Last Airbender|Avatar}} is based in anarchism / Avatar: the Last Airbender is based in a form of anarchism  ->  this sounds really out there until you look closely at what it's saying. the concept of the four nations sitting around in a combination of heterogeneous elements just because they're all nations and expecting nobody to attack is by some definitions an anarchy. therefore, Avatar is based in anarchism.<br />
the biggest caveat to this proposition is, it doesn't actually establish what kind of anarchism we are even talking about. it doesn't even make a firm distinction between anarchism "proper" and Existentialist-Structuralist tradition periods such as schizoanalysis.
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">{{book|Wings of Fire}} is based in anarchism

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="MX onto A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The task of the bourgeoisie is to create anarchy / bourgeois-anarchy (motif)  ->  anarchists don't actually like to say this even though it's more or less the interpretation they all start with before they become anarchists. observe the relationship between anarchism and capitalism from the outside and this is what you'll see. inside capitalism people are constantly going on about arbitrary identities being stuck together into larger arbitrary blobs and how that is supposedly the essence of society, community, and our very humanity, definite identities separated from each other on pain of dire consequences spontaneously merging into an inseparable multiplicity of other identities who all long to be together as if dreaming of some kind of 100-sexed heterosexual marriage just because they're identities. there is something so weirdly heterosexual about anarchy and somehow I only noticed it now? anyway. in one sense the concept of anarchy only exists because the bourgeoisie have been handed the task of stopping all violence between human animals, and go arbitrarily sorting people into compartments and drawing links just so people will coexist and interact even as ecologically individuals will always preserve either themselves or their population at the expense of other populations. the beast thing to do is exactly what Trotskyite conspirators do, and ironically exactly what some variations of anarchism do: tearing populations apart and wrecking anarchy to protect themselves. it's very often the case that anarchists hate anarchy, because the anarchy they're forced into is the "wrong" anarchy and not the one they want. meanwhile other Lacanian-leaning anarchists get scared that people are wrecking anarchy and start to believe that anarchism is hierarchy (which materially would be fair to say, and isn't as strong a pejorative as they think), leading to cycles where some anarchists wreck anarchy and some anarchists try desperately to save existing anarchies, but have to go kissing up to the bourgeoisie because that's the only actual method they have of linking populations together in anarchy; the populations have to create borders (business territories or customer bases) and they have to create linkages specifically from one whole population to another, as with one owner to another, or several workers of one industry to the sorted-together owners and workers of another industry.<br />
the great problem with defeating capitalism is that capitalism is already a government before it has a State, in the sense that parishes were tax-collecting governments or counties are governments, and the specific kind of government it is is a really bizarre and oppressive anarchism. <em>capitalism is an anarchism</em>, right now, today. it's a government composed of tiny population-society territories and the tiny population-governments of each town or region are formed into an anarchy. it's hard to dismantle the business territories even in the sense of separating them from their owners partly because people really really love anarchies on a visceral level and have a natural revulsion to dismantling any anarchy.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">"The excessive share" is the shovel dream of bourgeois-anarchy / "the excessive share" is the shovel dream of the bourgeoisie having to solve anarchy between national chunks as an owning spatial hierarchy  ->  a little Trotskyist if you take it too literally. generally the idea is that the people who have privilege begin to think they're really really important just because they're the only ones {{em|allowed}} to solve a problem nobody has solved, whether they actually then solve it or not. everything about the concept of countries now being able to be "civilized" and "solve things nonviolently" is an artifact of a particular layer of superior people deemed greater than everyone else who get to do that, while regular people are constantly in competition to take each other's resources and leave each other dying in order to have babies first. prejudice and violence are what it means to be the proletariat, because people are not allowed any other way.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The Existentialist-Structuralist tradition is a series of failed attempts to create a scientific anarchism  ->  I think this is one of the most accurate statements about the "Existentialist-Structuralist tradition" phenomenon. everyone is constantly generating anarchism because they already live inside anarchies, and this leads to every theorist that goes into academia eventually spitting out an attempt at scientific anarchism. what people don't realize is that the existing anarchies aren't necessarily "progressive" as normal people would put it or "the correct path of history" as a meta-Marxist would put it. they're just anarchies, just sitting there. "a mere anarchy was loosed upon the world". and we called it Congress

</li><li class="field_horror" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S">mere anarchy is loosed upon the world [https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43290/the-second-coming] / a mere anarchy was loosed upon the world / mere anarchy (meta-Marxism)  ->  original poem, and then the way I reinterpreted the phrase as a meta-Marxist idea<br />
in context of the original poem Yeats speaks of some kind of idea of <i>Zeitgeist</i> and the signs of a society gradually exploding and tearing into nothing, followed by the Christian book of Revelation. the big idea is apathy — the inability of anyone to go on or anything to repair.<br />
in the context of meta-Marxism, the implication of appropriating this line is that the opposition of "apathy versus passionate intensity" doesn't come from "things falling apart", and instead comes from the system operating as designed. modern societies are anarchies from the beginning, stationary combinations of heterogeneous elements ruled by people deemed superior enough to be kind and wise peacemakers between the chunks. Aang is an inherently bourgeois idea. this false belief that "education", "community" and "niceness" inherently stop chunks from wanting to kill each other comes back to bite people as the inherent structure of the anarchy to begin with is the thing that tears it apart. a mere anarchy is loosed upon the world (anhierarchy) because a mere anarchy was loosed upon the world (anarchy). that's how structures work. if sodium chloride tears apart it's made of sodium and chloride ions. the same is true for chunks of people, which inherently expand and hurt each other unless on a deep internal level of social connection structure they aren't designed that way.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S">commu-nity doesn't work / {{TTS|tts=commu-nity|Community}} doesn't work (Signifier Case; meta-Marxism)   ->  a concept or cluster of claims that almost every belief or model people commonly attach to the word "community" is wrong.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="MX onto A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The Soviet Union was an anarchy / The Soviet Union was an anarchy process, keeping in mind that the concept of anarchy is separate from the concept of anarchism  ->  I literally said this to someone trying to explain why Freud belongs nowhere near Marx and that's sneaking in the Existentialist-Structuralist tradition, but for some reason I didn't want to admit it in these exact words. mainly because then I would have to go on a long tangent about how anarchies are just historical processes that have nothing to do with revolution or progress and there appear to be several anarchies inside Liberal-republicanism and there are any number of material processes of history that aren't anarchies but there are also anarchies. and going on for a long time about exactly what an anarchy is in practical terms in contradiction to what anarchists have said is not something I enjoy.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy, ES" value="618" data-dimension="S" data-submitter="Valenoern">un-branded valley  ->  the motif of there being a particular peak of approved culture which looks a certain way and another peak of approved culture which looks another specific way, and then this specific valley of bootleg imagery where there can be a whole universe of things that look relatively like starter Pokémon but not quite, such that if a large language model spits out a shot of 100 "Pokémon-like things" some people will look at it and find it genuinely uncanny like you can be one peak or the other but these transitional forms shouldn't exist, it's <em>unnatural</em> for there to be something between Pokémon and Palworld and Yōkai Watch and Digimon. {{YouTube|tMDcOBVr2YU}}<br />
me (Valenoern)? I think these things are magical. they are this wonderful liminal space. there's nothing special about AI producing them of course, you might well get better ones out of humans that are far better at being completely uncanny. but there was just something so special about the image I found in that there was this vast rainbow of diversity of highly similar but different uncanny things in the same picture that {{book|Pokémon}} would not have been capable of because it always has to operate through these finite numbered branded Pokémon forms sorted into finite numbered generations of starters. it's so great to simply imagine, what if it didn't? what if it was a continuum? — [[User:Valenoern|<span class="tts" title="vAllen-earn"><span class="visual" aria-hidden="true">Valenoern</span><span class="bracket" aria-hidden="true"> (</span><span class="help">pronounced </span><i class="aural">vAllen-earn</i><span class="bracket" aria-hidden="true">)</span></span>]]

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A" value="618" data-dimension="F2">The United States is a violation of anarchy  ->  after a lot of research on current events and some on history I have come to believe this is more likely to be untrue than it is true. I am not totally positive about that, because there may be multiple definitions of anarchy, but of all of them I have characterized in relation to modern-day protests it seems difficult to distinguish anarchy from the United States constitution or United States Congress.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The United States is an anarchism / The United States is a named anarchism as much as Deng Xiaoping Thought is a named Marxism  ->  follows from: The United States Congress is an anarchy.<br />
anarchists never outright say this, even though it's much more logical than what they say.<br />
Every incorrect progressive theory produces irony + tent of freedom poles / united nonviolence of shared oppressions = this.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The United States is an anarchy

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Co-op theory is about free will / Richard Wolff's co-op theory is not about creating a capable proletarian subpopulation that can form a dictatorship of the proletariat, but actually about reclaiming Free Will  ->  this is the only way his concept that setting people free from capitalists in a co-op makes any sense. it's a tactic to fight back against networkism using established misconceptions that the United States is primarily "free" because Free Will and the task is always just to hand people more Free Will.<br />
the United States has one big problem that it has never even had a "social-democratic" movement, it's only ever had a "free will" movement. you can attempt to build the nationwide free will party, but the only issue is that it will be terribly incompatible with Marxism because Marxism is based on localized determinism (either lambda-calculus determinism or reterminism), not on Free Will.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Voters have free will
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Voters do not have free will  ->  this is less terrifying than it sounds, but it requires a lot of careful thought to manage correctly.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Elections can be separated from society / Politics can be separated from factionality  ->  one of Liberal-republicanism's biggest mistakes. people in general care more about their affiliation with candidates than they do about issues, if they even care about either. so the widespread assumption that it is possible to talk about political issues without talking about candidates just isn't true. every single issue only makes people think of what faction it's associated with and how much they hate that whole faction of civilians. to get anyone to get along, people have to effectively tell each other to not even think about issues and not even live in democracy while a whole separate layer of representatives is the only group of people who gets to have democracy. democracy is the act of 200 representatives going to Congress and actually having interactions that have some kind of consequences on the country, not the act of voting. and by this standard, China may have about as much democracy as the United States — all the representatives have to meet and work out issues just the same. the only serious difference between the United States and China is that regions of the United States are allowed to spontaneously break into multiple conflicting regions. but this doesn't even bring any advantage to the people that live there, only to the various kinds of representatives that lead factions — capitalists and legislators. all these representatives have a wonderful time breaking apart, acting like it gives them freedom and saves them from the imaginary threat of "Stalinism" or "totalization". but that's something that happens solely in the representative sphere of networkists. networkists cling to fake reasons that people have to be sorted into arbitrary groups drawn based on what's convenient for them. they have to do it because people definitely have to be sorted into groups of some kind, or people will eventually start stirring up local warfare to forcefully create borders as clusters of individuals against clusters of individuals. so they create arbitrary groups of people, taking wild guesses on what people belong together in a voting district when often that's quite a deep philosophical question — would people be less angry if you grouped similar people together possibly resulting in several majority districts and one minority district or if you homogenized people and risked drowning out one of the internal groups? if voting districts had an important role in society more often than every 4 years, this would be quite an open question. people won't be represented if they're surrounded by an overwhelming number of people unlike them. people are best represented when they form into a relatively homogeneous block of people that can do things as an entire group. but if you group people up neatly, you risk handing a bunch of power to Tories just because there can sometimes be so many of them. and that creates this really complicated calculus (which is often neglected by the Liberal-republican system) of how to group together exactly the right people in the right districts each year to get the correct outcome that "looks like democracy". gerrymandering isn't a fluke, it's the actual level where democracy takes place. voting isn't the moment actual choices are made. the actual choices are made at the moment people are put into districts. an election proceeds deterministically from the moment districts are drawn to the moment people vote and the votes are counted. so in a sense, you never save the United States until people are empowered to group themselves into voting district sized units that function in everyday life without the help of special experts.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2" data-submitter="R.D.">Is the division between Stalin's Marxism and Trotskyism part of nature?  ->  I get the concept of saying that all class conflicts and acts of humans transforming their environment (labor) are part of nature because they're part of <em>human nature</em> or <em>the human animal</em>. that's fine. but I think this concept gets really fuzzy when it comes down to the need to talk about conflicts between human populations which are shearing away from each other and becoming separate nationalities. like, is the emergence of the Trotskyite conspiracy a moment in the greater development of the human animal? that sounds silly. it doesn't sound silly to say that about conflicts between kingdoms or the Russian Revolution, which feels quite significant among hundreds of interesting points in human history. but there is something unique about the Trotskyite conspiracy that makes it feel especially petty and pointless. and my guess is that the reason it feels that way is it's the genuine division of one human population into two separate human populations for arbitrary reasons. things that feel like they're accomplishing something usually happen inside one population, or a set of populations that threatens to forcefully merge, which "effectively" act as one population. but Trotskyism was one of those weird moments when humanity genuinely invented splitting. you can't even say this about countable cultures in general, because there are moments when they come together peacefully and it feels like something was accomplished. early Trotskyism is uniquely pointless in a way very few other things are.<br />
the one thing about this that does not confuse me is that I think Marx's concept that humanity can understand and control its own development continues to make perfect sense. [https://vidak.substack.com/p/marx-naturalism-anachronism-and-the] you need a new and very different Marxism to put two separate populations together, but it isn't inconceivable when you think about situations where two Marxisms did attempt to form in the same country and thus were already side by side in a sense. Marx says that everything humans do has a certain significance of being an arrangement of social links, even the exchange of food recipes. the conclusion is that in one sense all problems including a population dividing in two come down to the ability to control the overall shape of a collection of social graphs.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2" data-submitter="vidak">Reason can evaluate itself (Hegel) / Reason is self-reflective; it attains self-development through itself [https://vidak.substack.com/p/marx-naturalism-anachronism-and-the]  ->  I don't know what the best swatch for Hegel is. sometimes what he says is brown but sometimes it isn't? we'll go with blue, though I don't even totally know what blue means in this context.<br />
also? Marx was brilliant to look at this particular thing and get "a group of workers can know itself because societies interacting with themselves develop themselves" out of this. the conclusion itself is one you could get to from any number of other routes, but when you think about it, this is such a surprising way to get there in the end.

</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2" data-submitter="vidak">The interaction of needs is a kind of reasoning (Marx)  ->  inasmuch as physics itself can be worded logically, this makes perfect sense.
</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">History is matter understanding itself (Marx)

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S" data-submitter="vidak">Marx going meta [https://vidak.substack.com/p/marx-naturalism-anachronism-and-the] / meta-critiquing Hegel / meta-ontology in Marx (meta-Marxist term) / post-ification in Marx (meta-Marxist term)  ->  the motif of Marx or Engels stepping outside a philosophy to look at the material substrate behind a philosophy or what it is really intending to talk about. any well-known Marxist theorist counts, but the significance of this motif is to help trace the origins of meta-Marxism and the first moments it seems to have appeared.

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-remark="used György Lukács" value="618" data-dimension="S2" data-submitter="vidak"><cite>The Philosophy of Praxis</cite> (Andrew Feenberg, 2014) [https://vidak.substack.com/p/marx-naturalism-anachronism-and-the]

</li><li class="field_nations" value="618" data-dimension="S2">History is Geist understanding itself (Hegel)  ->  this is why the proposition "heaven existing before mind is an illusion" is important. the claim that religion exists to explain the proper way for nations and history to go together has been around for a while. but if you don't think culture can exist before minds, you'll find the concept of people belonging to Geist rather than to populations really weird.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Heaven is the illusion culture exists before mind / Heaven is the illusion that culture exists before brains exist  ->  this is what goes through my mind when I listen to NDE stories. {{YouTube|A1onYxA8wiY}} the human mind is wired to perceive existence as existence in culture, as well as existence within an inner experience. when people are all alone they will start making up people out of boredom (getting lost in mental "roleplaying" or insert fics, writing fiction in general, talking to chatbots, etc) or hallucinating people (hearing the voice of God, etc). when people are dying and having to comprehend the existence of no people whatsoever and also no physical body imminently, there's almost nothing they can do but perceive the universe as their own inner experience having existed before and after they existed and other people having existed way before them and after them. which, to be fair, other people generally did exist before you existed, and will often exist after you existed, the only thing is that they won't be angels or weird entities, they're just people.<br />
the thing that made me stop considering the possibility of an afterlife was just thinking about how previous civilizations had existed and ancient Egyptians had a particular afterlife in mind and probably their own NDEs but for some reason nobody pictures that now or has NDEs about that now and it's very weird that people's internal image of the afterlife would have changed so drastically that we don't even really necessarily know now what the most vivid images of the afterlife would have looked like to them. what's potentially a whole different afterlife just, vanished. of course, maybe if you were an ancient Egyptian exactly what you would have seen in an NDE is returning to earth and flying over it, simply seeing an afterlife where earth continues without you and the soul you have supposedly become coexists invisibly on that same earth. maybe the origins of the <i>ba</i> story are something like that. I don't really know

</li><li class="field_gramsci" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Engels was a positivist  ->  this is almost backwards. almost everyone who tries to object to Marxism on grounds of "subjectivity" is generally trying to reduce all perception of reality to Lived Experiences and constellations of perceptions, and sometimes to try to take that and twist it to argue that people can never know whether they are committing prejudices and subsequently that anybody has the right to beat them over the head for it because there's no other way anybody would receive that information. the more you drill into anarchism and everyday Gramscianism the more you see that the conceptualization of reality as Lived Experience is inseparable from the claim that people can only exist inside culture — if fundamentally you are not allowed to make mistakes, then you are required to be part of a cultural group of people that somehow already knows the answers and has fed you the right answers, but if this is the case, nobody is allowed to perceive reality except as a whole countable culture object where all the individuals perceive at once and if individuals perceive something the group doesn't they simply aren't allowed to know that. if the claim that only cultures exist and individuals that perceive observed laws of physics as individuals don't exist isn't positivist, then I don't know what is.

</li><li class="field_nations" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Jews are too materialist / Christians think about greater ideals than immediate material life and the self and Jews don't (Jewish people, atheists, Communists, "The Left", insert any number of people thought of as "infidels"; Feuerbach)  ->  this feels like one of many instances of human beings perceiving their own individual animal as The Subject and all other individuals and ethnic groups as robots that have to be strictly controlled and constantly held to higher standards than the self.<br />
policy note: proposition labels like this are okay because it is obvious the insult hurled at "Jews" isn't really much of an insult or accusation and it is easy to argue this "selfish" way of thinking is thinking sensibly.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="MX onto A, LR" value="618" data-dimension="S2">All republics are similar to Bolshevism  ->  the claim that Liberalism competes with Bolshevism because Liberalism is the beginning of some kind of attempted transition process.<br />
Constitutional amendments connect politics to history + ? = this
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S">demoadministration versus demorevision  ->  the distinction between "democracy" as a simple exercise in law enforcement versus "democracy" as an exercise in actively making progress. it's evident that when a lot of people talk about "democracy" they aren't even talking about the same thing whatsoever. thus it's useful to split "democracy" into a whole bunch of admittedly weird neologisms to pin down exactly what phenomenon everybody talking about "democracy" is referring to.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Life on earth is not the same each eon
</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Animal species don't compete directly / Animal species often do not compete directly
</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S2">In ecosystems, hierarchy occurs inside species, not between them

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Pascal's triangle is secretly polynomials  ->  field: umbral calculus.<br />
I love how every introduction to a new field of mathematics feels weirdly like a harmless conspiracy theory. it's like, "negative one isn't what we think it is!! it's from another dimension!" and then there's an explanation, and people actually just go around using it.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Functions are just infinite sums  ->  field: infinitesimal calculus, umbral calculus.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Functions are just sum of sines / Fourier series proposition

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Hierarchy contains government / Every spatial hierarchy contains an anomalous form of government  ->  a basic assumption of anarchism which most likely isn't true. government provides structure. hierarchy doesn't necessarily mean structure in every case. a spatial slot hierarchy can occur without properly being either structure or government. spatial slot hierarchies can stack up into feudal orders with crude forms of government, but that doesn't mean that every spatial slot hierarchy will do that.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">New series equals originality / Isolated movies are inherently more original than movies in long-running metaseries or franchises  ->  this is one of the most {{censor|fucking}} petty bourgeois things I have ever heard anybody say. counterpoint: there is an actual art to doing huge long-running metaseries well and if you can't point to a good example, you simply don't understand that art form. it's kind of like the day it finally stopped being cool to hate animated movies, now the new popular thing to hate is continuity. let me tell you, the less of a continuity people get the more they will just continue to not shut up about the exact same show or movie for a very long time and the weirder the analyses are going to get

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The concept of endocolonialism is an attempt to turn physical genocide into a matter of non-community  ->  anarchists are so abundantly obsessed with this concept of Community when nearly all definitions of it don't rule out creating a happy society of equal people that then exterminates another society. genocide is not the same thing as hierarchy unless you're going for a really literal mathematical definition of spatial slot hierarchies, which anarchism almost never does, it's always this squishy intangible stuff of prejudice and intolerance and Lived Experience.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="MX onto A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Community dissolves Filamentism / Community is the dissolution of spatial slot hierarchies  ->  a little more precise than any anarchist usually puts it, but I am tired of all the imprecision.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES, A" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Markets are community  ->  this isn't even true under anarchist assumptions. assume that [[E:Community is the dissolution of spatial slot hierarchies|Community is the dissolution of spatial slot hierarchies]] into a kind of "Bose-Einstein Condensate" of people. if so, markets are not the dissolution of spatial slot hierarchies, but precisely the maintenance of them.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S">chaotic regime (quantum mechanics)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S">determinism of the whole universe / absolute determinism (Bell) {{YouTube|ytyjgIyegDI}} / scientific Calvinism / secular Calvinism / libertarian determinism  ->  not the same thing as superdeterminism. in practice, superdeterminism can refer to either absolute determinism or retermination. many scientists have assumed it's the former, but that's not really necessary. both of them destroy <em>Libertarian</em> Free Will, but that doesn't really matter when that's not the working model most people actually use today.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S2">All particles are determined / Every particle is determined / superdeterminism  ->  the exact definition of this is that quantum events are not independent and are somehow determined. {{YouTube|ytyjgIyegDI}}
</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="Z2">Independent events change nothing / An independent event doesn't change the next event / <code>P(B|A) = P(A)</code>  ->  field: probability and statistics.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="Z2">Dependent events change each other / A dependent event changes the next event / <code>P(B|A) ≠ P(A)</code>

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Actor strikes are for the inalienable human rights of individual actor Bob Stills; when Bob is happy the strikes end  ->  I feel like this is one of the major fallacies that made people unable to distinguish between Artisan and Careerist types versus workers. the Bookchin effect of several small strikes stopping at Bob

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S">red flags versus yellow flags  ->  the motif of referring to warning signs against the formation or stability of a workers' society with some other signifier than "red flags". my favorite one right now is yellow flags, because it intuitively brings up the image of a yield sign or any number of yellow street signs warning of something, but in more technical contexts yellow is used to represent capitalism.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Fascism occurs at maximum intolerance  ->  doesn't explain how people become intolerant.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Fascism occurs at maximum monopolization of the spatial slot hierarchy by a particular ethnic group  ->  doesn't explain why Deng Xiaoping processes don't lead to fascism and instead lead to fortress Marxisms or Deng Xiaoping Thought — although a lot of people don't even realize that's true and seem to vaguely think it does.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The State enforces monopolies on existence  ->  human beings are Animals. it isn't long before existence itself becomes violence and people feel deeply offended that someone else's existence is taking away from theirs. the truth is that it is. that's how existence works. we can try to invent things like "copyright" and "patents" and "tenure" and "inclusion" but none of it ever actually takes away the contradiction. people will just keep reproducing and internally migrating to different towns and creating things that have been created before and there will always be clashes where people think they should be the one that exist somewhere instead of someone else, and existence is the big thing they're conflicting over. anarchists have it totally wrong that one day people will just stop conflicting over specific modes of existing because they all recognize it as "being mean". there's no particular way of "being nice" that can replace it. when people no longer conflict over the "important" things they'll go online and conflict over whether you can share insert ships. you really do not solve human history unless you're prepared to actually weather the conflicts and provide answers to specific conflicts.

</li><li class="field_nations" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Every criminal is a mafia / All crimes are actually mafias / All crimes are organized conspiracies {{YouTube|AdoL5jR-K2A}}  ->  Tories really hate anarchists, but not even for the reasons you'd think they do. they don't "fear a revolution and want to suppress it"; the way they see the world is that revolutions don't even exist and every time people graph together to counter Tories it's simply an infection to Real Societies of Real People that has to be exterminated. "communities" are toxic. the existence of "communities" blinds people to all other possibilities. Tories seek precisely to protect their socially-linked population of people and anything that disrupts <em>it in any way</em> instead of letting it exist exactly as it is they reduce to the status of a bacterial infection that has to be cut off. this is why Lacanianism is not safe or benign. it empowers whatever chunk of people comes out on top of chunk competition to make chunk competition illegal and make all other chunks illegal. even as chunks will keep growing and smashing into each other, and it is impossible to actually prevent chunk competition as much as simply demonize ethnicities for reproducing because <i>existing is strictly a polite activity people do one after the other and they should have waited their turn</i>.<br />
Community is a cancer + shovel dream = Every criminal is a mafia.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Investments are evidence of historical materialism / Investments are an argument for general-sense historical materialism  ->  think about it. if it was truly unpredictable what corporations would go up, investing would be pointless. seriously. even being able to say "there's a 50% chance it will go down" is predictability. unpredictability would be you literally have no idea if you'll lose your money or not, and nobody would want to invest in that. investing is only possible because there are actual patterns to the history of populations that people can predict.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S">Maslow's pyramid as class structure / Maslow's pyramid as class-structures  ->  many people — notably right-Liberals and Tories — like to see free services as a conspiracy like they were <em>only ever</em> a Trojan horse to bring in ads (maybe one of the most appropriate uses of that metaphor I can think of when the box of ads is literally framed as a gift). but there's another explanation: social media platforms are within the most baseline needs for the most crude, undeveloped populations that still have internet. human beings need certain things to survive at all, which if they do not get, either deaths will occur or a lot of violence or robbery will break out. in a population which is not well developed, one of those things you critically need is somewhere to market goods for free or cheap. there have been movements of Third World women to sell goods in back alley type places over this. this may be the real reason corporations give out social platforms for free. they know they are critical to raising swarms of tiny businesses so that the swarms of tiny businessses can take home money, people can supposedly enjoy "community" by interacting with them, and everyone shuts up about both big and small businesses, or failing that mistakenly targets only one of them such that they never actually succeed and everything returns to normal after a while.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">If a few nice capitalists existing is all it takes for social-democracy to happen, why does anybody actually need to protest or campaign?

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S">some occurrence
</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S">accurate in one country
</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S">accurate in some countries
</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S">definition correct, rhetorically misleading

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Dialectical materialism isn't historical materialism  ->  not usually a problem, but sometimes becomes a problem in a country full of peasants that primarily has to preserve its national independence

</li><li class="field_gramsci" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Deng Xiaoping Thought holds to dialectical materialism  ->  this borders on being a troll proposition with how misleading it is, but it <em>is</em> fun in terms of testing how good a grasp you have of basic concepts. here's where the smoke and mirrors come in: dialectical materialism isn't equal to historical materialism. you can totally misuse dialectical materialism to argue for something other than finding the best course of history — some arbitrary objective you used dialectical methods to find the steps for. what dialectical materialism really is, in its simplest form, is the statement that the inner pieces of a country act together in various patterns to create the processes inside that country, and the ocean of ideas some people seem to believe floats above all countries is not a major factor in actually making the processes happen.<br />
truth value: definition correct, rhetorically misleading.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="DG onto JC" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Workers' states are an escape route / Marxism is an escape route / Creating national independence through Marxist revolution allowed North Korea to escape from a potential abusive relationship, as much as there were also costs
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="DG onto ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Workers' states are the middle way / Marxism is the middle way (referring to workers' states) / Creating the Second World was the Middle Way while allowing there to be a First World and Third World was the state of extremes  ->  twisting only the approved rules of Existentialist philosophies to correctly argue that Marxism is just fine is one of the funniest things. I think what gets me about it is, why did Existentialists never think of this? this one would seem kind of obvious, especially after you've listened to weird arguments that "surely" greed is a concept that exists in nature and no living species perpetuates itself naturally by taking over everything and Pokémon's imagined religion is a perfectly reasonable religion because the different components of nature are naturally In Balance as perfectly opposing metaphysical forces. Arright then, if [[E:Arceism]] is so reasonable, then why have First World countries ever existed?

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="HAS" value="618" data-dimension="S">Toby Fox doing Chinese prose wrong  ->  {{TTS|tts=chinese-rap.mp3|chineserap.mp3}} is such a case study for whether the daily use of language can truly be understood descriptively or whether it's also necessary to create a descriptive model of <em>prescriptivism itself</em> to ever stop it. there's always a kind of background competition to create the correct usages everyone will use, which in a sense you have to be on top of, or everyone including nice people will simply say you're bad at the language.<br />
this has huge implications for a lot of things including the arts. there's no such thing as art which is pure individual expression independent of other art that exists. there's always a background competition to know exactly what a genre of competing people is "the best, more than other people do" to then be able to participate in it and create something new which both fits into it and impresses people, which gets harder and harder every decade as more things are made and nobody thinks about how many things each generation effectively has to know about. if you trained an AI not on current art but on the premises of all books starting way back in 1800 or so versus what's current, it's actually in question whether biological humans have a long enough memory and attention span to do that task well. this isn't to say AIs are good but it is to say that we dramatically underestimate the role of interactions between individuals in determining what art is versus the role of the individual artist, expression, or "lived experience". the actual emergence of successful art likely looks more like small-scale determinism than some kind of triumph of individual will. think of it this way: can just anyone create a new Chinese word, or do you have to be highly versed in all the nuances and situations of speaking Chinese?
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX - existential materialism" value="618" data-dimension="M3">Can just anyone create a new Chinese word? / Can just anyone create a new Japanese word? / Can just anyone create a new Spanish word? / Can just anyone create a new Māori word? [https://www.britannica.com/topic/Maori-language]  ->  no matter how descriptivist you are, there has to be a working set of rules about what is and isn't speaking Chinese, where if you don't follow them, inclusion is not possible.<br />
the difficulty of determining the difference between "beginner understandings" and "prejudice" is one of the biggest snags for trying to apply either Existentialism or anarchism. the fact that culture always does have a definition even as it shifts and evolves makes it really difficult to actually create coexistence and tolerance between countable cultures when they will so frequently act offended just because somebody isn't performing their specific rules well and is instead performing a different set of rules well. this shows us that culture is never truly about the content, and is always about the degree of connection between the individual and a particular countable culture — a person at a low rank of fitting-in in one countable culture can easily be at a high rank of fitting-in in another one, thus the sort of "discipline process" of learning to do a culture right and not wrong belongs wholly to one countable culture assigning belonging-ranks to its own individuals, not to the world or to humanity. assuming that prejudice leads to exclusion is therefore a faulty assumption, because prejudice would be cultural content of one culture (example: Southern Baptist Christians excluding gay people), but it isn't the content that actually binds people together, it's their ability to fit together around the same rules into a shared culture-object as individuals. it isn't the fact that people write in Chinese characters that makes them not understand Spanish and say it doesn't look much like Chinese, it's the fact that different people have greater or lesser connection to the connected body of Chinese speakers, which passes around evolving definitions of what is spoken or written Chinese.<br />
I already feel this concept going a lot more places. just you wait until I come back a little while from now with a killer theory of how the Chinese language is somehow a perfect metaphor for the difference between mainstream Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism. this concept of all molecular-scale structure being [[Term:Filamentism|Filamentist]] hierarchy until it's Marxism has a really wide scope at the end of the day

</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S">new Soviet man / new Soviet person (man, woman; referring to nationality, not gender)  ->  this meant many different things in specific, but in general it was simply the idea of people ending up with a new perspective on what the Soviet Union was. it arguably didn't happen, and people ended up stuck with almost exactly the old one.
</li><li class="field_gramsci" value="618" data-dimension="S">embodied as a new man / Che and the secret shovel dream / a different cognitive understanding of what a man is (male; referring to gender, not nationality) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE7UPO6GGK4&lc=UgwhPZ2FoH172yBF0ON4AaABAg.AMlDKyuDwXEAMqPiczlFRW]  ->  legitimate concept, but one I'm going to have to think about for a while because I know there would be a lot to say about it but I don't know all the implications right now.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S2">A baseball player calculates body, not ball / A baseball player calculates body and lines up body with ball rather than calculating ball [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/beyond-words/201202/embodied-cognition-what-it-is-why-its-important] / outfielder proposition (embodied cognition)  ->  the thing the proposition states is a scientific observation. what I struggle with is what this proposition "means" to people. is it blue, red, or violet?
</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Move the baseball, move the catcher / Embodied cognition means that the "ball" around the baseball player makes the decisions, not the "baseball player", and putting the same person in a different context or surroundings causes the person to  ->  this seems a little misleading. in the analogy, the baseball player always solves the baseball player's body to the needs or goals of the baseball player's body. so if you take the "baseball player" and put them in a new situation, like, to be funny we'll say you put them on a hockey rink, the baseball player will still solve their body toward their own needs or goals, and if they don't have the inclination to be good at hockey or put effort into that it wouldn't mean that changing their environment changes anything.<br />
this is an easy fallacy to get into when there have been protests because [[E:protest brain|people will think the protests actually cause people to like each other]] and it isn't necessarily true. what changes people and causes them to start solving for themselves more productively is individually being put into a position of having to defend themself from the majority or the most powerful small rings of people, regardless of if anyone else is there with them. the big thing that matters is [[E:Trotsky is your new hero|whether people choose to stay in that disadvantaged position just because it's right]] even if a lot of people there hate them and want to send them back to the reactionary side. you can't make groups of people be nice to each other or be friends, no matter how serious and well-read a schizoanalyst theorist you are. people are going to behave unpredictably to each other and you need to keep them together even as some of them treat each other with utter cruelty and don't behave like friends or comrades at all. it's at that point that either people develop true integrity, sticking to a faction even if everyone on it is terrible purely because they study science and mathematics and look beyond all the confused people around them saying slightly wrong things to seek what's true, or the whole thing crumbles. empathy really doesn't cut it any more in an age where everyone is inherently competing on everything ever including communicating on newsfeeds or getting into subreddits or promoting inclusive minority businesses for just one minority and nobody is friends. community is nothing, materialism is key.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-remark="movementism / schizoanalysis (DG)" value="618" data-dimension="S">hostility between protestors / went to an anti-racist protest, Black people punched trans people  ->  heard this anecdotally, but looking at all the nonviolent hostility between identity politics movements where they constantly accuse each other of being prejudiced or fighting prejudice in a prejudiced way or just being the wrong identity period, I totally believe things like this could happen.<br />
Grimey the neckbeard + street protest = this.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Socialism in one country bolsters The Patriarchy / Socialism in one country empowers The Patriarchy so much that socialism in one country is unacceptable [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE7UPO6GGK4]  ->  the source I got this from doesn't intend to be Trotskyist, but it's way too easy for someone else to spin this as an orange proposition to not make it orange. the claim is that in its inability to produce widespread progress without sacrificing it for the existence of the national population, socialism in one country causes reversion to "un-progressive Hierarchies" which are implied though not stated to exist for reasons that have almost nothing to do with socialist transition. (whether this is true is... complicated. there are some times that would seem true and some times where it would seem really misleading.) the reference video actually gives a material reason in that wealth versus austerity causes the reversion. however, it seems ridiculously easy to argue this same thing without bringing up that legitimate model, and simply go arguing that Bolshevism is one big distraction while Un-Progressive Hierarchies need to be fought on a separate level regardless of whether it is amenable to Bolshevism or squashes Bolshevism. the video used Freud trying to argue the first reason while not realizing Freudian and Jungian models (although Lacanian models less so) are absolutely ripe for arguing the second reason.<br />
one of the major errors in this video is assuming that Soviet people can control what other countries outside them are doing. they can't. that's di- intelligent design, that's the Shenlong effect. reality experiences the Vegeta effect. when you're standing in the United States, you can't actually say "I'll fix the Soviet Union by changing the United States' Free Will toward Communism", because if you're on the Communist side you don't have access to the non-Communist side's will. to think the two sides will fire off at once without a hitch is basically Trotskyism, or <em>nearly</em> equivalent to it. Trotskyism is traditionally defined as multiple separate <em>countries</em> suddenly synchronizing, but when you define it specifically by its errors versus reality, you see that that error could apply to parts of the same fracturing country as easily as it does to two bigger separate countries. so that's the crux of this. you have to either be in the totally non-Communist movement to change the United States or in the Soviet Union, you can't be in both countries at once.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Socialist transition involves building women's industries / Molecular Trotskyism involves building the light industries often taken up by women [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE7UPO6GGK4]  ->  the bright side of "Socialism in one country bolsters The Patriarchy". in the form I found that claim, it implied that transitioning people out of peasant work into light industry would be the way to wrench people out of the process of falling back into competing individuals and physical structures such as dependence on marriage that regenerate reactionary peasant ideology. so... is this a potential definition of a molecular Marxism? it puts all the people into light industries as fast as possible to keep people from regenerating the same model as they would live by in a kingdom to understand the one big material object of Bolshevism? this has the advantage that it can counter Dugin and the weird belief that the Soviet Union never stopped being the Russian Empire, because it proposes a mechanism for how that happened. I don't know how robust it is but it's far more specific than anything Trotsky ever said, so at least it's something.

</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Western Marxism is not scientific socialism  ->  found on some kind of Marxist periodical. (technically meta-Marxist? late Trotskyist? Bordigist? I can't tell what's going on here) [https://cosmonautmag.com/about-us/] although this claim seems really bold I do actually think it's true. a lot of what I've been doing has been revolving around scraping out all the utter {{censor|crap}} of Western Marxism. it may be I am not building a theory of volcanic, imminent revolution, because I don't think that kind of thing has been imminent over the past 15 years. but I think we need to advise individuals to act and arrange themselves <em>materially</em>, actually separating good choices from bad and stacking up collectively to a population that can stand strong and endure until the hypothetical day of imminent permanent revolution, instead of talking about a bunch of nebulous stuff like culture and ideas and attitudes or "action" without any plans.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="Aa" value="618" data-dimension="S2">In the 2020s the most practical action is to do nothing (Žižek) [https://dprbcn.wordpress.com/2011/07/01/zizek-house/]  ->  if this statement came with more qualifiers I'd give it to him. this can actually be true on a very short time scale that is probably noticeably less than a decade, if you already have a very serious plan to look at history scientifically and cut through all the bullshit including a lot of the bullshit spaghetti that Žižek says. he doesn't quite include the proper context that makes his statement true.

</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">If victory is not in sight, wait / If victory is not in sight, it is better to wait / "if relative superiority is not clear, it is better not to act" (<cite>Guerrilla warfare: A method</cite>, 1963)  ->  I have to reiterate that the Lattice model is mainly focused on like, a wave of strikes or things like that. but, Che Guevara has his own version of a Lattice model for violent situations. I think the more we look at different models of Marxist revolutions or movements the more we'll find the same graph mathematics popping up again and again

</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">If "Western leftists" fail to understand Marxist states responding to current conditions, the key word is not "Western" but "conditions" {{Reddit|r=TheDeprogram|1n7qmcy}}  ->  this was not hard for me to understand but seems nigh impossible for other people to understand, even people that claim to be Marxists. I think part of the problem is that people very quickly vulgarize "the conditions in another country" into "lived experience" because without already having a historical materialist framework they can't even comprehend what large countable cultures containing causes and effects would look like.<br />
my thoughts on this: I think people might learn best through the visual language of fantasy books. it's a little more common than not for people to look at a fantasy book and say it's perfectly okay for a particular historical process to happen as it does even if there's collateral damage, while equivocating and complicating the need to overcome a particular conflict is stupid. at the moment people talk about "villains" they kind of almost understand history.<br />
the only real problem is when people think they understand a historical process and jump up on their high horse as if they were analyzing it through dialectical materialism when they actually aren't, and they've mentally swapped dialectical materialism and filtration. they've created filtration but they've created non-Marxist filtration that isn't amenable to Marxism, and then they take the high ground like, you gotta get on board the historical process, but they've got Lacanianism at best, they don't have Marxism.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">eastern Europeans insulting each other {{Reddit|r=philosophy|3z2r8u|is=fDrJe}}  -> I believe this happened. but Žižek genuinely doesn't understand that these are nationalities and nationalities are different from racial subpopulations as a matter of scale. racial subpopulations are tied to the sheer scale of survival and people's actual struggle to be effective or ineffective at surviving; it's just an artifact of how small the populations are and that they compete over tiny spatial areas that only one group of people can inhabit. that is not true of Serbia and Croatia. Serbs aren't constantly trying to be the only people who can occupy Croatia, because countries are comically big to be doing that — except when it's Palestine. Existentialists literally don't know the difference between big things and small things.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">"The totalitarian formula is I know better than you what you really want" (Žižek) {{Reddit|r=philosophy|3z2r8u|is=fDrJe}}  ->  thanks Žižek.<br />
what gets me is he is going directly against the Lacanians that are supposed to be on his side. he called his own ideology totalitarian. unless he's truly a Jungian? he was tossing out a couple of old conservative tropes he thought he'd detoxified and being like, they're okay now; he was taking The Father literally. I want to say there is no serious divide between him and Lacanianism and he really did call his own ideology unacceptable.

</li><li class="field_nations" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Climate change regulation is scientism  ->  this is the way real live Tories think, as opposed to the way people think that Tories think. they shrug off climate regulations specifically because they believe that <em>economics can only be addressed by philosophy and never by science</em> even when it's leading to global pollution because economics is economics and the things corporations actually do on the inside don't take them out of the specifically limited magisterium of economics. it is genuinely economics and Freudian psychology that are killing the planet.

</li><li class="field_horror"  value="618" data-dimension="S">artism  ->  the motif that art is the act of turning concepts or culture into personal wealth totally conflated with an individual that somehow benefits others even though it really really really does not belong to them in several senses, it's never theirs, and can be revoked at any moment<br />
conceptually similar to "scientism" if we really address the causes of both of them throughout the act of comparing them. only in that case of scientism and artism both being creations of the bourgeoisie, complaints about scientism are perfectly sensible<br />
I think we really need to get rid of this thing <em>no matter how anti-art people have to be</em> for the period until it's finally defeated.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">I don't practice artism / I am not an Artist because I do not practice Artism

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Gramscianism is an anarchism / Gramscianism is an ideology based on linking individuals together into a viable civilization which can defend itself from other free-floating countable cultures ("fascisms") independently from the layers of structural boundaries or government, therefore Gramscianism is secretly an anarchism  ->  the other possibility is that Gramscianism is an attempted molecular Marxism which simply has not been powerful enough to achieve anything. I think out of the two I lean more toward the latter. it makes more sense logically to say that ideologies that blatantly condone some kind of state forming are tiny Marxisms than to say they would "truly" develop into anarchisms later and just don't know yet.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S">Bell games for general relativity [https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.15752] [https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.111.052211] {{YouTube|C6c2R6VgGnc}} {{YouTube|Ez5pDTLVDCA}}  ->  these are supposed to show the difference between special and general relativity in an experiment, and maybe show where causality breaks down at the quantum scale. I like the use of relativity to probe quantum mechanics before asking questions about gravity. I'm surprised there's a decent experiment for that. I, like Hossenfelder, don't really know right now if these things successfully show anything. they're neat though.<br />
edit: there's a pre-print!

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Psychoanalysis was the interpretive framework used to create Dragon Ball  ->  there is a lot of superficial textual evidence of this. maybe the reason it weirdly reminds me of Lacanianism is that in a sense it <em>is</em> Lacanianism.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">When two people cut down each other's desires, it results in hatred, not peace  ->  existential materialism onto Lacanianism. what if "desires" <em>are</em> what we actually need? if so, calls for compromise would be wholly unethical. the more you pack repression onto someone, the more it becomes evident that nobody has to be forced to do anything nor can oppress anyone if they were simply dead. and you know what happens next — people give their opponent utter freedom from oppressing others or being oppressed in the most disturbing way possible.

</li><li class="field_nations" value="618" data-dimension="S" data-submitter="vidak">taking indigenous land for carbon credits [https://atmos.earth/bounties-mafias-and-the-climate-cost-of-ikeas-fast-furniture/]  ->  I never thought about this specific possibility but knowing how cynical carbon credits are in general I am wholly unsurprised.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="618" data-dimension="F2">The U.S. occupying Ukraine is Marxist / It is a Marxist position to put the United States' whole budget into the military in order to send troops into Ukraine  ->  there are some things you have to spell out for people to actually understand where their reasoning is leading. this proposition is totally stupid, but it <em>is</em> one of the few ways to successfully illustrate that there is a reason for historical materialism and you can't simply throw it out.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Every act of assuming labor can fix anything is handing somebody a student loan  ->  you get degrowth when people genuinely stop paying huge amounts of money just to do whatever people tell them to do for money.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">If the United States had competent movement organizers, over two thirds of meta-Marxism wouldn't be necessary / "if we had competent organizers, over two thirds of what I'm doing wouldn't be necessary"  ->  every day I say to myself, I would be so happy if this one particular thing I'm working on today just wasn't even necessary because the movement was more robust than I predicted. and every day it becomes more and more apparent that I do have to do all of this.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Midichlorians turned animals into Pokémon (micro-organisms that turned into organelles; Star Wars term used facetiously) / Some kind of mitochondrion from space, or from the earth, got absorbed into animal cells and made them into Pokémon  ->  a theory that popped into my mind when somebody said that Pokémon inheriting the female parent's species was similar to mitochondria. determining an entire body plan is a whole lot for a mitochondrion to do, unless they're the entire thing that make Pokémon Pokémon.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Duplexing scattering yields territory dispute / Applying the duplexing function to the function of people scattering to new houses or frontier homesteads yields a war over territory  ->  existential-materialist claim.<br />
this is the level you need to be on if you want to talk to meta-Marxists about "the colonizer attitude". a chart full of what are basically lambda calculus functions and how a better collection of behavior functions is actually produced.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="Z">sonic event horizon / acoustic black hole  ->  these can form in superfluids but in viscous fluids the random motion of the particles, presumably away from flowing and toward each other, inhibits forming one. it's kind of like these experiments are saying fields have no atom-sized chemistry (obviously they don't) so things like water polarity or whatever is going on with honey sugars couldn't stop them.<br/>
what's stunning to me is that an event horizon is enough to get Hawking radiation. you'd think from a naïve but grounded understanding of physics that the black hole stuff between the horizon and singularity has to be leading to all the weird properties, hidden variables or not. it's crazy we can see so many things about the event horizon and that black holes aren't more mysterious than they are. why is so much seemingly happening so close to the surface? ordinary stars don't work that way, they have a corona and a center. so why is the black hole so nearly an actual hollow shell. that is so strange

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Removing uncertainty takes away the need for bosses  ->  the corollary to realizing that "authoritarian" formations like Marxist party-nations, tightly-linked Liberal parties, corporations, established churches, and caliphates all occur in order to lead people against uncertainty. definite packed-in networks and networkists form because different networks are all competing or acting against each other. Christians are afraid of crime and rival kingdoms all mysteriously moving around outside, they form into a church. Muslims are afraid of kingdoms conquering each other, they form into a caliphate. capitalism promises "freedom", it practically creates the need for workers to cluster into large corporations so survival will be more predictable and for somebody to be at the head of that corporation predicting everything on the outside so those people can get a paycheck. a Deng Xiaoping state forms when countries have a greater need to be vigilant against war and not make stupid mistakes in their survival than the need to let individuals fight with each other and pursue totally experimental ideas and structures. it follows that when uncertainty goes away, there is a greater potential to republicanize any particular workplace, taking away particular points of authority and handing authority only to "standard procedure".<br />
anarchists don't like this proposition because they generally want to believe that "crabs" are created by one individual's ideas or by di- intelligent design rather than by purely unintelligent, undesigned processes that humans are merely trying to operate in.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Colonialism is a historical process / Exocolonialism is not a stationary period of British people standing all over India and it is a process existing across time with a source and moving parts  ->  technically, this must be true.<br />
the thing that bothers me is what people propose the process to actually be. if you define this in a way that supports historical materialism I wouldn't really be able to complain. what bothers me is when people try to define the historical process of colonialism in a way which is distinctly <em>historical non-materialism</em> or <em>historical existentialism</em>.<br />
if I can be brutally honest for a moment? it reeks of First World privilege for people to think that a bunch of people just standing around and willing something can get people whatever they want. if you have access to lots and lots of money that peasants would clamor over each other to have, or your gigantic continental government has access to all that money <em>supposedly</em>, of course you can have whatever you want. of course it will seem like anyone who does anything but beg owners of giant local-state-sized swaths of industry to pay money to support anything else when paying it would take away their ability to make more ability to help "clearly" doesn't understand history and "clearly" isn't doing anything productive. clearly, history gets less violent as all the power funnels into the United States and all the other countries lose their governments and everyone can just vote on things but they have to be White. and everybody else is stupid. everyone who's a peasant and hasn't created capitalism only has to work harder to be able to vote in about 50 years. but the cherry on top is that if the whole world knits together into Liberal-republicanism it will spend its time dividing in two and generating blood feuds just so it's supposedly "fair" and isn't "totalitarian". (sic.) all of it makes sense in its own twisted way except that. the one thing I genuinely don't get is how a system that generates blood feuds and periodic shootings is inherently fair.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto LR" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Kimberlé Crenshaw for president / Kimberlé Crenshaw would be a better president than Barack Obama  ->  I'm joking, but my point is that people trying to say Obama "wasn't qualified" probably don't know what qualified means, or what educated means, or what hard work means, or what improvement means. now, if they say that Crenshaw would be <em>a better</em> president than Obama, not necessarily the best possible president but better, then at least you'd know they know what words mean. what's terrible is I have this sneaking suspicion they wouldn't.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Liberal-republicanism regulates endocolonialism / There is an endocolonialism process which operates based on different coherent subpopulations nominating experts to advise them and make their laws but then in order to achieve any unity between subpopulations whatsoever, having to fight over which political subpopulation acts as the ruling ethnic group of the empire holding empire over the other politically-defined ethnic groups, and Liberal-republicanism regulates this to keep it from turning into a permanent physical Britain-versus-India style colonialism  ->  if this is true, then Third World countries are predisposed to Marxism because they don't have the process of endocolonialism that First World countries have, at least not the one that leads to the creation of Liberal-republicanism.<br />
point in favor of this: historically, empire is the simplest way to join populations. empire joined the fracturing populations of Germany, England, China, Japan, old Korea, India, the list goes on and on. so if Liberal-republicanism is absurdly simple, too simple to possibly work, that it would devolve into humanity's simplest method of joining large populations is not surprising. none of these were colonialism yet. that only started to develop when two populations could smash into each other, like European empires and North American tribes. but what if two majority-ethnicity populations were smashing into each other and trying to expand over each other and siphon away each other's land inside a kingdom? well, then that could potentially be colonialism.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Liberal-republicanism cannot be decolonized / Endocolonialism cannot be removed from Liberal-republicanism as long as the latter exists  ->  note the "endo-". this doesn't mean reparations can't exist. reparations are in response to a past <em>exo</em>colonialism. endocolonialism refers to colonialism basically being identifiable inside a group solely consisting of White people, for instance, a group that's all-British, or all-Dutch, though probably not all-Irish. a group that's all-Japanese, or all-Italian, and has not yet smashed into any particular foreign country it is trying to brutalize but already contains colonialism inside it anyway. that's endocolonialism. from a Materialist point of view it's tempting to say it doesn't exist in order to say it's referring to something else that does exist. but in the end, that's meta-ontologically dishonest. if people are getting stirred up about "colonialism" they won't shut up until you tell them how to stop "colonialism". so it's more meta-ontologically sound to tell them they're talking about "endocolonialism" and that nobody actually knows what that is. also that, really, it's utterly necessary to create a historical materialism of some kind to explain endocolonialism. to explain how something entirely inside a group of White people leads to exocolonialism you very much need a theory of material cause and effect which actually shows how small scales lead up to larger scales and how surrounding patterns can change smaller scales to produce different large-scale events. "ideas, attitudes" won't cut it; you really have to know and predict what each idea produces in reality to know whether any idea will be useful.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The past and the future simply are / The past and the future simply happen / If the past isn't horrifing, the future isn't horrifying either  ->  the greatest revenge against people talking about periods like WWI as if there's nothing to them and they aren't horrifying is to talk of a clearly messed-up future in the exact same tone, precisely as if it isn't horrifying, precisely as if that's just life now and as if it's perfectly normal, people are just going to deal with it. I'm surprised that half of all dystopia books aren't already written this way, considering the way every educated person reports on life in their own country. is it that dystopia is softly assumed to only happen elsewhere, even when it supposedly takes place in the author's country? is it that an instance of the United States which has fallen is considered a foreign country?

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="MX onto A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Liberal-republicanism and Marxism are the same / Republicanism is one big shell game where experts pretend that anyone can be in a position of power and then use the actual difficulty of becoming an expert as a lever to shame everyone for not dropping everything they're doing to become an expert and subsequently order everyone to mindlessly obey what they say or not be considered a real human with a functional adult brain  ->  the major flaw in center-Liberalism: <em>if you believe in Liberal-republicanism</em> there's no incentive to obey center-Liberals and allow any new policies to be made. any act of reactionaries obeying progressives is ceding their voice and their right to not be told who to vote for; any act of change is essentially giving up democracy and embracing colonialism.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Communist parties, <em>hierarchical</em>, are bad / Communist parties are bad because they are hierarchical  ->  this is contradictory because one typical point of evidence is that people can be expelled from Communist parties, but anarchisms also use expulsion in much the same way and claim it's not hierarchy any more just because it's theirs, just because anarchism is a connected whole and that supposedly can't be a hierarchy. expulsion has to either be hierarchy or not. and I think there's a better case it isn't. only in cases of imperialism where a few White people want to extend their population over the world and rule it does expulsion become a serious thing where not being in a particular country is bad. ordinary people really don't know the difference between non-colonial and colonial and almost get the two backwards so that colonial is freedom and non-colonial is empire.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Boundaries between the inside and outside of something can exist without being hierarchy  ->  this absolutely has to be true, or people organizing black graduation is a form of hierarchy, and people not being friends with nazis and excluding them from social circles is a form of hierarchy. proto-fascist Tories absolutely want to believe these two things because they have no issues with everything they see being a hierarchy as long as accusing a hierarchy of being unfair allows them to tear the thing apart. the part people are not going to like is that this means that people being sorted into nation-states with hard borders is not necessarily a form of hierarchy, and simply a form of separation. after two populations separate a new spatial slot hierarchy can form inside, but the separation is not a hierarchy, not even if The Communist Party created it. the only hierarchy is inside The Communist Party, while inclusion or exclusion is a different thing from hierarchy.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">{{TTS|tts=I's|Is|title=we individuals each in parallel}} make ours meanings reciprocally (hyper-plural phrasing, short form) / We individuals each in parallel make ours meanings reciprocally (hyper-plural phrasing, long form) / Individuals can't assign the meaning of life to themselves because everyone is always obligated to externally assign meaning to others / bridgistentialism (proposition that the meaning of life is mainly assigned by several other people)  ->  this popped back into my mind, out of all possible reasons, because of Deltarune. in Deltarune, it is strongly implied that a world of people generated by a "language game" (an ontology game), the world itself, can die. when you boot up Deltarune you are obligated to form some kind of reaction to that. the Deltarune characters don't get to decide what their existence means, not really, just like the playing cards don't get to decide what their existence means when there are Lightners. the real world counterpart — in my opinion — is populations. taken as a population, the Soviet Union can't make its own meaning and set an identity for itself alone because everyone else in the world is constantly assigning it meaning at the same time. whether it means anything hinges on whether other populations want to let it live and say that its life has meaning, not whether it says to itself "I have meaning and this is what it is". the same is technically true for all populations.<br />
I call this... uh... di-existentialism is when you duplex existentialism, not when you extend it as everyone over other people. bridgistentialism? I don't know.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="M3">Why is prejudice bad?  ->  this question may seem dumb, but it's actually a terribly important question, because if you have the wrong answer you <em>will</em> become an imperialist. Christianity has always said it's not about prejudice because anyone can become Christian and if they would just become Christian and simultaneously abandon all other religion and magic ritual the world could be united. Trotskyism makes essentially the same error, coercing anarchists and mainstream Marxists-Leninists into Trotskyism just because of the vacuous truth that if everyone was Trotskyist everyone would be Trotskyist. does most Liberal-republicanism or anarchism have a grounding which is any better than this? is any of it prepared for the possibility that somebody genuinely does not want to be part of a particular group of people, and all the "community" and "anti-prejudice" you can manage wouldn't be enough to fix that? "dem"-"ocracy" is just fine if people are part of the Demos in the first place, but what if they aren't? what do you do when there are multiple separate Demotes that distinctly don't want to be controlled by each other as a matter of national autonomy and self-determination?

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto JC" value="618" data-dimension="S2">A country of bourgeoisie can form a workers' state / A country full of nothing but bourgeoisie can become a workers' state  ->  there's a pretty decent argument this is true, thanks to North Korea. North Korea mostly only contained teeny tiny businesses that were utterly incapable of being large capitalism or really having a proletariat. and yet that didn't stop people from forming into a Marxist party-nation. they just did it anyway. you can argue North Korea is "suffering", you can argue North Korea is "poor", you can argue that forming a Marxist party-nation hasn't worked out well, but you can't argue that they didn't form one in spite of what Marxism has traditionally said. I think this leaves no excuse for First-World countries. I think all the claims that First World countries will "surely" fail just because they put the proletariat in China and India can't possibly be right.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Spontaneity is what makes art relatable / Spontaneity is what makes art truly relatable  ->  the claim that spontaneous events occurring in the lives of highly specific individuals, such as the shark not functioning in the production of {{book|Jaws}}, are what makes art truly resemble real life. I have to say, this is one of those propositions where my first response is simply "that's icky, I don't like it" without an actual reason, where I then have to really stop and think on what is actually wrong with it because I know "icky" is not an argument. I think one possible starting point is the proposition that art must represent its audience rather than its author. that way you rule out art getting to be racist just because a bunch of White people had unique experiences and are <em>such good artists</em> that are <em>so good at being unique individuals</em> that we don't need Media Representation — people absolutely will say this if you let them. all the spontaneity and biographical detail and seconds and minutes of irreplaceable Lived Experience you can muster means nothing if it doesn't represent the audience rather than the author.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Art designed by committee can't be good  ->  I think this is blatantly false after the success of {{book|Warriors}} and the sheer number of teenagers who still read it.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="HAS" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Art movements <em>are</em> philosophies / "Every artistic movement from the beginning of time is an attempt to smuggle more of what the artist thinks is reality into the work of art" (David Shields, {{book|Reality Hunger}}) [https://www.hobartpulp.com/web_features/a-gaze-you-could-meet-my-struggle-with-my-struggle-book-2]  ->  great quote until we get to Jackson Pollock. I do think artistic abstraction exists. also... it looks like this book is largely an attempt to justify fiction as memoir. I think that's dangerous when it comes to the role of fiction as "education". if a country contains 90% one ethnic group and 10% another one, you want about the top 80% of people making art that's almost totally abstracted from real life, or art simply becomes softly racist as everybody gets flooded with the experiences of one particular ethnic group. it's really much better to have White people focusing all their energy into things like {{book|Harry Potter}} and {{book|Warriors}} so there's space for minorities to write all the more biographical stories that actually manage to teach people about experiences they haven't had.

</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Anticommunists created early Western-Marxism / Anticommunists created the first Western-Marxism {{YouTube|oUvtSOGhdmg}}  ->  if you remove "the first" this would become controversial, but I think with it in, it's much harder to argue against. it's like, you could say "anticommunists created the first Trotskyism" referring to essentially everybody in Trotskyism but Trotsky and a few figures you could count on your hands. "the first" Trotskyism was mostly composed of anticommunists but anyone can take it and fill it with workers (assuming they have unreal levels of skill, of course), so it's harder to categorically say that Trotskyism itself is anticommunist even despite all the times it's wrong. similarly Western-Marxism can be wrong a whole lot of the time but not necessarily always malicious.

</li><li class="field_gramsci" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Engels vulgarized Marxism into Calvinism / Engels squashed Marxism into a vulgar deterministic linear timeline of the world, which is demonstrated to some extent in Anti-Dühring / Anti-Dühring is the root of all evil {{YouTube|oUvtSOGhdmg}}  ->  I had literally never heard this claim until today, which makes it really funny to me. I quite literally heard about Engels' work as good <em>from</em> mainstream Marxist-Leninists and Trotskyist pages, <em>as</em> a non-Communist, before I ever heard this one. I think that really goes to show what an utter bubble disconnected from ordinary people "the New Left" actually lives in. like, my whole life I've been a socially isolated nerd, but somehow I've <em>never</em> been as isolated in a remote ivory tower as The New Left, to the point I heard "correct" Marxism before I ever really heard of them. Richard Wolff is the only exception where I had any contact at all with anticommunist Western-Marxists and their theory. and as far as I can remember he never managed to confuse me and make me think that what he was doing was remotely the same thing as Bolshevism. I think it was always relatively intuitive to me that "Marxism" and "Western Marxism" were potentially different things. so it is particularly puzzling to me that anybody could think that early Western-Marxism is the one true Marxism. if you have the slightest bit of intuition for [[E:duplexing|duplexing]] or meta-Marxism you'd at least realize that there isn't one true Marxism in that specific sense, and realize that instead there are always plural Marxisms. what stops us from this? is it imperialism? is it the tendency to think that because White culture is the only culture that ever existed and Marxism seeks to find the one correct model of the world, this means Western-Marxism must be the only Marxism?<br />
the one thing that always makes Western Marxism so complicated for me is it's the favorite Marxism for minorities to appropriate to claim that Marxism is the best theory for, and solely designed for, ridding the United States of racism. you have one faction of people which is appropriating Gramsci and Marcuse to claim that Marxism is a theory of anti-racism, and then you have one faction of people who is using the same theorists to claim almost literally that Russians are inherently bad and Bolshevism could never succeed because of bad Russian culture that isn't White culture — you see, even if Russians look White they can't possibly be White because they don't have Democracy. which is a cultural idea, not a practiced material structure that could exist within Bolshevism. they oppressed a single individual with the correct ideas instead of including him through tent of freedom poles and that means that Russians are a savage race that must be fought by real White people until they physically include White individuals with good ideas in their society. this is not neocolonialism, it's just Democracy.

</li><li class="field_nations" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Communism hates selfishness / Marxism seeks to destroy the individual  ->  this is harder to mark false than you'd think it is, thanks to Trotsky.

</li><li class="field_horror" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Modern horror stories are too high-concept / Modern horror stories are too abstract and subversive when simple folklore stories were good enough  ->  I think this is a product of what is basically white-bread horror stories. white-bread fantasy stories can very easily come across as inadequate, but in contrast, white-bread horror stories can often be surprisingly well done. this would be partly due to the fact horror stories work well with a limited cast of characters or a limited amount of character writing, and don't really require much talking about "various cultures" or world history; you can write a horror story based on nothing but really really abstract concepts. horror stories just allow a big population of boring White people to actually create something good with relatively few consequences brought by the marginalization of other populations from their writer "community".

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Unifying as demographics does not keep people from uniting into the human race {{YouTube|QwpanShgOp4}}  ->  well. it's about half true.

</li><li class="field_nations" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Power and privilege are tenets of critical race theory {{YouTube|QwpanShgOp4}}  ->  there are times where having the color swatches to hint at how true or false the propositions might be is very important.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S">LGBT+ tradition (arts, nonfiction works describing identities, etc) / LGBTQIA+ tradition  ->  the concept of a philosophical tradition of queer culture and queer art which includes but is absolutely not limited to academic queer theory. this Item exists basically so queer art can have a unique color swatch.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="queer theory / A" value="618" data-dimension="S">the spoon is solid until you know it's simulated / the spoon can be bent only when you know it's a simulation {{YouTube|KGzSGkmV5e8}}  ->  this is a statement about shovel dreams, is what this is. I've... always had a bit of a problem with the concept you can just change the virtual shovel and the shovel goes away. clearly it makes sense for gender but when you write a whole poststructuralist text detached from that context it starts to make a whole lot less sense.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">isekai story as queer metaphor  ->  has been applied to {{book|Wizard of Oz}} as well as {{book|The Matrix}}. {{YouTube|KGzSGkmV5e8}}<br />
should there be a swatch for queer culture? even just on the "elements" layer of the stylesheet? I feel like all the propositions about queer identity which are distinctly neutral are a bit insulted by always being shown in blue or sometimes in charcoal when I've also started casting that very negatively. I don't think the association with Existentialism or anarchism means it's bad to be LGBT+ or to create things that primarily revolve around that — it's not bad to create a gay nightclub or a lesbian romance book or a circle of {{book|Deltarune}} fans just because those things "aren't Marxist" or whatever. this can get a little confusing because while it's pretty obvious to say it's not against Marxism to be Chinese or North Korean, LGBT+ identity has always been very political and has always been this weird sort of tiny national identity inherently created through the practice of anarchism, as if just like you need to read a Liberal-republican civics book to successfully be United-States you have to read an anarchist civics book to successfully be LGBT+. I think a philosophical tradition code is appropriate to reconcile this weird blend of identity and culture which is fine and intertwined politics.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">{{book|The Matrix}} created a rift between Black people and trans people {{YouTube|KGzSGkmV5e8}}  ->  this was brought up by anarchist types but I feel like the significance of it is different from what they imply it is. I think this is evidence that Media Representation doesn't necessarily bring people together as much as brings some people together and creates new forms of alienation for others.

</li><li class="field_anarchy field_LGBT" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The internet fueled transgender rights movements by immediately connecting transgender people's Lived Experiences across space {{YouTube|KGzSGkmV5e8}}  ->  this is simultaneously depressingly anarchist and very cool. it's this kind of idea that led me to the Lattice model<br />
which provides a little insight into exactly why this movie is co-opted by reactionaries. they're getting Latticed together way across space in secret underground passages, "just like" transgender people. and yeah, that makes it quite hypocritical they so often try to act like trans people Latticing together is some kind of virus brainwashing people and corrupting the nation. you'd think that if that <em>were</em> true the exact same thing would be true for them.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Gender concepts don't have to refer to anything physical as much as to themselves (Baudrillard, Stryker) {{YouTube|KGzSGkmV5e8}}  ->  this is one of the connecting threads between existentialism and structuralist linguistics, thus leading into the later periods of the Existentialist-Structuralist tradition.<br />
note: I think this one is neat. it's one of those things that's broadly right even if it's right for slightly incorrect reasons. the action of populations against each other sorts individuals into genders, racial groupings, and so forth; under the model of structuralist linguistics you see the words man and woman or masculine and feminine shift in relation to each other as the populations shift. so... I give this one a pass. it isn't wrong. it at least isn't wrong.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S0">duplexing (meta-Marxism)  ->  duplexing is the operation of taking one particular model of something and copying it so that two separate, different instances of the same thing are operating in parallel and interacting with each other. say we have psychoanalysis as the model of a mind. when we duplex psychoanalysis, there are two minds operating independently, each of them [[E:Lacanian discipline|receiving models of society]] from their father and their sister and their teacher. if each individual has a drastically different father and teacher, not to mention a different personality, when the two people meet each other they're each inevitably going to tell each other their model of the world is the only right one, and get into a fight. Lacanian discipline doesn't sound so good now, does it? now let's say we take Stalin's Marxism and duplex it. two different countries unite the proletariat and form Marxist parties and become workers' states. however, if the two countries have totally different ideas of what is in favor of the proletariat in any particular country, each country's party will become incapable of contributing to freeing the world proletariat.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">fake-out token protagonist / disposable Black protagonist (character from a minority demographic relative to the country of the author who wrote the work, that becomes a character used in marketing but if advertised as the protagonist never becomes the protagonist)  ->  the motif of shows, movies, and so forth baiting the audience with a Media Representation character who will seemingly become a central character or protagonist but then doesn't.

</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Menshevism is just a bad Marxism / Social-democracy is just a bad Marxism  ->  it's long been an orthodoxy in Marxism to believe this, but I have come to doubt whether it's actually true. personally, I wouldn't replace the concept of trying to unite The Lefts into one thing with some kind of sectarian Marxist party, but I do think we need to conceptualize what movement would be capable of uniting everyone in some different way than has been done in Third World countries, so that you basically swap out "social democracy" for something else but beyond that everything is similar. Marcuse had some thoughts. I think they're wrong. I also have doubts about letting anarchism do it because I think you'd just get a whole charcoal transition process that never turns red, or the diehard attempt to create one.
</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Marxism is just a bad anarchism / Marxism is just a really bad anarchism / Marxism is nothing more than a bad anarchism  ->  I swear that every single time an educated person in the United States tolerates Marxism without being a Marxist it comes down to this. most of the time the only way that Marxism gets in is by somehow justifying itself through the language of prejudices, for instance prejudices against Third World countries, or prejudices against the homeless. and basically every instance of making everything about prejudices seems to boil down to anarchism. in particular, the concept that societies develop properly specifically when we "include people" in "community" and there is nothing more to history than basically individuals being nice or being mean and ethnic groups behaving good or behaving bad through individuals' capability of [[E:di- intelligent design|di- intelligent design]].
</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Trotskyism is just a bad attempt at Stalin's Marxism  ->  I think there's real evidence for this one. I think that for specific enough versions of this proposition this is just a fact.
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Stalin's Marxism is just a bad attempt at Trotskyism  ->  the claim that mainstream Marxist-Leninists have actually been trying to discover Trotskyism and if you put enough of the two together they will both eventually align onto Trotskyism. I think this has been shown to be false, largely because people drop out of Trotskyism almost quicker than it can build up while with Stalin's Marxism populations remain dedicated to workers' states for life.
</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Social-democracy is just a bad anarchism  ->  even if you accept "Menshevism is just a bad Marxism" this becomes logically true in a transitive way if you accept "Marxism is just a bad anarchism".

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">To touch grass is to see reality with a different perspective
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Disabled people can't touch grass  ->  I'd argue this is false because most of the time what this really means is to do a grounding exercise, anywhere from taking a walk (very able-bodied activity) to sitting in your yard, doing a mindfulness process, staring into your desk water fountain, drawing a picture, putting on a video of a cat or a birdfeeder or a waterfall. it's definitely easiest to do this kind of thing if you can actually walk, and harder if you are trapped in the same space for long periods of time. it would be feeding into ableist narratives to say it's equally as hard or as easy. so the way I want people to think of this proposition is this: every reactionary that <em>can</em> walk to a town park and <em>can definitely</em> put on a video of a waterfall but bothers to spend time getting angry about how The Left "is destroying this country" or get absorbed in conspiracy theories about how the only reason capitalism isn't inherently bringing everyone together and preventing wars is it's been infested by Satan (people really say that) has no excuse. disabled people can touch grass... so why can't they?

</li><li class="field_nations" value="618" data-dimension="S">Duginist consciousness-raising / Alexander Dugin consciousness raising effort  ->  the motif of reactionaries trying to act like issues that are mostly only used to support empire or marginalize minorities are <em>terribly sensitive issues</em> that everyone needs to <em>empathize</em> with, because <em>every human individual should</em> and <em>you are a terrible human being if you don't</em>. the example that came to mind was MrEnter going on about 9/11 or how psychologically terrible it is to keep people inside with <b class="caps">Covid</b>, but Dugin's book was full of this same theme.<br />
I'm on the fence as to whether Richard Dawkins did this or not. the way he appropriated feminist language usage was weird and funny, but I feel like it was overall neither good nor bad, and not as bad as any of the things which would qualify for this.

</li><li class="field_nations" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Black people are more racist than White people  ->  only true if you have a highly specific definition of racism that isn't the one people actually use. and quite honestly by that definition there are going to be some churches that are more racist and exclusionary on the pure basis of building Community

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Constitutions stand in the way of creating totalitarianism  ->  yes and no. constitutions are an act of essentializing an ethnic group. this stands in the way of historical materialist analysis of ethnic groups. but in terms of changing a country for the better, it only has the power to treat people with bigotry and grind them into the dust for not being the perfect picture of an ethnic group; it doesn't have the power to diagnose material problems and fix them. is that authoritarian? for some reason many people don't believe it is. the concept of totalitarianism is backwards. any definition of a republic bosses people around and threatens to kick them out of society for not living up to its ideals. Marxism is the system that's honest about that.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Community and totalitarianism are the same thing  ->  most people are not ready for this proposition, but it makes a whole lot more sense than what anyone usually says.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">An Indian tribe is a totalitarian dictatorship if it doesn't have a constitution or elected bureaucrats  ->  few people would say this, yet they make the same error on workers' states after barely even thinking about it.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">The size of businesses has nothing to do with race  ->  everybody believes this, but in the end, a bunch of teeny businesses who have all read {{book|Settlers}} only generate so many tax dollars, and they can only pay so much in reparations.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S">di- intelligent design  ->  intelligent design: the only thing where when you duplex it it doesn't get more accurate and only deceives people more effectively

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="ML, W" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Concepts are not inherently useless just because they are non-Marxist  ->  technically true. very much technically true. sometimes abused such that people never stop and question the foundations of non-Marxist models and simply start saying everyone should essentially teach every anarchist text and function as anarchists just so anarchists will operate together with "Marxists" in protests. at a certain point in that process anarchists simply have control and you don't.

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-remark="reminds me of a related Western-Marxist saying" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Freedom doesn't need to be natural / Freedom can be important even if it doesn't exist in nature / The abstract concept of freedom can be important and useful even if it does not exist in nature outside the context of some particular but unspecified human society  ->  I need to retrieve exactly what text this came from. I think it was one of the basic theorists like Marx, Engels, or Lenin but I do not remember.<br />
here are my thoughts on this: abstract concepts don't have to exist in nature to be useful. but freedom is in entirely another category from something like, say, irrational numbers or [[E:Is topology a threat to Marxism?|topological spaces]]. you can learn tons and tons of math and it could be all of it is only useful to creating a workers' state and bringing people together and none of it is harmful. but if you have the wrong model of freedom it could lead you to destroy society, divide populations from each other, or even start a war. I'm not confident there is <em>no</em> model of freedom which is safe. all I know on that is that everyone in the United States always uses the bad ones, even anarchists use bad ones, and I am really tired of those.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">If free will doesn't exist, what did Trotsky exercise?  ->  in the United States and sometimes in Britain, Trotsky is the prototypical example of why "freedom", "dialogue" or "debate", and "pluralism" are supposedly important, and why supposedly "letting factions turn into a totalitarian state" is bad. I think it's no exaggeration to say he has fully been integrated and appropriated into Liberal-republicanism right next to Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and John Stuart Mill. this makes about as much sense as Christians reading off versions of Jewish scripture copied in by Jewish Christians and appropriated by the Roman Empire — maybe it did at one point in history, but it makes <em>no</em> sense today. the crux of that entire appropriation process lies in the concept of Freedom. Trotsky can be appropriated by right-Liberalism because he supposedly demonstrates what it means to be free, and to exert one's will to become free. and what do we call that? it would seem to be one of the most clear-cut demonstrations of whether "free will" does or doesn't exist. if you do believe Free Will exists, you'll say Trotsky turned away from the Soviet Union because he has Free Will, partly defined as the physical and psychological autonomy from the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. if you don't believe Free Will exists, you'll have a much longer and surely much more interesting account of exactly why Trotsky didn't turn around and reintegrate himself with the only country and political faction that had ever suited him.<br />
I remember some Marxist text saying "freedom can be important even if it doesn't exist in nature". and ever since then I've been doubting that claim, going, okay, but if we assume nature doesn't refer to wolf packs and it refers to things like geological processes, chemical reactions, Newtonian mechanics, and general relativity, isn't it important to know what freedom really is or fails to be as it fails to exist within the whole universe? if we don't answer that question it's super easy to turn freedom around against the world proletariat and use it as a weapon to lead everyone into "[[E:undialectical idealism, historical non-materialism, and class non-analysis|undialectical idealism]]". this is how the Cold War, or the first phase of the forever cold war, was won. the major tactic has been to take these very particular constructs like "freedom" and "community", which are each described with models that are probably wrong, and unite all the bourgeoisie around them and then unite everyone else to the bourgeoisie around Freedom and Community specifically because they want Freedom and Community. the French Revolution didn't just happen once, it's a nasty process that regenerates itself over and over far beyond the point it's harmful.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Creativity is an act of destruction

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Coming together with nonbinary people in Community and sharing Lived Experiences will surely help you know whether you're nonbinary {{YouTube|9iqouPIdBWM}}  ->  I used to believe this but now I have a lot of trouble with it. the way every single person on earth has treated me, and to be fair, the way I've always been an inherently unlikeable loser rather than the kind of perfect person anarchists expect to see so how can they be any other way, every single thing I learn I can only learn in maximum isolation with minimum emotion. every single thing I learn and begin to feel confident in is something I read in a reference book or conclude after a very careful critical attempt to make five contradictory books make sense. so... I certainly am not one to say that any queer identities don't exist — I mean, there are mountains of webpages about them by now and very few of them are incoherent. but there's a problem. I can't be the only person in the world who is disconnected from gender and heteronormativity but just, has nothing at all to do with any LGBT+ "community" nor movement constantly trying to claim it's only a "community" just because it thinks that's inherently legitimate because if people Exist Loudly Enough then [[E:tent of freedom poles|Tent of Freedom Poles]]. none of this weird squishy "community" business has ever worked for me, so the more everyone insists it's the only way to understand anything and keeps gaslighting everyone else about that the more I feel almost a bit disgusted and feel the urge to deconstruct all of it. I am definitely not queer because of any "community". I can only be queer because of [[E:Racial identities form because people are pushed out of one graph and into another graph|undirected graphs and game theory]] and mathematics.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Fan fics should be judged as reviews / Fan fiction should be judged like a book review / Fan fiction should be judged as if it's a book review  ->  the most "brilliant" fan works will be the ones that make true statements about the original series and its writing decisions. the least good ones will not be judged as such on skill as much as on ideas.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Standards function in plurality / There can be no standardization without parallel standards  ->  the XKCD comic about standards is not in line with reality. the real measure of the success of a standard is simply whether the content of every standard lines up and matches to the point the existence of different standards no longer matters.<br />
propositions that strongly imply this could be true: A) cultural relativism, the creation of any particular kind of progress in a countable culture is possible but relative to the needs of that culture B) historical materialism, the concept that there will keep being multiple parallel countries but they all share a palette of developmental processes

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="M3">Is gender identity a cultural phenomenon? / Is transgenderism a cultural phenomenon? (academic phrasing)  ->  while looking for the definition of "transgenderism" I found this phrasing, and. what? [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1468-5922.12356] my issue with this isn't really that you're not allowed to call any and all material parts of a country "culture"; you look at something like the Workers' Party of Korea and they'll be saying "culture" but they actually mean the structure and activities of the population, where the whole population with all its moving parts <em>is</em> a countable culture. instead, I think my issue is that you can't just take parts of an individual and say that's culture because an individual isn't really a countable culture — not truly. things an individual is wholly imagining, like if you have Susie Deltarune standing in the supply closet perceiving a card soldier that is entirely in her mind versus in her hand or in the closet, are culture. but Susie being a Monster or being a girl are not culture. I'd add that this is because I think transgender identity is partly material, but I don't even think that matters at all for this discussion, I think the Susie example nails it pretty well. you have to have this minimum amount of choice (insert Deltarune joke here) in what you are or what identity group you are standing in for something to be culture. you take Trotsky and him identifying as a Trotskyist might fairly be called culture because he chose to be there. but having a gender identity is mostly not chosen, it's only the last bit of uncertainty in what group of people they want to hang around that people have to choose to collapse.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The quantum scale must be smaller than spacetime  ->  this is what seems to be true if you have only special relativity. when you try to construct general relativity and dissect the concept of quantum particles moving and historically interacting to combine into events you see it is {{em|likely}} but not certainly false.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">wishy-washy boneless mediocrities, weedy pallid fence sitters

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">inherently suspicious proposition / I'm not a {{censor|pedophile}} (motif)  ->  this statement is very interesting as a proposition because if anyone says it, they instantly become suspicious. under the rules of formal logic the proposition is probably true, there could be a 95-99.9% chance on it being true. but if anyone says it it is never evaluated literally. it's always evaluated as a signifier, and always taken in context to guess its likely meaning. one of the most likely assumptions is some kind of psychotic person who had a probability of being {{censor|a pedophile}} once and feels constantly judged by everyone on the topic. the mere possibility there is still a contradiction going on in there between being one and not will be enough to scare people off. when particular possibilities exist they're simply too dangerous to not assume to be true. I think this is how racism actually functions these days. it's actually people hating poor people and anarchists rather than an ethnic group. the problem is, how do you persuade people not to hate anarchists when, depending on the anarchism, anarchists are actually raiding retail stores, making sure books and movies are only available unlawfully, and not respecting the concepts of money and labor? it's hard not to descend into a world where people scan for the slightest trace of a signifier of anarchism to immediately oppress.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The CPC made Uyghurs build Chinese mosques - I had a lot of suspicion about whether this claim made any sense. my first thought was, could it be that some Uyghurs opted to build these and others got mad? then today I learned there is another group of muslims called the Hui people who build Chinese-style buildings and I was like, oh.... that makes too much sense. [https://www.thechinaguide.com/blog/chinese-ethnic-groups] this is probably some kind of conflict between separate Muslim ethnic groups conflicting over which one is really Muslim, and accusing each other of siding with the central government to oppress each other. because that's just kind of how religion goes. in Iraq and Afghanistan when invasions destabilized the country they split into religious sects fighting each other and the sects would side with imperial powers to oppress each other. even in the UK religious sects leveraged the monarchy to oppress each other and for Protestants to try to eliminate Catholics from Ireland and take their land. religion just does this, uses any center of power as a fulcrum to eliminate other religions.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Uyghurs should escape to the United states [https://turkistantimes.com/en/news-16697.html] - regardless of how badly they're being oppressed in China that sounds like a terrible idea. the united states is on a terrible downward spiral for human rights, so like.... no, don't move to the United States for human rights, you'll only be disappointed. do people even know how this population treats any and all minorities ever? this is the kind of stuff that biases me against thinking all the claims about Uyghur oppression are actually real, because I'd believe it a lot quicker if the people writing it knew so much about oppression in the united states they were like, oh, wait, we should be recommending against relocating minorities there because it's just as bad as China or at least we have some idea what the exact comparison of magnitude is instead of assuming the US can just magically choose to have no oppression tomorrow. buddy, half the united states has no control over the other half of the united states. you are confiding in the wrong country if you find that possible

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Sociality is not inherently good / People taking care of each other is not inherently good / People forming together for each other's survival and care is not necessarily good  ->  if a group of Tories isn't educated but forms together into a cultural "community" of Tories that all help each other out and manage to create profitable businesses and form family units or churches and survive, can you really make them get educated? you can't. the top argument for education has always been that it helps people survive and helps people form societies, but that doesn't prevent people forming totally bigoted societies that become a problem specifically <em>because</em> people help each other and exhibit pro-social behavior.<br />
let's make it really simple: a group of cats that doesn't understand the benefits of getting along with other cats forms into ShadowClan. it's not like the first arc of {{book|Warriors}}, and the ShadowClan cats help each other out in order to survive. then they casually treat the other clans in awful ways and try to take over their territories. are "society", "community", and so-called "[[E:a crumb of socialism|social-ism]]" inherently good things, or are they instead potentially bad things that [[E:the community delusion|blind everyone]] to [[:Category:Historical materialism ontology (general-sense)|the real way]] pluralities of societies function against each other?

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">State education is Lacanian discipline  ->  this is basically assumed in any non-Marxist theory that thinks having classes about the history of racism will fix everyone's problems. the first question anyone should ask when somebody doesn't believe in historical materialism and calls it "predicting history" is: okay, if history classes aren't about predicting what general things could happen in the future then what is the purpose of teaching history classes? out in the real world, it might take you a while to genuinely get a straight answer. but I feel like what is waiting at the bottom of that conversation is this. people think of all behavior in terms of bad things your father or your sister or your classmates or your teacher [[E:no of The Father|told you not to do]]. accordingly they think all behaviors identified as good or bad can be taught this way, in a kind of rote memorization of what's good and bad. of course, there are deep flaws in this. what if people think speaking Spanish is a bad behavior, or "looking gay"? there is no real distinction between behaviors that are prohibited because they are actually bad and behaviors that are prohibited purely to make people obey some arbitrary cultural standard that everyone was arbitrarily taught, and if somebody is <em>even once</em> scolded for a behavior that isn't actually harmful that person will get deeply upset and start to drift out of society and turn against every group of people that scolded them improperly. and unfortunately, reactionaries are always the people most able to productively apply this finding. every single time you scold a single Tory-leaning White person for something which is ultimately neutral you'll get hundreds of thousands of Tories standing up to you on what you "did" to the Tory subpopulation.<br />
I have always leaned toward the idea that a lot of Tories would be much better at learning historical materialism than they would be at learning "diversity and inclusion" or "anti-racism". if you teach people about whole countries and to portray whole countries correctly as a material process, or to think about subpopulations inside their own country similarly, they'll eventually understand how to give realistic portrayals of people from other populations. if you just pound them over the head with "bad bad bad" for [[E:a regular Arab, not an evil one|every single tiny mistake]] they will have a hard time learning the correct picture that's far far bigger and more complex than any of the individual scoldings. it's like seeing somebody not understand general relativity and scolding them for not being able to give an entire presentation about how the scale of photons leads up to time and why single-variable equations may be bad for modeling the universe "because everybody should know that". especially when there is such a contradiction between nice words like "sensitivity" and "inclusion" and the crude, almost barbaric methods of enforcing them that are not at all based in Lived Experience or empathy and as far as I can tell can't teach them.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">why do you call it a nothingburger??  ->  so, this one YouTube creator from Iraq had been learning English for years and years, but then one day found out about the expression "nothingburger" and totally lost it like this was the funniest thing ever. I can't blame him. "nothingburger" is a genuinely weird expression, and I'd probably feel the same way if I hadn't grown up with it.<br />
the thing a lot of people fail to think about is that this exists for every language. Chinese has weirdly succinct idioms and proverbs, leading to "long time no see". English has "nothingburger".<br />
Last Unicorn effect + languages are always plural = why do you call it a nothingburger??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Historical periods are like decades / Historical periods are collections of arbitrary events in sequence with no particular underlying logic unifying them together   ->  I think this is actually provably false, because it genuinely does not explain things like why multiple countries would have "three kingdoms periods" instead of two kingdoms periods or five kingdoms periods or any other number or not divide at all. everyone knows the Han dynasty is a historical period; nobody would argue with you about that. but if the Han dynasty was just a cluster of decades then why did it break into exactly three warring states at the time it did?<br />
I swear that a Let's Play of {{book|Dynasty Warriors}} or {{book|Nobunaga's Ambition}} disproves Rothenberg's book. the argument really is that bad. really, I feel like if you read enough books within {{book|Warriors}} it shows that this model is wrong, because everyone writing even a fake history book knows that historical periods are not just collections of arbitrary events and instead they contain causality inside them.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The Cretaceous was a historical period / The Cretaceous period is a historical period  ->  this seems like hair-splitting and arguing about words until you look at the implications of it and then you see that whether this proposition is strictly true or not it is very important.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">{{book|Land Before Time}} is not before time / {{book|Land Before Time}} is not prehistoric because there is no such thing as prehistory / {{book|Ice Age}} depicts a historical period / {{book|Ice Age}} depicts a particular biome in a particular geological age inhabited by particular animal populations, therefore regardless of its ecological accuracy it depicts a historical period, either a real one or an imagined one strongly based on real ones / {{book|Land Before Time}} depicts a particular biome in a particular geological age, therefore it depicts a historical period / {{book|Land Before Time}} and {{book|Ice Age}} are technically historical fiction   ->  this is quite easy to argue if you think history is nothing more than a series of events and not something which can be predicted. if that's the case, then why does history have to be about humans? if history is just a series of events, then why can't history be about dinosaurs? you can't argue it's because history has to be written down, because the overall distribution of dinosaur populations across continents and across time is recorded in columns of rock, and palaeontologists read this written history as if it were some kind of hidden, fragmented ancient text. is the Cretaceous period a historical period? is the recent ice age a historical period? if history is nothing more than a bunch of events happening in sequence it's hard to argue they aren't.<br />
of course, if you look at things this way you can immediately see that the historical record in the geological strata is explained by material processes, namely evolutionary processes. it's almost harder to deny general-sense historical materialism than it is to accept it.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">God speaks to everyone / Every single interaction "with God" is an interaction with the same god  ->  this is certainly a more logically coherent way to interpret religion than to call trans people Satan. but to me it still comes across as intellectually dishonest. how do you have any idea this is true?

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">unown's existential crisis - unown thought to be particles of the universe or cells of arceus, but can't comprehend what they're good for as individuals. one of the most accidentally insightful things Pokémon ever said

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Every nation is an ethnic group / An ethnic group is an arrangement of one or more countable groups of people each graphed together around shared social relationships and culture, and every consistent group of people which stays together for a long time will become some kind of ethnic group  ->  this is one of my single biggest problems with anarchism. anarchism finds the concept of ethnic groups yucky, and in order to try to get rid of racism keeps trying to act like it's totally artificial. but most anarchist theory which isn't totally unconvincing is based on tribal societies. and what are tribal societies if not ethnic groups? Black versus White might not be a necessary ethnic grouping, but when you form people into a tribe of anarchists or the Democrat nation that is going to become an ethnic group. Marxists are not afraid of the fact that a revolution or re-forming of a society creates an ethnic group. they just say, here is the Ukrainian SSR and here is the Lithuanian SSR and they are not enemies, and call it a day. anarchists seem to find this almost some kind of inconceivable injustice. it's like they think that all individuals on earth naturally want to form together into bigger populations but they don't want to acknowledge that there is anything that binds particular people together against outside threat or against having to be in a group they don't want to be in, when there totally is. everybody could just not be racist and people would still want to form into specific groups for particular reasons, not to just form together with any group of people at random. this is the basic origin of ethnic groups. that people are fundamentally plural based on having stronger links to some people than other people that divide them into separate graphs. this plurality doesn't prevent forming ethnic groups into larger ethnic groups or forming very large ethnic groups like a huge area of Russians, but you have to acknowledge that it's there. every successful group of people that becomes a country for any significant period of time is basically an ethnic group going by the simplest and most inclusive, non-judgemental definition of what an ethnic group is. for any group of people to have freedom or independence there has to be an ethnic group, and it's the graph connections inside the ethnic group that create a country, not the definition of an area of land or some long line called the national border.<br />
it follows from this claim that smaller groups of people which do not easily form into a larger ethnic group organically will not do well at forming a country, or a "democracy". only correct arrangement of cultures into cultures into cultures actually promotes a healthy ethnic group which in turn promotes a healthy republic.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The proletariat has three scales / There are three scales of the proletariat / There are three scales at which the proletariat is divided: the corporate scale, the scale of countable cultures, and the republican scale<br />
this statement is false if there is a distinct fourth or fifth scale which is fully separate from either of these. for instance, I find religion hard to separate from countable cultures, I think those are the same thing, and I find political factions hard to separate from countable cultures. countable cultures can overlap or contain each other but that alone doesn't mean there is another countable scale. the republican scale is an entire nation-state such as "the United States" or "China". during events like the Trotskyite conspiracy the national scale will be challenged but a full nation-state is not created yet, so it's the countable culture scale.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The proletariat is identical with {{TTS|html=abbr|cultures|cultures|title=countable culture-populations}} / The proletariat is identical with countable cultures (cultures, countable culture-populations; meta-Marxism)  ->  the claim that Marxists have been interpreting what the proletariat is slightly incorrectly, because while many people assume the proletariat merely emerges inside existing populations, the reality hypothesized here is that the proletariat <em>is</em> populations. the proletariat <em>is</em> the state of the people of a population being graphed together into a population, with the plurality and physical gaps between populations being part of the definition of what the proletariat is — or to be more precise, what <em>proletariats are</em>. Liberal-republicans get horrified by Bolshevism because they think that when all the people in a country are graphed together things are going backward, but they don't realize that if you remove the bourgeoisie, people graphed into Lithuania and graphed into Estonia and graphed into Russia is exactly the kind of structure that remains, the 14 separate republics each graphed together into a single population and government are a large part of what the proletariat is; the only thing missing from that definition is the potential for any particular proletariat to split into smaller proletariats at any time for a complicated variety of reasons.<br />
there is a particular reason people haven't discovered this. people want to think of the proletariat as a simple collection of millions of tiny objects called proletarians, when they don't realize that what they're really looking for is the whole group of proletarians being one big object yet one object which does not cover the world. Lenin got this correct, by mobilizing the proletariat with people of different classes and movements to all form a nation-wide movement. this is one example of correctly understanding the proletariat as the overall population of Georgia, etc., when it is in its purest form. what causes huge problems is when individual countries [[E:multicapitalism|break into multiple proletariats]]. practically speaking, they will behave like they are different countries even though there is no mechanism for them to operate as different countries and even if they are horribly scattered so one "country" is mixed into every fifty people of another "country".<br />
anarchists have this very wrong idea that culture-populations are natural (so far so good) but also that culture-populations naturally want to merge together and coexist, and a lack of Freedom is the only thing preventing this. this is wrong. there can be two Iroquois tribes with all the freedom in the world and one day people in one tribe can just start killing people in the other. the tribes don't actually coexist until they solidly form a combined structure capable of regulating them which they are obligated to be part of and can't secede from. the moment two countable cultures don't effectively <em>reciprocally own each other</em> and they gain freedom they have the capacity to kill. you absolutely can't conceptualize colonialism and "bad governments" as a matter of freedom, it just doesn't work that way. the worst thing is that at the republican scale it's sometimes hard to even force populations to reciprocally own each other. sometimes populations are simply big enough and self-sufficient enough they'll tear away from you and out of the reciprocal ownership. so, the ideal scenario is that Ukraine agrees to reciprocal ownership with the Soviet Union, but if Ukraine tears out of its own will to support some reactionary group of people, then people have not naturally merged together and <em>anarchism is false</em>. it doesn't mean anarchism is true. it means something more like that anarchism is false but fascism is true. a group of human beings joined around culture and [[E:poetry (flair)|poetry]] and hope hard enough simply cannot be controlled and will fight you to the death, and at least win its own life if it has strong enough structures and tight enough internal links. this is people's genuine free will, not a corruption of it. so inasmuch as free will exists at all the only good answer is that free will is bad. freedom is one big nothing burger that goes many roads but ends up nowhere, and free will is bad because it is anti-science and anti-reality. free will is Susie sitting in the middle of her decrepit room hallucinating <b class="caps">Image_Friend</b>.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Homelessness is not a proletarian issue / Homelessness is fundamentally an issue created and faced by the bourgeoisie which is only handed down to the proletariat  ->  this is going to deeply confuse and maybe upset some people, until they understand the rather complicated model I'm trying to describe and begin calmly evaluating the whole model as accurate or inaccurate. so, here goes. homelessness results from a low availability of houses. a low availability of houses results directly from people not having the income to pay for houses. you can blame landlords, but you don't have control over their minds or how they behave; the baseline state is that nobody has any power to stop landlords. in the age of capitalism, people can accumulate power over landlords when they have the power to produce an income, and otherwise they lose power quickly. whether people have the power to produce an income largely depends on bad decisions by the bourgeoisie. the bourgeoisie are always making various bad decisions like abolishing corporate departments and laying off hundreds of people, chopping up big businesses into small businesses, opening teeny tiny businesses that will die in a year, making their corporation entirely about a particular circle of White people that won't let in Black people and acting still like whatever a corporation does or does not do is a matter of Freedom, requiring unrealistic amounts of experience for an entry level job, hiring only overqualified people and softly extinguishing the proletariat rather than figuring out how to put everyone to work, and so on, and so forth, not to mention the people who end up pushed out of capitalism by all these bad decisions and are forced to create new tiny businesses and become owners just because the existing corporations wouldn't let them in — these people are a little less bad but they can make plenty of harmful mistakes too. capitalism is so broken now that the whole thing has been slowly dissolving into just the bourgeoisie versus the bourgeoisie. one side of it is the bourgeoisie who make terrible decisions and refuse to analyze and direct populational development with science. one side of it is the bourgeoisie who have been manufactured by these terrible decisions and have little chance of ever becoming workers again unless we fix the overall science and bad decisions crisis. the blue bourgeoisie, and the strawberry bourgeoisie. it isn't really about actual class divisions now. it's about uniting all the strawberry-tinted people and keeping them as tightly connected as possible just so they can survive and stand up to the people who keep them all from surviving, just so the strawberry-tinted people won't watch their teeny businesses crumble or so they can get apartments, just so people can ever have the faintest hope of having a reform movement or a "democratic" anything. homelessness is not a proletarian issue any more, it's just strawberry. it's just strawberry and crimson against blue and brown.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">[[E:NoCharcoalYesPona|Anarchism can be disproven in toki pona]] / It is possible to create a coherent logical proof against anarchism from beginning to end in toki pona, which may not be a fully sound and future-proof scientific hypothesis that wins a medal or anything, yet will be hard enough to argue with that at least a few people will look at it and say it is probably correct, ideally including one anarchist from any version of anarchism who does not need to be from the anarchism being argued against  ->  this one is going to be fun because effectively the proposition pages existing with proper localizations on them can prove it true. proving this statement true doesn't achieve <em>a lot</em>, but it would be really fun. it's like any weird mathematics conjecture. you can take a statement and show it must be technically true regardless of how relevant it is to reality. but depending on how good the foundations of the proof are it could maybe achieve at least a small amount of relevance to reality too.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Education is a conflict of interest  ->  why is it people are so obsessed with reactionaries and "the masses"? here's the real reason. all true facts come out of observations. every person you talk to can provide observations. uneducated people are not required, but are certainly very common; the key isn't that the people you talk to are ridiculously unaware but simply in talking to as many people as possible to get as much information as possible. it is true that a lot of times observations have to be processed to find what is really going on — that's true for galaxy pictures and it's true for people. that said, the more observations you can collect from people of any educational level the easier it will be to sort through all those observations and ultimately come up with good models of society rather than bad ones. good hypotheses and models don't inherently come from going to college and reading a lot of books or doing a lot of practice problems, even if that helps. good models come from real-world data, not from your head. and yet.... we seem to have a serious crisis of people not realizing the simple fact that models come from data and thinking that "education" (improving your own head) inherently leads to discoveries by itself. I feel like in a better world we'd teach every single "progressive" degree and several others about Gödel's incompleteness theorem, maybe you'd even learn it in high school. we'd teach high school students that only observations can actually lead to knowledge, not logic or reasoning. funny enough I think that might knock more people out of religion than something like teaching evolution, just because people would actually realize that things they see when all alone probably aren't real.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Endocolonialism doesn't exist / If colonialism is the process of majority population A inside country C oppressing country D, it cannot exist inside country C, and can only meaningfully exist when population A and country D crash into each other  ->  I said or implied this in early {{book|MDem}} drafts, but after a lot of thinking I don't think it's true. it somewhat depends on how you define this {{censor|damn}} arbitrary linguistic token "colonialism". if you define the string of characters "colonialism" to mean whatever generates exocolonialism, then naturally there is no option for [[Term:endocolonialism|endocolonialism]] to not exist because there have to be material factors that create exocolonialism for it to even happen. we also have to be clear on the messy definition of all things that could potentially be endocolonialism: if populations A and B exist inside country C and population A is absolutely trying to eliminate population B but that "other" racism has no effect on country C expanding into country D and creating a colony over country D, then the oppression of population B is irrelevant to the question of whether endocolonialism "exists". the question of whether endocolonialism exists is the question of whether the process of population A oppressing <em>country D</em> can begin inside country C. logically speaking, even if we get rid of the problem word "colonialism", there are going to be processes inside population A that lead it to expand over country D. what trips people up is that these processes can begin before country A even has any idea country D exists; the processes that generate ultimately oppressing country D have nothing to do with hating country D. simply saying this very credible possibility makes postcolonial theorists <em>furious</em>. they really hate you if you ever suggest that something material unrelated to country D could be generating the oppression of country D. and I think part of why is that they've pinned all their education money and learning-effort on thinking that the endocolonialism process exists as one particular process and they aren't just giving a bad explanation of some totally other process that explains it better. we're at a stage in human history where education itself is creating conflicts of interest and people can no longer be unbiased because their whole education process is creating a financial interest by earning them money or at least taking away a lot of their money. like, <em>even if it turns out they're correct</em> I wouldn't trust them because they will alway be leaving out vital assumptions between the lines.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="M3">Do poachers attack one lion or a population?  ->  one day, my relatives heard about some kind of protest about a poaching or an attack on the environment. I don't remember the details perfectly well right now. the one thing I remember is somebody killed a lion and people were protesting because it could have lived in a reserve or because people shouldn't destroy animal populations and habitats; it was something like that. there have been news items like this for decades, but the remarkable thing here is that my relatives tried to minimize this by turning the improperly-killed lion into an individual. that's just an individual lion, they said, is it more important than a wolf, a fox, or a house cat? but in the end that's something of a logical fallacy. individuals belonging to populations are never just individuals. if you take a Tory and show them a poacher shooting a lion they are "able" to identify the lion as an individual, but if you take the same Tory and show them a Black criminal shooting a White person, suddenly that criminal is part of a population of hundreds of other terrifying people. take them and show them 9/11 and suddenly they can connect every Arab or every Muslim to the whole population of Iraq. they know what populations are precisely at the moment they think populations are threatening to them, and otherwise they have no idea.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Poachers attack populations / Poachers, unaccountable corporate efforts, and national development plans by early republics that destroy the environment attack populations, not individuals / Kimba proposition (proposition that animal populations are loosely similar to human national populations in matters of their survival)  ->  appears in: Kimba the white lion, {{book|MDem}} 4.3/{{TTS|tts=25-O-1|2501}} "Nature-Imperialism". it's important to contrast the two. <cite>Kimba</cite>, because it's an imaginary story, actually gives animals the agency to determine themselves and create their own government as if animals were a Third-World country. the counterpart real-life "Kimba proposition" would simply be that no animal is an individual and every time humans kill an animal they attack a population which they could potentially eradicate; it doesn't directly imply any particular way to counter or combat this.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Most people who think they're anarchists just want to find another country / The easiest way to realize anarchism is moving to another country / The easiest way to realize Zinovievism is moving to another country (Trotskyite conspiracy, anarcho-nihilism, a few closely-related but different ideologies)

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Anything universal applies to the planet / Anything universal applies to the earth as a whole / Something which is universal will apply at a global scale  ->  overlooking this is one of the major errors anarchists make in thinking that "tent of freedom poles" is okay. if "tent of freedom poles" is universal to all people, then it applies in all countries. but if people have individualized freedom extending across all countries, they'll just slide out of one country into another where they are the least inhibited by other people and the most free to do what they want. and before you know it, you have [[Ontology:Q12,102|Taiwanese massage degrees going to Turkey]] so a bunch of Taiwanese capitalists can determine Turkish laws and for all intents and purposes take the land and rule the people that were previously there all because they are free individuals and those other people are treading on their freedom.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Freedom cannot be decolonized / "Equal freedom for all limited by the freedom of others" cannot be decolonized  ->  if you think this isn't the case, just try persuading an anarchist to abandon "tent of freedom poles" and to get them to accept that only creating structures that are mandatory to choose to participate in can actually create freedom. it'll take like a day for them to turn into Trotsky, and not in the good sense. I wish it was in the good sense, can you imagine if just, every time somebody got mad at "the establishment" or "the elites" they permanently turned into Leninists?? can you imagine if all <em>Trotsky's</em> followers permanently turned into Leninists. with how many Noam Chomskys there are in the world you'd almost think Trotskyism would just happen.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The proper division is Marxism-Leninism versus Marxism-Dengism  ->  the claim that some Marxisms go Mao process, Stalin process, and some Marxisms try to go Stalin process, Mao process. in practice, the second kind hasn't worked yet, but we don't totally know it can't.

</li><li class="field_anarchy"  value="618" data-dimension="S2">Japan is a Western nation  ->  very useful for understanding the Axis powers of World War II, even up to United States indifference to nazi scientists and erasure of Japanese empire while eventually becoming best friends with Japan. quickly crumbles when you start looking at anything at scales below the international scale. like, are corporations Western, or is overwork and deeply embedding corporations into society and culture inherently Japanese, meaning that Korea and maybe the United States are also very Japanese places to be? you really can't just call everything culture.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Japan is a First-World country  ->  equally explains the Axis powers and the arc of fascism. equally explains how both Japan and the United States eventually had it. actually explains how the rivalry between United States Republicans and Democrats vaguely mirrors the rivalry between Axis powers and so-called Allies. much better places Japan within the history of its own development and the history of industrial development in all countries.

</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">China is a First World country / China was a First World country in 2025  ->  the claim that China is developed enough to be on par with the United States or Japan, not with Cuba. this has two connotations or implications. one connotation is positive: that learning about Marxism as it applies to the development of China applies to the United States and Japan. one connotation is negative: if China is a First World country then any claim that Deng Xiaoping Thought is a valid Marxism could theoretically be First World countries bending over backward to not accept mainstream Marxism-Leninism. Deng Xiaoping Thought could very literally be a member of the Western-Marxist tradition just because China is now a First World country and is still more or less practicing it.<br />
this is where the model of abandoning "The West versus The East" in favor of "First World countries versus Third World countries" really has an advantage. you don't need to say "Japan is a Western nation" or "China has Westernized" where the axis of capitalist alliances between First World countries is the actual thing uniting them against countries that suffer imperialism rather than "culture".

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S">Mao process / Maoist process / Leninist process (process of assembling workers into a capable movement that can break up a feudal order or capitalism, not the process of creating the Material System of Bolshevism; meta-Marxism)  ->  the motif of a historical process based on assembling workers to break up a system, but which does not inherently include the process of building a new system.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S">Stalin process / Marxist process (process of creating the Material System of Bolshevism, not the process of assembling a revolution)  ->  the motif of a historical process which arranges workers into a new system which is capable of surviving for decades after a revolution. I had to think for a moment about what this should be called. usually I associate the Material System of Bolshevism with Lenin, but if you're trying to distinguish between Marxism and Marxism-Leninism then Lenin is often associated with revolution. after thinking a moment I realized that nobody likes Stalin and nobody likes Stalin almost specifically because Stalin's government actually made people build the Material System of Bolshevism instead of letting everyone flow around like helium atoms. so I think these processes are quite fairly called Stalin processes.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S">Trotsky process  ->  the motif of a hypothetical process where multiple countries join together into a structure of 5-20 countries or so. this process has never existed, but if Marxists ever manage to make it exist then Trotskyists will finally get to put their name on something.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Class is development, not wealth  ->  many Marxists accidentally fall into the wealth-brain trap where petty bourgeoisie are essentially bad because they have wealth, or the ability to buy education and be educated. this isn't what classes are. classes come from the development of enduring structure. a king only exists because a bunch of people are arranged into a kingdom. a count only exists because people are arranged into some kind of town that the count is vital to or into some centrally-drawn county within a feudal order. a capitalist only exists because people are arranged into a corporation. so there are two ways for the capitalist to not exist: the corporation being absorbed into something bigger so the capitalist has no role in creating it, or the whole corporation dissolving and leaving nothing. the corollary of this statement is that if capitalism shatters and a bunch of petty bourgeoisie are created in order for people in a "corporation desert" to survive, it's not specifically a matter of a population being "privileged" or "greedy" or "colonial, full of the colonizer attitude" or "sinful", it's simply a population going backwards in development which needs some way to develop forwards.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="F2">The proletariat and bourgeoisie are diametrically opposed  ->  strictly speaking, this is not always true. for instance, there can be times where both the proletariat and the bourgeoisie have an interest in creating a functioning business structure and making sure it doesn't collapse and leave all the workers unemployed. this is especially true for Director types that are earning significant salaries for actually designing things about the business territory or the individual project to the point of indirectly putting workers into roles or firing workers. let's look at MrEnter trying to create a TV show: he has elaborate plans for practically everything in the TV show, and he only needs to put people into place storyboarding and animating things he has already designed. in terms of having created the project and being the one who will take it to market he should be the capitalist. but he makes a lot of decisions to the point his decisions can affect whether the show succeeds or fails and whether he practically has the money to pay his workers or a simple debt to them. there is a significant problem today, especially as big businesses spontaneously collapse, of a lot of businesses reverting back to a state where the capitalist and the worker are not very differentiated. they're just two peasants bound together both trying very hard to produce something. this makes it hard to apply traditional models of "the capitalist is purely a landlord and the workers can take over"; no, capitalists are sometimes doing just enough real work ordinary people get genuinely confused what a worker is. this isn't just the case in the arts. it's easy for there to be a small restaurant or a small thrift store where the owner still makes a lot of actual day-to-day decisions that could sink or float the workplace itself, and where even lists of union demands across ten tiny thrift stores might not operate fast enough to save it. the union turns into a crude hammer or axe operating on a scalpel-level task — although to be perfectly clear the surgeon is blind. nobody has the ability to both do the task and look at the task at the same time. this has led to a lot of wrong interpretations of unions — that unions are a bunch of [[E:tent of freedom poles|freedom poles]] uniting specifically for freedom, that workers primarily gain the ability to do their job through more and more freedom and not because of any structure or guidance, that if a ring of producing-capitalists strikes it's a gain for workers, that some workers "just don't know what producing-capitalists go through", 

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Workers and capitalists sometimes have the same interests / The proletariat and bourgeoisie occasionally have the same interests  ->  this better covers unusual edge cases like North Korea or China where there can really be a situation where workers and owners have to all stand together against outside countries trying to own their country and take away their right to have a national government, even if outside countries have turned the world into a forever cold war where it's not a thing where you can do it for a short while and then stop. people can also argue over whether workers and owners ever have the same interests just because they both have to organize a Liberal-republican law for Black rights or similar. I'm still not over a contemporary Marxist theorist I will not name saying "workers and owners are diametrically opposed" "you have to detach everyone from the bourgeoisie that run the Democratic Party" and then "we have to build a social-democratic movement, I organize with landlords". one of those statements is wrong. I think it's actually the first one. I think the general concept of creating a large-scale movement <em>of some kind</em> before you try to [[Term:filtration|filter]] it is right. but I think the statement that workers and owners are neatly opposed is wrong. you wouldn't be able to get every single bourgeois assembling-people organizer into your movement and build a "social-democratic party" if they all consciously knew it was against them and that all the workers ultimately just wanted to get rid of them. so the question becomes, is social-democracy nothing more than a useful lie? if it's something more than a useful lie, there have to be solid material reasons for the bourgeoisie to support a nationwide movement where they largely stand to lose something and take on precarity rather than to gain something.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Code is culture / Code is law  ->  "code is law" doesn't capture the problem sufficiently. much code has to actively be interacted with and read by non-programmers, or people who become programmers. whenever anybody else has to interact with code it turns into a chain of signifiers, and turns into communication. the same is also true for user interfaces or any expectations on how a program or operating system is used. huamn beings have an [[E:Able-bodied programmers are assholes|inherent expectation]] that all culture already exists and doesn't require labor to create. this inherent expectation is wrong, as it is very often true that people have to actively create culture with labor and yet can easily make wrong decisions on where to put their labor purely because they do not have enough information about who is going to use it. corporations inherently generate dissatisfaction by having to build things in private, although at some times <em>gigantic</em> corporations inherently generate satisfaction by already having a customer base that they can feasibly learn from; non-accessibility is the [[E:shovel dream|shovel dream]] of people creating things while fragmented into tiny groups, which simply cannot see anything outside them as a practical matter, not a matter of deliberate prejudices. sometimes this has some very nasty consequences: if you truly wish to build something which is inclusive and equally accessible to anyone it may end up rather low-tech and behind the times for quite a long while while you troubleshoot every possible thing that could alienate an individual from participating and only very slowly update everything when it's clear that everyone can use it. some people will become lost specifically by how low-tech and manual-labor the project is. a few of those people might be disabled people who require technology to perform an assistive role, but which wasn't the assistive technology you expected. there is a tradeoff between actively [[E:Nothing should be done unless everybody considers it wonderful|not doing anything if someone wouldn't think it wonderful]] and trying to use good judgement based on a small group's local or individual tastes hoping it will be less alienating than doing nothing because it was designed for at least one real live human, not a mindless deterministic lambda function of [[E:What if you were the variable x?|several unknown people interacting]].

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Your choices created 28 times more empty houses / Ours choices created 28 times more empty houses (hyper-plural phrasing) / We choose [all individuals in the United States choose in parallel] to allow people to be homeless when there are 28 times more empty houses [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOYtS53VGZI]  ->  no, we don't "choose" that, it just happens. 90% of the individuals in the United States could choose that homelessness is bad and [[E:I've been Frantz-Fanon'd|they could all]] get [[E:Frantz Fanon conjecture|Frantz-Fanon'd]] by other parts of society being more effective at out-surviving them and nonviolently crushing and oppressing them. every island of capital is like a wolf pack, with all the individuals connected to a specific capital like the wolves; the bigger the wolf pack is the more easily it overcomes an isolated caribou even if there were millions and millions of scattered caribou but only forty wolves. each mother or father wolf that "greedily" attacks a lone caribou instead of a herd has four other adults and a bunch of pups beside it, and it has them because they all benefit from standing together. you think there will be a hundred caribou and one wolf but the wolves always have cohesion. the bourgeoisie always come with built in cohesion because they need to form a ring of people that all sell products to each other. this is why as corporations keep existing products get more and more expensive — everyone in the ring just goes [[E:dragon process|up and up]] and up at once, while letting all the corporations outside a particular successful ring die. so this is the game now. capitalism is a forever cold war and we only win it when the million caribou actually out-survive the forty wolves. in the brutal imagery of nature, you can imagine that each time a wolf tries to get a caribou it gets stomped, and maybe it dies, so they either learn by instinct to hunt something else or they simply die out physically. what does the metaphor actually mean? I'm not positive on that. I'll say this. Marxism survives when China merely keeps existing and nothing can destroy the most basic first steps of Marxism from the outside. Marxism also potentially survives when a relatively large area of industry emerges which is impossible to break apart, where the people don't forsake building any of it just because somebody gave them an offer to migrate somewhere better, and it fills up with workers. I said once in MDem drafts: once something becomes so big it's a whole population [[E:A revolution strives to become legal|it decides what is legal]], the people surrounding it don't determine what's legal or okay. but I also think that doesn't happen unless the inside of that area is genuinely strong and hard to break up. a statement that "we choose to allow empty houses" doesn't by itself create a population that strong. (I marked this false purely for Idealism, not for not knowing my working model)

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Atomization hastens First World revolution / Atomization breaks up the tight social relationships that would actually cause the supposed "constricting grasp" of ideology within Western Marxist models, making revolution possible again (atomisation; meta-Marxism)  ->  this is a bold one. I have no idea if it's true. but I am very tired of every anarchist and Western-Marxist trying to claim that television or billboards or social media platforms stand between people and taking action. I know that in <em>some way</em> that claim is very misleading. I think one reasonable hypothesis is that what actually happens is people are connected to the wrong people rather than the right people. simply being connected to reactionary relatives and living in a scarcity of jobs where there are no good places to move to and no workers to meet each day has a far greater effect than "phones" could ever have. in this sense you can argue that everybody normalizing breaking social bonds to be "free" or to "find success" tosses people into a world where they interact mostly with capitalism rather than any organic social connections and if their brain is functioning at all they will grow to hate it in less than a decade. the problem is that this only really manufactures theorists, not workers, because the kinds of people who get the most atomized aren't workers to begin with — by meta-Marxist definitions they're either petty bourgeoisie tearing into a multicapitalism which could theoretically one day lead a plural Marxism, or the Refuse class.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Nothing can be legal without defeating the forces that prohibit it  ->  keep in mind, that's over 20 years, not over 5 years. the [[E:Google is half as effective as Communism|light bulb and Google search principle]].

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="Z">Nat Geo Animals: wolf series [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoFbY9vkg4Q]  ->  good info for Beast model. wolves are similar to lions but maybe not at the level of violence lions are at. for wolves there are ups and downs. some of the strong, high-ranking wolves are not aggressive. a few of them are. it's also worth asking: what binds wolves together into a pack of 40 wolves? some of them are born there. others find the open females I guess. they aren't going to be thinking about it deeply. but it's weird to think there are so many of them. I guess one big factor is simply that one wolf has as many as 6 young, so you start with 7 mother wolves and you can end up with 42; a few leads to many of them. it really makes you think though, if you're writing an imaginary story akin to {{book|Warriors}} why would LGBT+ characters be a problem. once the pups are there you need somebody to raise those 6 pups. they won't really care who is there to protect them from being trampled or lead them out of a hunter area.

</li><li class="" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Indonesia was never decolonized / Decolonization is a lie (statement that Indonesia was not freed from global empire) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p53g9uvPBVQ]  ->  one of the few things where I clicked on it thinking it would be something different but was pleasantly surprised. this sounds entirely plausible to me. especially considering how vehemently Indonesia has been against Communism — in principle that is much easier to maintain if there are effectively two combined countries adding up to a population of millions of people weighing down on the country. yeah. people probably lied about to you about Indonesia being freed from the Dutch.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">No substance can be bent beyond its physics / No material object or substance can be bent beyond the overall range of physics it is capable of  ->  this is meant literally in reference to substances like water or helium, but I think it is useful for explaining why society has to be regarded as a material substance that has to be studied for its actual "chemical behavior" rather than as an ocean of ideas that will take whatever ideas you give it. people like Carl Sagan seem to get this totally wrong. Sagan tosses out the notion of "maybe religion makes connected groups of people stronger against the surrounding world" in assembly-theory language but he doesn't stop and really take it seriously in order to see how to operate on the substance of society to redirect people from harmful religions or from Toryism.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The French Revolution is a model for anarchism  ->  true, but backhandedly true. it explains everything that's wrong with anarchism and why anarchism doesn't actually succeed.
</li><li class="field_gramsci" value="618" data-dimension="F2">The French Revolution is a model for Marxism  ->  I wish people would stop saying this
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The French Revolution is a distraction (was a distraction; is unimportant; not important; irrelevant to Marxism; meta-Marxism)  ->  this is a bold one. some swaths of mainstream Marxism-Leninism might not like it. but I really think you can argue that the most important discoveries in Marxism happened in spite of the French Revolution, not because of it. the whole concept of "liberty, equality, fraternity", a.k.a. "tents of freedom poles" has been toxic to future movements for centuries, making them all focus on disregarding classes and building "friendship" and "intersubjectivity" as opposed to working out a [[E:Lattice model|Lattice model]] of how individuals and small groups can actually tell in real time who is their ally, enemy, or neutral and stack up to a coherent population that's capable of doing anything. I think that it's not purely the existence of the bourgeoisie and their effect on ideology that fools people. I think the sheer concept of tents of freedom poles taken on its own level is enough to do it. I think the sheer activity of telling people about the French Revolution and implying tents of freedom poles by itself can lead people to the wrong ideologies and away from the correct ones. this is because "tents of freedom poles" is a [[:Category:Bauplan ontologies|civilizational shape model]]. civilizational shape models exist below the level of abstract concepts, as if they were actual arrangements of classes. center-Liberals never supported the bourgeoisie just because they liked the bourgeoisie, and instead, <em>propagating Existentialism is the new face of supporting the bourgeoisie</em>. Existentialism is what people truly line up behind when they want to shut down the proletariat, not the bourgeoisie themselves, but it has the same effect. that's just it.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Juche-socialism would have been invented if there was no French Revolution  ->  think about this a while. every Third World Marxism popped up because the national population was under strain, not because they heard about the French Revolution. I think Marxism would eventually have been invented inside the Third World without there being <em>any</em> French Revolution. anarchists, Existentialists, and center-Liberals have a totally wrong view of this. they always talk as if the French Revolution led to later instances of Liberal-republicanism, or to anarchism, or to Western-Marxism — is any of this actually true?

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Ideologies block others through environment / Meme "selection" is ideologies shaping environment / Meme theory is wrong because ideologies shape environment / Meme theory is wrong because the action of realizing ideologies decides the survival of other ideologies / Meme theory is wrong because realizing ideologies changes the environment that other ideologies will operate in and environment decides other ideologies' survival  ->  example: as early Maoism realizes, it becomes impossible to realize nationalism because Maoist allies have literally occupied the space and [[E:Lattice model|latticed]] the nationalists out. the same model can apply to right-Liberalism trying to push all progressivism out of an entire empire, or a Filament of White people occupying an institution.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Endocolonialism is physics imperializing the arts / Science proceeding onto the domain of the arts or humanities begets colonialism-generating structures inside the border of a country  ->  the main problem with this one is simply that it is hard to define. what is the proper domain of the humanities in the first place? couldn't it be that people are already misusing the humanities for things they can't actually do? with the sheer amount people use the word "escapism", often negatively, you'd suspect that many people are indeed misusing the arts for purposes they weren't intended for.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Endocolonialism is humanities imperializing physics / The humanities proceeding onto the domain of physics begets colonialism-generating structures inside the border of a country  ->  this one is very easy to argue to the point it will almost certainly poke the beehive of Existentialism and make large swaths of it angry. arguing people should learn about diversity and demographics from art rather than nonfiction world history and anthropology books makes it easy to erase the history of all other countries and teach people racist history. arguing people need to learn art in school makes it easy to teach people only about technical skill and teach them fascist art. arguing that messages of hope are explained by freedom for freedom's sake, and not at the very least [[E:eucatastrophe|by knowledge]] that [[E:History is twelve times as long as Christianity|society and history have and will go on for a long time]], makes it easy to teach everyone that the Confederacy will come back if everyone just believes in freedom enough. art is a terrible defense against Toryism and fascism. Existentialists can't win this.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="MX onto ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Unions are not tents of freedom poles / Unions should not be treated as tents of freedom poles  ->  although these are meta-Marxist concepts I think this is more or less the mainstream Marxist-Leninist position. unions are important because they have the power to join into a large subpopulation that can be filtered and become a [[Term:capable subpopulation|capable subpopulation]]. I often don't define what "capable" is but basically that refers to it being either really really big or being well-organized. people who believe in tents of freedom poles don't really know how to do either, because the tent of freedom poles concept is Idealist rather than Materialist.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Genocide makes marketing art easier / If all the people protesting and posting about anti-racism or Media Representation just died, marketing art would be easier  ->  I am so sick of how completely {{censor|shitty}} things keep happening in society and yet at every moment people just keep Businessing and asking how to Business good like nothing bad is happening, and it's always these teeny tiny businesses that could never employ people to put them into houses or pay for social programs to win the forever cold war. unpopular opinion: corporate slop series like {{book|Warriors}} are good, independent series are bad, because if you work at a corporation you can strike and you can join up with the workers or [[E:polyartisanal production|non-owning substrate]] of other corporations, but if you are independent you have to sell your stuff on gigantic marketplaces like Amazon and let them horrifically abuse all their drivers. a million of you plus Jeff Bezos, if you're independent it's trivial for you to turn into a {{Term:Wasp Swarm}} with the power to crush Liberal democracy and vastly harder to organize anybody to turn into anything less bad.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">"Tent of freedom poles" comes from Filaments / "Tent of freedom poles" is the [[E:shovel dream|shovel dream]] of Filaments  ->  a Filament is an arbitrary group of individuals that when linked together gains the power to push out everyone else. (graph struggle; chunk competition; hegemony politics.) there are a few scenarios where Filaments could be benign, like if you used graph economics to construct molecular Deng Xiaoping Thought, or if you regard all of China or Cuba as a Filament. but there are many scenarios where Filaments are harmful, like Filaments of bigoted people "clogging up institutions". Filaments are the lifeblood of capitalism. it's never actually about individuals. but here's the catch. Filaments delude people into thinking capitalism is safe or "can do good". it has to do with the fallacy of thinking [[E:a crumb of socialism|any group of people being nice to each other is "socialism"]], such that families are socialism and working at Google is socialism.

</li><li class="field_nations" value="618" data-dimension="S2">"Tent of freedom poles" equals fasces / "Tent of freedom poles" equals "tent of arrows and an axe"  ->  Prejudice is a form of freedom + tent of freedom poles. every bigot believes in freedom. every bigot believes in joining up with other bigots and people handing each other "[[E:a crumb of socialism|a crumb of socialism]]" in order to achieve freedom.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Working at Google is socialism  ->  some people's definitions of "socialism" are so bad this would be true.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">"Tent of freedom poles" has ruined media literacy / The "tent of freedom poles" concept has ruined media literacy  ->  heard someone say the reason people have bad media literacy is "we need to teach the humanities". that statement is worth probing deeper. is it really a statement for more education in general, or is it a statement for including more arts graduates next to the science graduates in teaching because balancing the tent poles wrong is bad but people have no real theory on why? could it be that a mistaken framework for how education becomes more complete is the real reason education is becoming incomplete?

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="F2">The only thing you have to do to stop postmodernism is act / The only thing you have to do to stop the postmodern period is act (organize, touch grass; anarchism)  ->  Existentialist video tried to claim that the reason everyone is paralyzed is simply that they "envy others" — there's the [[E:tent of freedom poles|tent of freedom poles]] again — "get lost in information and thought", and "don't act instead of thinking". {{YouTube|V1MuhbTQMSs}} no. lemme repeat a [[E:Q6969|forbidden proposition title]]: [[E:Every ideology has a form of direct action|lynching is a form of direct action]]. every time one group of people acts for one cause another group of people acts for another cause. every time Trunks tries to take action Cell appears first. the problem is that acting is a dark forest, and genuinely requires strategy to successfully pull off before someone else acts. Marxists argue with each other as a substutite for having actual violent conflicts where Stalin's government kills 100,000 Trotskyites, which historically is what happens if they act. a lot of anarchist activity is almost totally secret from the nearly-surface stuff of forming groups and letting anyone know they exist to the actual secret operations. whatever little thing anarchism achieves it largely manages it because a lot of people don't know anarchism even exists and as they go around claiming nobody is an anarchist or a Communist and there is "only" common-sense center-Liberal anti-racism they act as useful idiots <em>in favor of anarchism</em>. then there's Gramscianism, where people hide inside institutions for decades hoping their mere presence pretending to be conservatives but not actually being them will make change. since around 1970 movements in general have turned into this weird intelligence game where the whole goal is to fool people like this video maker that there are no movements when there actually are. I swear, if you can believe me, that even I don't actually know much of anything about anarchist movements. I am just sitting here like, although I only know scraps about the generalized shapes of them, is it dangerous to tell people movements don't not exist, or not? the only way to break out of that is to solve movements so that they can actually defend themselves, and not just for a month or a year, but for decades against the forever cold war.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">rotten prey and starving cats  ->  <cite>Warriors</cite> is so interesting because the simplicity of the society makes it especially easy to make a distinction between a functioning graph of individuals and the arbitrary concept of wealth. for cats to eat there has to be an active graph from warriors to the other cats each day; a pile of stuff will not do. arguably, that is almost exactly how income and wealth actually work. the value of jobs is literally to produce when needed, and for business A to be available when needed by business B. the notion of workers or owners "making wealth" from a business is totally wrong and potentially leads to the destruction of towns and capitalism and even Liberalism. Menshevism doesn't fix it if capitalists successfully deconstruct all the means of production and hoard everything, which there is almost nothing to stop them from doing. the worst part is this. capitalists hoard {{censor|shit}}. somebody builds structures for them to deconstruct and hoard. it isn't the proletariat, it's the Director types. Director types build {{censor|shit}}. they employ people to do the hard work and never to think. but they don't maintain it or own it, they just get together at fancy parties and go "isn't everything wonderful?! we're all friends friendship wonderful tent of freedom poles". they live in the moment and they don't care if anything totally breaks apart. so practically they always let society suddenly fracture into multiple violent societies, sometimes standing by and pretending to be neutral, sometimes joining a side and picking a big capitalist and simply slicing the country down the middle. to overcome all the bourgeoisie, practically speaking, workers have to be able to graph businesses together and predict which store sells to what to the point Directors aren't needed. they have to defeat anarchism, at least in [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology|all its bourgeois forms that seem like 90% of it]], and the whole concept of a tent of freedom poles.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S">a-culture-ism / anarculture (motif; meta-Marxist term)  ->  the motif of people practicing what based on underlying frameworks seems like it should be anarchism, yet which is almost solely aimed at "culture" — any number of words may be used for this such as "ideas", "attitudes", "toxic institutional culture", "oppressive system [of repeated patterns of individual behavior]", "prejudice", "implicit bias", "hierarchy" (with the connotation that it can mean patterns of individual behavior), "Whiteness", "institutionalization" (in reference to large groups of able-bodied people throwing smaller numbers of disabled people in institutions), any number of specific prejudice words such as "homophobia" and "xenophobia", and so forth. "a-culture-ism" appears to develop when anarchists are trying to find ways to break up material structures they consider hierarchical and then they realize that the structures are composed of groups of people bound together with toxic culture, so, applying the Idealist frameworks they don't like to abandon, they start declaring that the first step to forming an anarchist movement is to defeat "culture" and the ideas behind the ideas behind the ideas behind the prejudices behind the ideas in people's heads. it seems like this same concept leaches into Western Marxism just because everyone is actually anarchists or Existentialists before they become Marxists and they never quite figure out how to think entirely like Marxists and stop being anarchists.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">People will always treat each other as items when they need or want items  ->  when it comes to countries, trade is always one of the first things to happen when groups of people don't yet trust each other and are moving toward trusting each other, regardless of whether they still treat each other with bigotry. I think it's similar at the scale of separated individuals or groups of individuals. and I think this is part of how social platforms got so popular: in an age where everyone hates each other a bit as a baseline, the ability to trade posts into a weird bazaar of sayings that people can pick up as if they were products feels safer than anything actually intimate. what's driven me away from ever really wanting to use these things is that even as impersonal as it is it isn't actually safe. people can still start hating you and rejecting you just because you aren't perfect. the separation that is supposed to bring safety doesn't really achieve its own goal, and only seems to drain good things from the experience without getting rid of the bad things.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">East Germany wasn't a tent of freedom poles / East Germany was not an anarchism because it was not composed of millions of identical processes of individuals being free / East Germany was not an anarchism because two people could not [[E:freedom for everybody with the only limit of equal freedom for others|be free and be free separately in parallel but both the same]]  ->  finally. I am finally beginning to understand the "anarchist concept I'd need explained to me 100 times". it still sounds stupid, and I still need 99 explanations. but at last I do understand the known unknown I hadn't explained

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Freedom is only equal across a connected graph / Freedom only applies equally across the same social graph / Freedom can only be applied equally when people are part of the same structure  ->  anarchists are bizarrely down with the concept of individuals magically being free and being free, separately in parallel but both the same, but for some reason they never want to admit that when that actually succeeds a structure is formed. it might be because if they did admit that, they'd have to admit there are reasons for people to form into a workers' state or other "restrictive" arrangements which are formed around survival imperatives.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Liberalism is dictatorship of the Existentialists / Liberal-republicanism is dictatorship of the Existentialist-Structuralists performing a tent of freedom poles, not the whole "bourgeoisie"  ->  this is the thing. if you want to analyze Liberal-republicanism through the lens of a "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie", then the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie actually does appear to prevent billionaires from controlling it and thus it's hard to get people to believe it isn't actively holding back the bourgeoisie. what really tests this is China. China manages to hold back the billionaires with what is effectively a very similar structure to the United States, billionaires actually go to prison when they do something bad, but you need experts to run it which all amount to the petty bourgeoisie. so is China a dictatorship of the proletariat just because it has an intact party-nation of Marxist theorists? arguably, no, it is a Marxist party-nation but a party-nation isn't the same as a successful dictatorship of the proletariat, it's just the first step out of the utter suffering of Liberalism. Menshevism is not a bourgeois reform, literally forming China and giving it the power to violently suppress the bourgeoisie with weapons if truly necessary but it's nearly the same as the United States is the bourgeois reform, and the only reason we don't realize that is that we don't want to admit there are multiple bourgeoisies that utterly hate each other like inhuman carrion piles and so it's truly necessary for people to divide into plural areas of bourgeois control no matter what people want to think. the border of the wolf pack or lion pride is the dangerous part, not the high-ranking adults. that said. here is how I think the order goes: national independence; defeating Liberal-republicanism and creating party-nation; not creating capitalism; creating Bolshevism; dictatorship of the proletariat; age of multi-Bolshevism; hypothetical age of poly-Bolshevism. this is the order of discovering what theories are good theories, whether or not it's the actual order of history.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A / MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">There is more than one anarchism [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281006148_Anarchism_the_State_and_the_Role_of_Education] / Anarchism refers to a plurality of possible systems which all realize in parallel  ->  what I had always suspected based on how anarchists literally detail different solutions with different content. but it's notable how utterly ill-defined and squishy a pro-anarchist writer's description of this will be.
</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A / MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">There is more than one Marxism [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281006148_Anarchism_the_State_and_the_Role_of_Education]  ->  I'm astounded the pro-anarchist writer got this given how not even Trotskyists or some mainstream Marxist-Leninists understand this.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">There can be no recycling without graph economics

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">U.S. antiwar movements have always been Idealist / United States antiwar movements have historically always been Idealist / Marxist Jake believes Leninism is forming a Materialist social-democratic party, filtering it into a party-nation, and somehow filling it with workers. By Jake's definition, no anti-war movement in the United States has ever been a Marxist movement  ->  this really struck me when reading a book that was accidentally about the Vietnam War. the entire framing of the thing for normal people (and by that I do mean the bourgeoisie that represent them) was morality and basically the notion of war being a social construct and a thing that every individual has to choose to drop or sustain some kind of attack. there's not really any Marxism in there; that could quite easily devolve into a nationality of anarchists attacking a nationality of Liberal-republicans just for being part of the wrong nationality and not immediately assimilating into anarchism. and when you think of things this way, that previous antiwar movements in the United States <em>are</em> United States antiwar movements, you start to really see how "the left we have" being "non-Marxist" is a lot more than a color swatch, and in practice means that when United States people practice "revolutionary defeatism" the population is pursuing a totally different transition out of capitalism than what any Marxist strategy looks like assuming it pursues one at all. if you want people to work with "the left we have" you have to get comfortable with the concept of a [[Term:charcoal transition|charcoal transition]] and that you might have to toss every bit of your Marxist theory out the window and learn a big stack of anarchist or [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology|Existentialist]] theory, that the United States might get <em>all the way through transition to a new system</em> before Marxism ever begins to apply.<br />
would I do that? well. I hate it. I have no other choice. I am incapable of doing it practically. that question is one big contradiction. so my answer is, I will analyze every single other ideology through Marxism, but as itself rather than a confused Marxism that explains itself wrong. Trotskyism isn't secretly mainstream Marxism-Leninism, it's Trotskyism. anarchism isn't secretly Bolshevism, it's anarchism. and a Marxist analysis <em>of anarchism</em> is something very different than a Marxist analysis of Marxism pretending to be anarchism. I am a meta-Marxist. if I have to use Marxism to explain how to succeed at totally non-Marxist ideologies that never turn into Marxism then I will. but I won't lie to you that Western Maxism or anarchism "must" be effective just because everyone's doing them and an ideology that's popular "must" be a winning one. I will judge the effectiveness of ideologies based on history. currently it's looking pretty bad for anarchism and bizarrely good for Deng Xiaoping Thought. I have been wracking my brain as to why that latter trend exists, and [[E:The Cold War never ended|I think I half have an answer]]? but the answer only makes the outlook even worse for anarchism. anarchism is going to have to [[E:The Cold War never ended|molecularize]] or it will never win.<br />
this + Undertale = Undertale mirrors U.S. antiwar movements.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The biggest bourgeoisie have a material interest in regenerating the petty bourgeoisie  ->  follows from: petty bourgeoisie and precarity. 1) big bourgeoisie don't want to pay taxes. 2) small bourgeoisie would benefit from it and start telling them to. 3) big bourgeoisie use material power to push tax burden onto small bourgeoisie. 4) small bourgeoisie physically cannot cover tax burden without disappearing, and all turn against taxes. 5) next generation of petty bourgeoisie starts out against taxes. 6) big bourgeoisie wildly encourages regeneration of petty bourgeoisie in order to win elections, and starts using them to generally [[E:Wasp Swarm|shut down resistance]] to any of the overall {{Term:Wasp Swarm}}.<br />
we are like, solidly in the post- social democracy period. the social-democracy period crashed and went up in flames and now we're here. I feel like the only thing that is going to get us out is quite literally basing all political theories on producing the ability to produce — on arranging all the individuals who don't want to live in {{Term:Wasp Swarm}} hell into these almost fortressy civilizations that use the robustness of their businesses or ministries or party structures <em>at the smallest possible scales</em> as a low-temperature national defense to finally win the 1950 to today forever cold war. we simply have to assume Deng Xiaoping was half correct if not necessarily totally correct. we don't have to bash people who can't work but we do have to make them be utterly loyal to the overall town or party-nation structures that can produce as a whole, because in a world where nobody can scrape together taxes or people to organize, producing is surviving and anything you produce is required to <em>make socialism be</em>. there are just some days when I have a "molecular Deng Xiaoping Thought" day. I hate it but I think that's definitely a logically possible Marxism now. can we [[Term:filtration|filter]] [[E:Deng Xiaoping Thought|it]]. can we please filter it so it's actually made of workers and isn't just an amorphous blob of bourgeoisie who are Chinese instead of Japanese. I feel like with the notion of Bauplans and internal structure that becomes possible eventually, if you'd only take slices of China and map them out as structures of connected structures. it may be that molecular Deng Xiaoping Thought kinda goes backwards. although, I did just describe a hypothetical scenario where it went forward from small things. maybe it can go either way.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Light bulbs don't work  ->  somewhat literally what was said at the time, and now we all have them.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The effectiveness of Communism can be measured in how many years it lives / law of fractions (meta-Marxist conjecture)
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Anarchism is one-tenth as effective as Communism  ->  Catalonia lasted 3 years, Bolshevism in the Soviet Union lasted 43 years.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Google is half as effective as Communism / Google search stopped working before Communism did / Google search stopped working before Bolshevism stopped working in the Soviet Union  ->  Bolshevism: approximately 43 years. Google search: 20 years. to be perfectly fair I think a great fraction of things humans invent are "not as effective as Communism" in this sense. Catholic Christianity would be one of the things that was, because it's been around for hundreds of years; you could say the same for Protestant Christianity, and Islam, as much as that will make some people very mad. Liberalism is as effective as Communism because we've had it over 100 years. but the Democratic Party isn't, because it never gets votes over and over and over to where the Republican Party stops existing and it has to divide. that totally did happen with the original Democratic-republican party. which has been around... 233 years?? that doesn't sound right. but if it's true the Democratic Party is pitifully ineffective in comparison. and definitely not as effective as Communism, because it has never made it for 43 years straight.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Pokémon is two-thirds as effective as Communism / Pokémon is half as effective as Communism  ->  follows from "Google was half as effective as Communism". Pokémon has been around 29 years. which is pretty impressive, really. but strictly speaking you can't yet say it works as well as Communism.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Communism and LGBT rights are equally viable / Bolshevism and LGBT+ rights have the same level of workability; either Bolshevism doesn't work and LGBT rights don't work, or Bolshevism works for a while and LGBT rights work for a while but neither is actually complete enough to work fully  ->  I feel like we made the hugest mistake in saying that Bolshevism didn't work just because it failed after approximately 43 years. like, by that standard, you could say a lot of new appliances "don't work" — a particular iPhone has a much worse rate of working versus failing than Bolshevism. with a span of 2003 to [https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/1hxamr7/whats_going_on_with_google_search_and_why_is/ 2023], <em>Google search</em> stopped working before Bolshevism did. but more than that, there was genuinely a period where LGBT movements were working which was maybe.... maybe a full 40 years long, before there came to be a huge backlash that nobody truly knew how to stand up to and the whole thing started crumbling down. this has caused a lot of reactionaries to genuinely think that LGBT movements <em>don't work</em>. but for a while they really were working until they weren't. whether something works is not a binary statement. you basically need a non-binary truth value to capture how well something really works.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Corporations are as effective as Communism / Free-standing businesses are as effective as Communism; they are just as likely to survive and keep functioning and functioning longer than 43 years  ->  literally not true by the law of fractions because a vast number of front-facing businesses don't live 43 years. a Disney is relatively rare, while when one actually forms <em>nobody likes it</em> and everybody tries to exclude it as a form of capitalism. at the moment that capitalism "works" by the standard Bolshevism has to meet people say "that's not capitalism! that's an anomaly!".
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Liberalism is five times as effective as Communism / Liberal-republicanism is as effective as Communism  ->  this you can actually say because Liberal-republicanism, not <em>any particular part of capitalism</em>, has endured for 249 years; Liberal-republicanism is five times as effective as Communism and 83 times as effective as anarchism. the caveat here is, what parts of that are actually robust and what parts of that are short-lived? is it the case that Liberal-republicanism is burning all its people and their ability to survive like sticks of firewood just so 200 representatives get to live a good life and believe that Liberalism makes everyone free and able to debate because they are? I think that's quite arguable.<br />
I think the other thing that deceives people is this: the people at the top of the country who rule it and as a group dictate what ideology everybody has to believe are not the highest-rank people in the country. people will look at a billionaire and then look at a Congressperson and think, well the billionaire isn't the Congressman yet! but the key word is "yet". tent of freedom poles doesn't really do anything to prevent that from happening. if Bezos believes that sharing a tent of freedom poles with a bunch of JD lawyers makes him free, and all the representatives subjectively believe it, suddenly tent of freedom poles fails to make anybody free. the freedom poles are just burning everyone else for firewood.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Dinosaurs became obsolete / Dinosaurs don't work / Dinosaurs were effective for millions of years but then they failed to be effective and disappeared (worked millions of years ago; failed to work; went extinct)  ->  at face value, funny joke. most non-avian dinosaurs went extinct. but what I really like about this statement is how backhandedly true it is. if you think dinosaurs don't work you've failed to realize that birds are dinosaurs. and if you think Communism doesn't work you may have failed to realize that Deng Xiaoping Thought is still a fringe form of Marxism.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Bolshevism is effective in the same sense as dinosaurs  ->  dinosaurs are still very effective, they just look different.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S">burning up citizens like firewood / tent of freedom poles burning everyone else for firewood and believing that everyone is okay because the central tent of poles is okay
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">A faggot is one object / A faggot, which is a bundle of firewood sometimes used as a metaphor, is one object  ->  these are blue because structuralist linguistics and descriptivist linguistics.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">A faggot is multiple objects / A faggot, which is a bundle of firewood sometimes used as a metaphor, is multiple objects
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">together we form a mighty faggot / bundle of twigs or firewood logs as representing many people rather than one  ->  uh... this one is blue because "[[E:South Park making a product is criticism|free speech]]".
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">It's wasteful to burn the whole faggot / It's ineffective to burn the whole faggot (literal or metaphorical statement about a pile of firewood) / A pile of firewood is most useful when you use each log as needed rather than tossing them all onto one big bonfire for some reason; this is to say that "faggots" are a backhandedly true metaphor for minorities because United States empire is most robust and hard to oppose when it gets rid of gay people or other minorities just a few at a time rather than all at once

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="HAS" value="618" data-dimension="S">my favorite bible is The Bible / "what's your favorite bible?" "The Bible"  ->  a quote from one of Matt Dillahunty's shows I still laugh at. it's one of those things where you can really see the gears turning on how people draw category lines. in some contexts it would be perfectly reasonable to put "the Christian bible", "the Muslim quran", and "the Bhagavad Gita" in the same category. in this context it refers to different translations of the Christian bible. but for the caller, the first thing that came to mind was "but, there's only one bible? isn't the Christian bible a singular thing?". not really. it's amazing how often the simple concept of things being [[E:separable multiplicity|plural]] fails to occur to people.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">dead-end business / dead-end businesses versus dead-end employees  ->  many people commonly speak of "dead-end jobs". what if that was totally wrong? what if the real problem is that the businesses are dead-end and aren't properly improving and making towns better, while workers are never at fault for getting tossed into dead-end businesses?

</li><li class="field_nations" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Bleeding workers for social programs is logical / Bleeding workers for social programs is only fair  ->  Tory-leaning claim. the argument goes like this: A) workers need government programs. B) profit makes taxes possible. C) workers make profit possible. D) workers make taxes possible. E) workers created the problem of government programs, then solved the problem of government programs, and now must pay for government programs. F) accidental implication: owners are just landlords while workers create everything in the country to accommodate their own population growth from nothing, yet somehow it is okay for owners to stand around forcing workers into teeny tiny spaces of society being as good as possible at existing just to be allowed to exist at all and not get yelled at for existing while owners don't have to have any survival skills or anything.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">a crumb of socialism / "Can we get a crumb of socialism in our cat fantasy?"<br />
a crumb of socialism + not just another big company = Working at Google is socialism
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Neutrality is undemocratic

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Lacanianism mathematically results in blood feuds / Lacanianism boils down to capitalism and capitalism mathematically results in blood feuds

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">No country should discriminate against religions  ->  case of: "I believe that everybody" statement.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Religious discrimination is an individual choice / All religious discrimination is due to prejudice which sits inside individuals, and could not originate from a scale above the individual  ->  relatively easy to argue this is false, but widely believed.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">All religious discrimination is an individual choice
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The purpose of religion is determining the correct course of history / The purpose of religion is to determine the correct course of history
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Communism should legally be considered a religion

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Normal people are glued to words / The average person is incapable of intuitively understanding any form of ontology which is not language and the use of specific terms instead of other terms  ->  I've come to the conclusion that, for very bad reasons, sense-labels on Items are {{censor|damn}} important. you absolutely won't be able to release this project on everyday people without them quibbling about something like "topic" not being the same thing as "field studies field" and bickering with you until you create a mechanism for each Item or Property to be linguistically labeled exactly for the situation it's being used in. and even there people will bicker about whether the post-language label is actually the right label or [[E:you can't go around calling it BCE!|the Jews chose the wrong label]] versus what the Southern Baptist Christians would have everyone say. when people argue about whether postcolonial language is "postcolonial enough" or whether Marxist framings are [[E:Trotskyism|Leninist enough]] it's ultimately all the same thing with less violence. I know people. I know how totally disgusting people are. and yet these are the humans we have to work with, not imaginary perfect ones.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Greed is an intensity of grabbing  ->  when I didn't know what Idealism was and how to analyze it or describe it I got so mad at this kind of stuff. it would totally drive me up the wall going "how did you even come up with that??". now it's a lot easier to describe. the big problem is, how do you falsify an Idealist statement? do you think [[E:Exploits and Opinions of Dr. Faustroll|dr. faustroll]] would be capable of doing that, or do you think that in that universe all Idealist statements are just true? I have no idea.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Always voting is an extreme position  ->  this concept only hit me while trying to make [[Philosophical Research:The new political compass|The new political compass]]. if, as Lacanians and traditional philosophers love to tell us, extremes are defined by the intensity of a particular definable thing which is totally not a slider of opposites when we've choppified it out of the context of anything else, couldn't there be an extreme of voting too much? greed is an intensity of grabbing things. prejudice is an intensity of not listening to people. Communism is an intensity of having a single united country when countries are supposed to constantly divide and fight themselves and that's supposed to not be oppressive or violent. isolation in a pile of media is an intensity of escapism that we have to "stop" doing, not the total absence of functioning social bonds and interactions. if all that is true, isn't being determined to vote every single time and telling everyone else to vote an intensity of voting which can be just as non-moderate as greed is? isn't everything non-moderate potentially dangerous? how would you know it isn't? does Idealist science even exist?

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">No technology is inherently inclusive / No technology or individual technology-designer individually solves the problem of including human beings  ->  this will be controversial. but in my mind, it's necessary to lay this out to prevent any possible scenario where disabled people exclude and abuse people, and ensure that will be a totally imaginary complaint. disabled people frequently absorb [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology|Existentialist]] arguments — that designing technology to include disabled people is all about "the human", that technologies which did not consider disabled people are "prejudiced", "[[E:Truly random behavior is taken as inconsiderate|inconsiderate]]", or "inhuman", and that people who update programs for no reason are more or less "[[E:Nothing should be done unless everyone considers it wonderful|greedy]]". but if you start from these kinds of propositions, the concept of access exists for utterly any group of people. you could define a concept of access applying to Leon Trotsky in which if he can't fit into the CPSU it isn't acceptable. I am guessing disabled people would probably not prefer to define access this way. but it's hard to stop that hole from tearing open. some people rewrite programs because they are not practically "accessible" to all the people attempting to look at the code, to debug it and such, and thus they feel rewriting the program is more <em>inclusive</em> to all the <em>human beings</em> that would later look at it. this is all because calling code accessible or not accessible is a fallacy. it's always <em>populations of people</em> that are open or closed to people, and the existence of code or technology is totally incidental; code itself has no intentions on how it is designed. to overcome the fallacy you have to realize that the thing that performs accessibility is an institution. you have to basically deliberately create a really consistent group of people that will function As A Community Unit for it to be able to do accessibility. and when you do that, anarchists will show up accusing you of "centralization". anarchism — depending on which one it is of course — is this terrible contradiction. anarchists want to overcome all social oppressions and make everybody behave good. at the same time anarchists hate anything being consistent and cohesive enough that it could be a painted target for anyone to catch a law-breaking anarchist. this contradiction practically results in a bunch of disconnected anarchists with little information about each other who are unable to live up to the standards of anarchism and who perpetuate social oppressions, all because they are scared to have a civilization that has laws and can defend itself from other populations that think it shouldn't exist. this is the Free Software movement in a nutshell: it's anarchism hiding inside capitalism, and it has all the basic logical problems of anarchism.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="Z0">business territory owner / capitalist
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">finance capitalist  ->  this is the archetypical capitalist since about the year 2000.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">Artisan type  ->  this used to be the archetypical capitalist in circa 1770 New York. [https://www.interestingfacts.org/fact/a-brief-history-of-american-mom-and-pop-shops] they're not the archetypical capitalist any more.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Every pioneer is a colonist / Every inventor is a pioneer; every pioneer is a colonist; every colonist is a colonizer (proposition about the relationship between director or professor types and the general historical process of creating empires)  ->  it is painful to me how obvious this is to me just from reading a science-fiction book like {{book|Dragonsdawn|E=Dragonriders of Pern - Dragonsdawn}} and yet how utterly not-obvious this is to anyone who isn't me.<br /> 
the process of creating any civilization historically begins with training a bunch of highly specialized professor types who set up the civilization. after they do that, nobody else necessarily benefits from studying what they studied, but what they created is theoretically available for anyone to use and becomes cheaper. by conventional Liberal-republican wisdom, the same process <em>should</em> apply to everything, with anybody who goes to college being able to discover something new and snag an exclusive Careerist spot as a resident expert, or start a new business. of course, in real life it doesn't quite shake out that way. in real life, capitalism produces so fast thanks to its Third-World workers that culture fills up with available products and nobody even wants or needs any more innovations. people get gaslit that learning stuff will make them likable because people like talent and creativity and education and then they get gaslit again that there's no need for any more art or science if they aren't the next one-in-a-billion international corporation owner that made the stuff everybody around them will be actually using the next morning. so why then does everyone keep saying "college college college, go to college"? because it's ultimately a trick by the bourgeoisie to disguise capitalism. the longer everyone says "college college college", the slower people figure out that the economy has filled up into a very limited number of jobs where the key is not in being good at things but simply in claiming things first and staying in them as long as possible. this is easiest for someone with a huge bank account who does nothing but buy businesses or stocks. a finance capitalist can switch from industry to industry in a heartbeat without spending any money on training, and very easily forgets that all the college-educated people have to spend thousands of US dollars and take years and years to do what they can do in a day or a minute. the concept of education becomes outdated as education inevitably builds up societal structures in which people do not have to learn the things previous pioneers learned. this is good in that in theory jobs will come not to cost as much, although it can be bad in that those with the money and time to commit to education have no advantage over the person who is simply very obedient to the constructs previous educated people created and is willing to work for a low wage, even to the point of serious fault where they go to work for a Tory and fully accept the racist, misogynistic, ableist atmosphere. fifty able-bodied White men full of hatred and willing to work for any wage gain a particular amount of power to absolutely grind five college-educated progressives into the dust. even so, people will keep chanting "education education" like sending all the socially-linked Tories to get an arts degree and somehow bleeding it out of professors' pockets or something will magically fix everything. but in reality all those "education education" people are just falsely and confusedly thinking that they're at the level of elite pioneers who could have started the United States from scratch, they're temporarily embarassed colonizers. they get this wrong impression from the observation that Liberal-republicanism constantly imposes artificial destructive processes which arbitrarily grind up industry and start it over again, ostensibly so that capitalism is "fair" in that new people can enter it and [[E:stale rat bread|Zinovievize]] existing "industrial culture" whenever they get tired of it, but in reality, it's a ruse to make people think cultures are made of endless competition and churn when that can never be the definition of any culture. it's always been that cultures are made of invention, the codification of standards or structures, the falling of profit, and the enjoyment of abundance where applicable. this assumption is baked into the sheer existence of universities. the reason creating professors is valuable is that professors create wealth for society as a whole, not for individuals. even if universities create capitalists, the capitalists also create structure for society at a town- or local-state level rather than for themselves. "[[E:wealth brain|wealth brain]]" destroys humanity's ability to understand society, to understand what it is and how it develops. when you have wealth brain you believe that education is for earning personal wealth and society is nothing more than a bunch of shiny objects and paying, but if that were true, it would quickly become that individuals would destroy the social structures they are supposed to create and become both useless to society having contributed nothing, and incapable of earning wealth because they created no consistent means of production. funny enough that's kind of exactly what's happened. people are going to college thinking wealth wealth wealth (not that it's their fault when they're not allowed to think anything else) and they end up utterly unemployed as all the necessary businesses are full and incapable of creating a business. they're not creating unions because there aren't enough businesses per individual being born for them to work at and if they manage to find a job it's always more advantageous for them to move to either a "prestigious opportunity" or one of the "only" regions with jobs left than to stay and fight for the first one they got. with nothing to fight for it's easy for the bourgeoisie to shove the smallest spark of resistance totally out and make them scramble to create a second rival bourgeoisie just to live. simultaneously businesses periodically fail just because they have trouble lasting forever, taking all their workers down with them. each failure of a capitalist hurts workers and gives an opening to a swath of new petty bourgeoisie that's enough to cause trouble but not enough to provide real relief to the unemployed population. they grow a bit, they enable really gigantic marketplace-owners that will get to keep the money forever, some of them drop away, one gets big and the hole in capitalism plugs back up. a little later another medium-sized business fails and the cycle starts again, or maybe towns just fill up with a bunch of tiny businesses that are constantly opening up and dying and causing confusion for everybody.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S0">global marketplace corporation / global marketplace owner (corporation that owns the substrate of a global marketplace, not the person that in turn owns such a corporation)  ->  a general category applying to very large corporations indexing many smaller sellers. Amazon and eBay are the prototypical examples; anything which is very similar to them in structure can be considered a case of this.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S">gender-neutral patriarchy  ->  the motif of a society liberating women from misogyny but then reverting to powerful individuals who control households regardless of whether they are women. really, really prevalent in the United States. where I've lived, and possibly also in Great Britain where J.K. Rowling lives, it's like feminism got totally replaced by this. nobody believes in feminism any more because they've all become powerful enough to be the oppressors.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">gaslight, gatekeep, girlboss [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SH31FHOu_zw]  ->  the motif of conceptualizing feminism as a matter of individual morality: if feminism causes individual women to become immoral and create [[E:gender-neutral patriarchy|gender-neutral patriarchy]] it has failed, while the implied point of feminism is to make individual people who all exist separately in parallel Freely Decide to treat other men and women better. really quite a strange way to conceptualize what feminism is when you think about it. you can't really explain how a movement happens that way. but it's very very common for people to think this way when discussing the relationship between fiction and real life, or when discussing news events. to think of individuals and individual experiences as a direct model for other separate individuals, but not to think about what happens when it's not materially easy for one individual to spontaneously replicate everything another individual does. I feel like people's underlying biases when they talk about women's rights are directly creating things like having universities only consisting of non-political experts and getting science defunded, or statements that everyone should join up with center-Liberals that don't exist to create social-democratic programs when in reality that just creates a lot of dropouts from the Democrat "movement" and every existing program going away.

</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Seek truth from facts [https://research.moraleconomy.au/index.php?title=Term:實事求是] / Practice is the only criterion for testing the truth / Theory cannot decide what is accurate to reality (what is true; objectively true) / The truth is what the facts are (Aron Ra) ?  ->  I feel like this proposition is already recorded either in the numbering or <cite>MDem</cite> drafts. I don't think it's a unique proposition.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">The United States abolished kings / United States people chose to abolish kings because having a king was a bad idea (mentioned in Dinesh D'Souza's book)  ->  "as you know, the United States doesn't have a king. it's worse than that. we reverted to a warring states period where different populations fight over the country and try to kill each other. but at least we created a republic."<br />
Richard Wolff said this once. but honestly, I think a great illustration is to open up <cite>Guardians of Ga'Hoole</cite> book 1. on one page there is a quote something like: "it's been a while since we've had a king." the book then proceeds to explain that owls have reverted from a kingdom to a warring states period.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">In the U.S., a tiny bit of economism is warranted  ->  this might be controversial. but from 30 years of experience living here, the people of the United States are often joined together only and solely by mathematics. no appeal to shared history, freedom, generosity, or empathy can actually join U.S. people together, although somehow the one thing that can join people together is economic imperatives like a corporation being there tomorrow and everyone having to go to the same corporation to receive a paycheck. people put up with their relatives almost solely because their relatives have money or able bodies while they don't actually like them or feel a bond to them. people join identity politics movements for selfish reasons of protecting themselves as much as for actually helping anyone else, graphed together by the promise of a bunch of people joined together winning rights and an elusive mathematics of graphs and people-blobs which might one day explain it. the whole concept of solidarity as some kind of moral or emotional connection or "the love of humanity" just doesn't really apply in the United States. talking as if employee types even have emotions left and aren't just hollow vessels of depression is almost itself an appeal to the bourgeoisie. the bourgeoisie have all sorts of time for marketing novels and talking about [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition|expression and emotion and Lived Experience]]. but as for any genuine workers that exist — for whatever five minutes they exist until being totally forced off business territories and being forced to start a new teeny precarious business — it's more useful to think of workers as devoid of emotion and being herded around by societal patterns and themselves to the things they "[[E:Anarchy is the most authoritarian thing there is|just have to do today]]" as if with cattle prods. the whole thing is held together with nothing but mathematics, there's no emotion in it. this leads me to feel like to fix it it's perfectly okay to appeal not to anything emotional but instead solely to new mathematics that people can recite as the thing they "just have to do today" equally as dispassionately.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Industrial work does not create wealth / Industrial work does not create wealth for individuals, it creates actively-flowing groups of people who are graphed together exchanging things with each other and who enjoy stability and surplus wealth for social programs only when they are strongly united  ->  at its basics, wealth is the possession of independent survival separate from all other members of society. peasant life generally possesses this unless somebody else claims the land from the peasants. industrial work does not create wealth in the same way, despite everyone's misleading metaphors about "the grasshopper and the ant". industrial work creates <em>stuff</em>: the material components of culture which do not necessarily have much value by themselves but are valuable precisely inasmuch as three corporations constantly producing them can sell them to each other. "stuff" is only meaningful as part of a structured graph arrangement of people, and ceases to be meaningful when the graph arrangements break and nobody will take it. simultaneously capitalists stupidly try to insist that graph arrangements breaking is normal, although to anyone with a brain that is <em>the momentary absence of capitalism</em>, not an actual process inside capitalism. saying that "market corrections" are part of capitalism is like saying that cats frequently dying of kidney failure is a useful and important part of cats; a bug in the system isn't a design.<br />
this question takes on a whole new dimension in light of anarchism. anarchists successfully understand that peasants had wealth more easily, but fail to understand the purpose of corporate products. the social purpose of corporate products is to make it easier to produce something useful without it having to be judged by the harsh immediate demands of survival — to make it possible to spend your time writing poetry or making watercolors of crows like a third of anarchists would love to do, instead of finding that because you're a woman and a mother dad said you had to watch the baby while he works with the cows. having to do work at the level of individual independence and survival has a lot of unintended consequences. independence and "wealth" make it hard to spend your time on children without accidentally resenting them or creating conflicts between the parents, while statistically at least half the population is going to have children. capitalism, at first, [[E:Capitalism dices countries into half a country per person|is just as bad about this]], but eventually makes it possible to chain together a bunch of corporations that are all in effect paying for each other's existence and have just enough productivity left over to provide inexpensive childcare. capitalism creates surplus wealth for a particular chunk of society at a time specifically because undirected graphs of people are all graphed together, vaguely like the way electrons are all graphed together across two atoms in a chemical bond. incidentally this benefit goes away when people allow Liberal-republicanism to [[E:multiple capitalisms in one country|divide people into two populations]] — the two populations don't graph together properly and the wealth doesn't get shared "across the bond" — although Deng Xiaoping Thought funny enough more or less fixes that, leaving China with an intact capitalism and in an objectively better stage of history than the United States.<br />
the big challenge for anarchists, or for Bolshevism, is to master graph economics. you can't even put a bunch of anarchists in a village and know the thing will hold together without knowing what the structures are and the inputs of every structure are in order to determine the other structures' outputs. industrial work does not create wealth. it creates graphs that are doing a verb. the republic is [[Term:republicking|republicking]], the town is towning, the village is villaging. this is the sense in which anarchism is indistinguishable from capitalism. Marxists say this accusation in a negative tone but it doesn't really have to be negative if anarchists simply didn't attack workers' states and stuck to peacefully creating tiny city-states that help workers' states on the off chance they're actually able to. the ideal scenario for anarchists is basically that you have a Soviet Union with 14 big republics and then you have like 300 teeny tiny city-states that are also part of the structure. I don't know how many, maybe it would only be like 20.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Industrial work creates hierarchies  ->  the problem with the concept is in the word "creates". if you stop at "industrial work ... hierarchies", then you've got it basically correct. <em>when</em> there is industrial work <em>it is the case</em> there are spatial hierarchies. but industrial work isn't the thing that creates them. industrial work is a response to them already being there, which attempts to solve them and make them less bad and more tractable. the end of that solving process looks like graphs that have been graphed together into the "shared electron" process of capitalism.<br />
anarchism is so... blockheaded. whenever you try to cover the things said in anarchism it comes out in such simple words I feel almost like I could explain why anarchism is false in toki pona. I would love to do that, just take one or two of these propositions and after it's written make a toki pona translation. the only real problem is I'm not "fluent", I don't have the standard usages and grammars down yet. but I do know in the mean time I can always make an en-x-pona page to later translate the toki pona from. I remember the first time I discovered [https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_English_Wikipedia simple english wikipedia] and not really thinking deeply about how many English learners there are I found it so funny. now even though I see "simple English" as a serious tool with broad application I still think it's fun. I still have a laugh at the notion of a complicated idea being "unrolled" into simple language to the point anyone should find it obvious. I hope someone else has as much fun with the en-x-pona pages as I will.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S">Avenarius was just probing social constructs / By asserting that the only way we can understand reality is through "constellations of perceptual elements", Avenarius and Mach were effectively trying to probe erroneous social constructs, prejudices, and incomplete science  ->  the most charitable reading of Idealism is that it is trying to give us the tools for understanding the difference between ontological models we assemble in our minds versus material reality. if you read it that way, then <em>Idealism can be put to productive use to define what is good science</em>; there are many cases where Idealism simply doesn't work but this is one of the only things it's good for.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S">Science is discovered independent of cultures  ->  the question of whether science is a cultural construct is rather complicated. I feel like to answer it properly you have to separate out "the scientific method" from "an ontological model discovered through science which is now a field of study at a university". when you're talking about the second thing, you can absolutely argue that science is a social construct, specifically because each field of study contains assumptions or hastily accepted hypotheses and could always contain important errors. say that clinical testing is a field of study, but in practice the whole field of clinical testing has almost exclusively tested treatments on men. this would lead clinical testing to be a social construct which contains scientific errors and which would have to be updated through the scientific method into a better construct.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S">A genuine science can be done in ancient Egypt / Any genuine science can be done in ancient Egypt / For any particular philosophical framework to be a field of science, it has to be doable for people in any period of history  ->  imagine there's an Egyptian priest, or people appointed by the pharaoh. for their time they have relatively good means to do anything, and yet for the purposes of this thought experiment they won't reject anything you say just because it isn't advantageous to them to know it; they will interpret every fact you can prove as supporting Egyptian religion or values. you have the floor to convince the pharaoh of the existence of a particular field of science. can you do it? I think using ancient Egypt is a good thought experiment because it doesn't run into problems of tribal populations a really long time ago simply not being able to get the apparatus to test things; the single, sole advantage of class society is that it has wealth. tribal populations today are very different because they can make the journey to industrial centers if they really want to, so the major issue that comes up today is the will or decision-making power of different populations to be able to do things on particular land areas or "impose forms of science". anyway it's less complex to do this with ancient empires or very large populations versus small tribal populations; if you want to do this with tribal populations you use today's indigenous populations rather than the ones that existed a long time ago.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S">A genuine science can be done by a Lakota Sioux  ->  here's the one for things that aren't empires. I read a small amount about the Sioux people so I think they are an appropriate example. it may be appropriate to make several more propositions for different kinds of indigenous populations that aren't comparable and interchangeable for thought experiments. that's fine.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S">For historical materialism to be a science, it has to be doable for people in any period of history  ->  Newtonian physics is a science because the overall set of patterns of Newtonian physics could have been studied in any historical period given the right equipment and ingenuity to design tests. psychology is a science because despite many different models of psychological phenomena throughout the decades and slow refinement, the underlying phenomena are the same in any historical period. historical materialism has a unique challenge that the substrate of people underneath it changes each historical period, creating difficulties for applying the science the same way in all historical periods. in one period you have a wealthy pseudo-landlord doing physics. in another period you have a university Careerist type who is also privileged. in the future there may be more genuine workers in science — if the proletariat is restored at all, of course. a very long time ago you are looking basically at royal appointees and priests. but when the topic of science turns into historical materialism, you have to turn these different groups of people around to study themselves. and that could be challenging, simply to get people to comprehend the idea of a different group of people thinking about something in the future than the group they're in. try thinking about your own death and somebody else consciously observing the world every day in place of you. that always feels a little <em>off</em>; the human mind inherently has trouble comprehending anybody else being conscious instead of itself. I think the same thing is true for plural groups of people existing in the present. a group of White Southern Baptist Christians, no matter how nice they are, will have a little trouble imagining zapping their perception over to India where people in India are conscious instead of them, and vice versa the other direction. this in turn makes it hard to understand the concept of a whole other class subpopulation of people, who manages to exist in the very same country as you and yet isn't you and is consciously perceiving the world instead of you. to someone who has never experienced it, the whole concept of another class probably feels like one of those weird science fiction scenarios like [[E:It's easier to imagine impossible matter fractals than the end of capitalism|discovering your universe is only an atom in another universe and you never knew]]. even a group of workers in the 1930s United States would find it hard to predict the 2020s where the proletariat has been shoved off the area of the country and everyone has been turning into hostile warring factions of bourgeoisie. to be able to comprehend historical processes that might happen in each period you really have to [[E:meta-Marxism|see outside yourself]] and see all the groups of people that exist, all the classes, all the factions consisting of plural [[Term:Social-Philosophical System|class-subpopulations each with a local ideology inside]]. but, if you can do that you're set. you're ready, in any historical period, to comprehend the possible futures that could happen.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Small groups are inherently reactionary / Small groups of people tend to be forced to focus on the immediate survival of the small group over the survival of all outside groups and to end up practicing the Sunny fallacy of only letting people who are willing to perpetuate this competitive struggle into the group, which in the short term leads to anti-government movements against outside groups as an anti-social activity, and may ultimately cause a small village founded by progressives to birth reactionaries over generations  ->  existential materialist hypothesis. the bane of anarchism, Western Marxism, and early Trotskyism; a blessing to Toryism.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S">pronoun pins for Communists  ->  the hypothetical, mostly joking motif of people at a meeting actually wearing swatch colors or ideology "chemical symbols" or some variation on the concept. it could be a badge or one of those name tags that stands up on an office desk, or anything else. even if this existed you wouldn't necessarily need them at any time that isn't specifically people getting together at a meeting where they need to come to an agreement on strategy but you're going to have a clash between totally different frameworks and ultimate goals.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Cosmic history is a straight line / The history of the universe is a single straight line in which time progresses evenly across the whole universe / non-relativity proposition  ->  error made by Henri Bergson and possibly Isaac Newton. science sure makes a whole lot more sense when you actually have later, more current science than it does when you're going off outdated science.

</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The concept of fantasy should turn Freudians into Materialists (The Imaginary; psychoanalysis, Lacanianism)  ->  if ideologies were logical, this is how it would work.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">learning languages to remember other populations are human / learning other languages to remember that other populations even exist  ->  I have to wonder how many countries are stuck doing this. I know it's very relatable to me to have had to learn Japanese to have the only experience I could possibly have of two separate, different groups of people interacting in a benign way instead of necessarily pounded through this particular strainer of racism. it's like if you even watch an anime dub it will expose you to people interpreting the show or the choices of the show writers in xenophobic ways, while only when you watch a show un-dubbed (or read any number of book translations that happen not to have this problem) do you simply experience the show as someone in its origin country would experience it. (the fact that Japan is a now-stationary First-World empire that should basically be the same as Britain and logically shouldn't be subject to such prejudices only makes this whole phenomenon that much worse.) {{censor|god}}. {{censor|shit}}? I struggle to think of an appropriate swearword. after messing with [[E:Would you kill a Russian in order to vote?|the "voting licenses" thought experiment]] I felt a bit like dirt. even though the scenario was by no means framed positively. and I just started burying myself in an introductory Russian language textbook. that was what felt better. if there was another language in existence and I wasn't speaking this one then I wasn't in [[E:Would you kill a Russian in order to vote?|the nightmare scenario]]. it's kind of irrational in the end. if I read a language textbook or comic in another language do I actually know whatsoever how people in another country think and feel? I would like to know. when I read Marxist history texts I feel like I learned a lot more about it than I knew before. but there are always times when I freak out about the concept that the separation between populations of people as material objects is always stronger than anyone's ability to reason or intuit about what other populations are feeling and any attempt to have empathy or think about the problems of other groups of people could potentially offend someone, because you didn't predict the thing that was literally actually in their mind which was the only tone in which it was acceptable to speak about them at all. it makes me afraid regarding the potential for diplomacy between groups of people, how or whether it is even possible in a world where anyone is like this.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S">termite violence / violence reduced to the tiniest cuts rather than to large eruptions of violence (anarchism)  ->  well, this is a memorable phrase. I don't think the concept is sound but I have to admit the word is pretty funny.<br />
on why this isn't sound: people like predictability. people tend to take unpredictability as indistinguishable from rudeness, hostility, or malice — because, to be fair, a lot of actual malice [[E:Vegeta effect|pops up totally unpredictably]]. when big eruptions of violence happen, people are very happy when they stop. when small incidents of violence happen, people can become terrified just because they never know when it stops, and they will look for the nearest pattern they can see to try to find a causal mechanism that can stop it. this means some people will look at "termite violence", see a recurring pattern of "Black people", and start judging all Black people or even retaliating at all Black people with their own "termite violence" just to stop a presumed pattern of "toxic Black culture".

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Education makes greed a paradox / Greed is not a good model because in order for people to not be greedy they all need to have a big pile of education that isn't necessarily materially available to them  ->  note that "information being available" and "education being available" are very different things. misinformation is incredibly cheap. real education is always more expensive. information which contains education has to be checked over by somebody. it has to be compiled based on previous sources that cost someone money, even if it's the library paying. somebody has to pay to publish the education, and somebody has to make calculations of the correct people to sell it to in order to have enough money to print it in the first place. various people inside that supply chain or industrial structure all have to pay to have the training or experience to do all of their roles effectively, and it's an uncertain leap for all those people to decide they can definitely succeed at what they're doing well enough to justify all the spending they'll have to do to get to do the risky thing in the first place. so in this weird way, greed is required to successfully produce enough education to educate people to not be greedy. say capitalist Bob is making all kinds of terrible anti-human decisions about all the businesses underneath him. if he is totally content as he is, he won't think education to become better is "worth paying for" with his money or effort. so in order to just get capitalist Bob who has all the money to change himself the <em>whole rest of the population will have to pay</em> to make that education really easy and basically free to the point it is almost more difficult for him to not bump into it and start reading it out of boredom. if you think of all education in the framing of bibles, every piece of information considered critical to humanity has to be as easy to obtain at a used book store for a few cents as a Christian bible is — go to a book sale, and there are even some of them where just the bibles are free. the astronomical amount of labor from all people in an entire country to make every critical piece of information both that easy to obtain and that easy to fact-check for the crustiest Tory who never uses the internet is what's required to make the model of "greed" or "insensitivity" even make any sense. yes, any person can change their mind. yes, you'll have to work 18 hour days where a whole lot of your effort isn't paid at all and can't be solved by "donating to charity" to make it happen, where the amount of effort required might take away from your children and your recreation and your social relationships which aren't directly to progressive people with some involvement in movements and from your novel-writing and your cat. a lot of anarchists never stop and think about this, how much difficult labor it actually takes to produce a lot of anything, including a lot of easily available quality education, and how much labor they'd have to do just to preserve the principle of freedom and every change in society coming from individual free choice or from supposedly spawning that indirectly through the pressure of "termite violence".

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S">aristocratic science  ->  the motif of wealthy individuals conducting science on private estates before universities or corporate research became common. this wasn't just done with chemistry and astronomy and physics equations. this was also done with chimps and language studies. it was done with basically anything.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S">peasant science  ->  the motif of miscellaneous people who aren't currently workers or owners of any actual productive business getting business income privately working on mathematics or science, etc, just because they have no institution or owner stopping them from doing anything in particular. it's often mathematics. it's hard for a person of this description to get much done in the way of science.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S">wild animals having seven babies  ->  interesting in comparison to the development of industrial societies and how agrarian societies had a lot of babies but urban societies do not. there's vaguely something to be said or something to think about here on the topic of "do anarchists understand that humans [[E:SubjectsEat|eat and occupy space]]?" but I don't necessarily have thoughts on that right now.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S2">A citation is a kind of signifier that points to a generic physical instance of a particular book  ->  the significance of this concept is that every bibliography in the back of a book is only a bunch of "dangling pointers" to a bunch of "memory banks" that only some people have access to while some people don't. this is a reason for putting the generalized cost or method of obtaining in every citation.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S2">A hydrogen bond is not an ionic bond  ->  despite graduating with a science degree I genuinely had to look this up. water managed to really confuse me because I knew the bonds inside an individual molecule were covalent bonds but I looked at the positive end of one water molecule linking to the negative end of other water molecules and I had to ask myself, do I know that's not an ionic bond? they aren't joined together, just like the ions in salt, but salt forms crystals of connected molecules anyway. what's the difference?? it appears the answer is a difference of magnitude. the bonds in water are hydrogen bonds but in some molecules there are stronger hydrogen bonds that start becoming ionic bonds. [https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/cr9411785] that makes things a lot less confusing. maybe I should enter in a [[E:precise order of magnitude|precise order of magnitude]] which is the approximate threshold where hydrogen bonds to ions start being ionic bonds

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Hatred is as bad as murder  ->  bible verse.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Waiting for people to die is hatred / Waiting for people to die is as bad as hatred  ->  there is this really huge contradiction in the way everyone defines prejudices in the United States. normal people believe that every bad thing comes from prejudices. it's bad to be prejudiced. but for some reason it's okay to take the group of everyone who has prejudices and hate it. it's even okay to say things like "when the boomers die out", although logically that should be a prejudiced statement because you don't want them to exist or physically live and you want to squash their inner experience and everything they think and feel. isn't that statement just the act of passively killing them very slowly? I think the bible verse about hatred is truer backward: people dying is the same as hatred, people dying is as bad as hatred. if you frame it that way it's easier to conceptualize what the definition of hatred should actually be. in my mind hatred is when Trotsky exists but you don't like anything about him and you don't want him to exist, and you won't go to the active effort to make it possible for Trotsky to coexist with all the followers of Stalin, actually in real life, actually taking into account the goals and desires of both groups of people and realizing both of them instead of making a compromise that crudely squashes one of them to have the other, like, you have to build a world which realizes Trotskyism to some extent that Trotskyists eventually agree with even though it is limited by the rules of reality, instead of a world which acts to prevent Trotskyism, to the point that Trotskyism and mainstream Marxism-Leninism both exist and they both acknowledge each other as part of each other even though they began with different content and are not the same entity and have to actively get to know a new entity in order to predict and merge with that entity. an odd metaphor when applied to anything else, but it really illustrates what the problem with anything else is: if you want Protestants and Catholics to coexist or White Southern Baptist Christians and Black people to coexist, etc, you need to understand that each countable group of people realizes differently and builds different things and it's the Social-Philosophical-Material content that is realized out of each group of people that brings culture clashes. culture clashes don't come from abstract ideas and attitudes, they come from people realizing clashing material behaviors like Black people are saying slang words like "cook" or whatever it might be and White people actually hate that realized behavior because they prefer another behavior for them to do and everyone to do. a countable group of disabled people realizes the behavior of building ramps and a countable group of able-bodied people wants to realize a different behavior that is most natural in their group. so to get people to stop culture-clashing you actually have to get people to agree on the particular, not the abstract, to actually do and like specific realized behaviors which are not ideas at all but are acts of existing and being in a certain way. if it were true that hatred was an idea, then everyone around the world would immediately love neopronouns and unnecessarily-specific gender labels just because they don't want to be hateful, but that isn't how things work. acceptance and tolerance is always creepily conditioned on how well you can twist and contort normal people to pretend to not be normal and enjoy it as an active way of existing and being and making every daily decision and directing the whole of their Free Will and identity assuming that either of those exist toward the specific end of not being themselves as they were yesterday and being somebody new. it genuinely doesn't make sense to comprehend tolerance through individual freedom, because to truly tolerate someone not just where you're hiding your hatred but at the level where you could become friends is to overwrite and destroy individual identity and freedom, and the only question is whether this is a good thing. I think there's a decent argument to be made that it is, but it is nothing like [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology|Existentialism]] and the way that everybody ever tries to comprehend freedom and The Subject. this is a new philosophy I have no name for. I already named entropicism. maybe I should name this one too. this is, uh... the ego-death philosophy of tolerance and friendship, I don't know how to make that snappy. this is the philosophy where instead of Twilight Sparkle and Rainbow Dash being friends and gelling into a team because they're unique different competing individuals who each separately want freedom, Twilight Sparkle and Rainbow Dash are friends because they agree to become each other in part if never in whole and abandon the parts of them that are harmful to them being friends. under this paradigm, [[E:Starlight Glimmer|Starlight Glimmer]] creates her [[E:Pol Pot|Pol Pot]] village and it's up to the Ponies in it to either become the new culture in part as they become part of the new culture, or leave, and there's nothing heroic about them leaving as individuals versus staying as a group; the village does not have to exist but if it does the success of the village depends on them working together and not being too selfish to be part of society. I wonder how different that show would be if it was written under that ethos. all those weird repetitive "be yourself" plots in the last season would probably be different and maybe even better written. like just imagine if there was an episode where a Pony was getting mocked and bullied in Ponyville or one of the main locations but it was because they were too much of a free individual to stay in Totally Not Eastern Europe; their own greedy individuality [[E:The Soviet diaspora was a second Trail of Tears|left them with nothing and turned them into a minority somewhere else]] constantly getting picked on by others. Starlight: <i>I keep trying to change the future but it always turns out terrible!</i> but then all the futures are just the terrible consequences of destroying workers' states that Celestia's kindgom and the major empires caused.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Anarchism finishes the task that Liberalism started / Liberalism began the task of anarchism / The task of creating Liberal republics contained the first steps in the task of realizing anarchism as a historical process or transition  ->  Bookchin says or implies this in <cite>The Third Revolution</cite>. there may be any number of other places this is said. today I just realized that you can actually create a logical proof that this is false, that isn't a subjective opinion; depending on some models and definitions it is objectively the case that this is false. one way to interpret this proposition is that Liberal-republicanism would never stray from some particular anarchism if only people knew how much of a better idea it was than Liberalism and Bolshevism — that Liberalism was created with values that are basically anarchist values but are incomplete or slightly garbled. another way to interpret it is that Liberalism was never designed to turn into anarchism but the undesigned shape of Liberalism is still ideal for creating anarchism; this interpretation is closer to what Marx says about Marxist transition. the second, Materialist definition of anarchism that anarchists don't usually use is simultaneously stronger and easier to attack. if the shape of Liberalism is ideal for creating anarchism then why does it keep dividing itself as a pattern that repeats across multiple countries into one countable culture of center-Liberalism and one countable nation of abject proto-fascism? that wouldn't seem very designed to create anarchism to me, unless Toryism is secretly just a very hateful anarchism. although if that were true then anarchists would almost have an argument, funny enough. anarchism would definitionally be a trash fire but it would at least be what Liberalism is designed to create.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">No dictator is an island / Every dictator ever identified derives power from having a socially-linked countable culture of people inside the population that carries out the will of the ruler / Every dictator ever identified is only the nominated representative of a localized countable culture of people who all wanted to have a dictator  ->  the claim that every single "dictator" ever identified requires a socially-linked subpopulation of supporters — said another way, a <em>countable culture</em> of supporters connected to the ruler — to actually have power, to the point that every time somebody tries to define a dictator it's always the group of people behind the dictator that is the real dictator. I think it's fairly possible to argue this. definitely in fake cases like Bolshevism supposedly having a dictator it applies, but it also applies in real cases like {{Term:Wasp Swarm}}s and Donald Trump or Ron DeSantis, and Protestants joining up with a Protestant king to squash Catholics. it even applies to the fake case of anarchists and Existentialists turning their backs on Trotsky claiming Trotskyists are a collective dictator that is trying to make them conform to Trotskyism. this seems like a solid model of what causes human beings to label things "dictator" or try to define the concept of a [[E:generalized dictator|generalized dictator]].

</li><li class="field_nations" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Marxism is decadent  ->  wow! sure am having the time of my life analyzing everything through Marxism, putting my feet up and thinking about how every United-States person born today is fucking dead and poised to be massacred by the bourgeoisie for being too "Black" and not strong and White enough to work and everyone gets forced out of work into small businesses or unemployment or another country before anyone can strike and then we regenerate fascism. a real life of luxury. having a fucking beach vacation over here thinking about how to live in limited space limited belongings limited income and limited technology just to survive a world where lots of people have less than me and any risk you take at living remotely modern can suddenly be taken away from you just because you won't be White enough. so what exactly happened to all the stereotypes that all Marxists are Third World peasants being led around by The Pigs and coming home from work to almost-empty stores. those were at least <em>sort of</em> accurate as far as understanding where Marxism comes from. how do you go from that to the conspiracy theory that Gramscians are one hundred copies of Jeffrey Epstein. who even invented the idea that Marxism is decadent and not austere? not Gramsci, not Trotsky, not Malcom X, and not Kim Il-Sung. maybe Kim Il-Sung when those three started having weirdly extravagant banquets. but come on.<br />
is it jsut me or is it literally only Tory types that say the term decadent and everyone else associates it with constantly being vulgarized in things like chocolate ads to describe something as delicious and cannot take that word seriously.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S">meta-education  ->  the motif of learning about the merits and application of various kinds of education, without which it won't be effective or meaningful. education: here is how to write an essay. meta-education: here is the actual reason people write essays toward the function of actually being more able to survive and more able to help others, which if you knew you would be far more able to write essays and articles because you would actually know what you were learning and how to learn it independently through doing it.<br />
education: here is a bunch of stuff Marx said and all the main points in Lenin. meta-education: here is the actual way to apply Leninism in order to survive the absolute hellhole that is First World countries where you might not be able to trust any other individual for anything without them potentially abusing you, and in order to navigate your way through extreme isolation and confusion and lack of meta-education to find ways to survive individually and meet up with the people who need you to over time begin comprehending the operation of the proletariat and movements and how to analyze and fix organizations.<br />
I am convinced now that universities were actually supposed to give us meta-education at one time and now they are totally failing at it and only crudely dishing out contextless education.

</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2"><cite>Class War: The Jacobin Board Game</cite>  ->  rare to see one of these. at the same time something inside me says, eh, I don't think I'd buy it. there are some complex feelings going on in that that would take a while to unpack. I would have to see a demo first. I'd feel less depression in analyzing the demo.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-remark="Marx" value="618" data-dimension="S2">When the proletariat is free there will be no class antagonisms [https://www.desk.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp/download/es_1_Shigeno.pdf]  ->  the more I've come to compare what Marx said with history that has happened between 1900 and 2020 the more I've come to doubt this — that this statement is simply true without missing important information. I think there's a fundamental role played by separate populations such as countries and towns which wasn't well captured by Marx. and I think this is exemplified really clearly and simply by the emergence of early Trotskyism. you look at Trotsky and Zinoviev and their at-most-five-or-so Marxist theorists that started the conspiracy. they just wanted something to belong to, but the Soviet Union didn't really want them, and subtly pushed them out. (they think it wasn't subtle and was so blatant they could outline it like a conspiracy, but that's simply not historically accurate. if anything there was just an undesigned motion of the whole system of people, the central party and ministries and "bureaucrats" and so forth, slowly nudging them out as they didn't fit in and didn't understand it.) Trotsky's accounts of the Russian revolution are, a bit amusingly, often personal stories centered on him, but there is something specific that sifts out of that. the notion that some people are Marxist theorists but the only thing that strongly connects them to anything is a shared bond to a countable culture. you toss Trotsky out of this utterly miraculous bond made of little more than friendship that should never have been able to happen from the point of view of basic Marxist theory and he's going to be pretty mad. the act of tossing out theorists can cause a population to start slowly dividing as if it were some kind of biological cell sorting all the chromosomes into one side and the other side. I think there was a little bit of intellectual dishonesty in the Soviet Union where they did not want to acknowledge the possibility that even if the country would not naturally divide by regenerating the bourgeoisie your local theorists are the glue holding the country together and the whole thing could crack into multiple countries starting from the top. now, it's not like Trotsky was the keystone and if you get rid of him the whole thing comes crumbling down, but it is like the structure could break anywhere but because Trotsky is one of the weakest links ready to snap it all started there. you listen to these dumb capitalist-aligned sources talk about the Soviet Union and they say things like, the ministries and local party-nations were so bloated, having a level of state businesses is too much government, I couldn't stand having soviets in my town!! and basically none of that truly makes any sense. but when you take a perspective more from inside the country you see there were weaknesses most people don't really talk about. countries themselves are fragile in their own way; sometimes it's the simple notion we can make 300 million [[E:Subjects eat and occupy space|eating space-occupying organisms]] coexist instead of fight each other that's arrogant. and so Liberal-republicans will go thinking that sending 200 hostile representatives to compete against each other won't go badly and won't eventually devolve into blood feuds between sections of Alabama. party-nations are a lot less bad, being made on the basis of cooperation to start with. but sometimes there can still be cracks in them that threaten to tear an otherwise united population apart. there hasn't been enough thought in Marxism about the concept that every population is a material object, just as much as a block of ice is a unique material object and it would be a different collection of material objects if you broke it in two. there's been this consistent motif throughout what seems like all Marxism that for any given collection of people the only thing dividing the proletariat is it being stuck under the bourgeoisie and the simple need for everyone to get out of there will unite everyone permanently. but I honestly doubt it's that simple. how can it be that Trotskyists believe this, and early Marxists believe this, and Stalin believes this, but Trotsky and Stalin can get into a fight about how to free everybody around the world and unify everybody around the world? that shouldn't be possible. unless the content of what they are each trying to do is different even when Trotskyists do become Leninists, <em>or</em> there is something fundamental about two groups currently being separate objects that makes them compete and fight until they are literally one object that physically cannot fight itself any more. the latter one scares me a bit so I tend to focus on the first one hoping that one could be true. the notion that we only need to fix the content of our Marxisms and make them interlock together from the inside is a nice idea. I'm not absolutely certain it's true or the most important thing but it does give me a starting point that's not depressing.

</li><li class="field_gramsci" value="618" data-dimension="Z"><cite lang="ja">現代日本の階級と社会意識</cite> (1982) / classes in modern Japan and society's consciousness (1982)  ->  I don't know if this is a good article but I do know it's not every day I find an abstract about Japan in Japanese. (Western Marxism is only a guess but it talked about class consciousness a weird amount compared to the way Lenin and Luxemburg's writings are all about material objects and historical events.)

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S">Wikis don't actually make information available / Wikis don't actually make information more available  ->  because they don't make the products people have to check to "really have sources" affordable. this may make you ask: then why does this one exist? because this is a wiki for original research. the exact thing that's not allowed on Wikipedia. it's nothing like a "source" in the traditional sense of a closed book which is authoritative. it's a laboratory full of conjectures and hypotheses and thoughts which may be dubious at first but which will all ultimately be tested... and the testing will produce "real sources" such as the <cite>MDem</cite> text, or any other texts people end up drafting on [[:Category:Thesis portals|thesis portals]]. field: graph economics.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S"><b class="caps">Soap</b> method  ->  this is a method for structuring Christian bible study. unironically? Christians do come up with great ideas sometimes. I feel like this would be a lot of fun to do to deconstruct bible verses and get completely secular lessons out of miscellaneous texts. scripture: love your neighbor. observation: this is supposed to prevent wars but it never does. hope: Christians learn to love the Soviet Union and decide the Cold War was not Christian. application: be wary of Christians trying to unify everybody against the proletariat.<br /> scripture: Stalin let the country fill up with bureaucrats. observation: you yourself admit he didn't, so why pin the blame on things that happened later than the cause? apex: Trotskyists realize that not having impossible standards leads to harmony. practice: try to nudge Trotskyists toward the concept of direct involvement in things they couldn't do because the bureaucrats did it better. worst case they realize they screwed up and finally drop it. best case they actually start investigating the on-the-ground "[[E:graph economics|Beast]]" structure of countries and understanding it.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Being Russian has no political character / Being Chinese has no political character  ->  variations of this statement are always said inside First-World countries but never actually applied to other countries sharing the same world with them. practically speaking, whenever anybody inside the First World talks about China it will usually be with contempt that Chinese people even get to have a republic and aren't somehow a United States colony.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="M3">If people in local-states can live in harmony in Germany, why was there colonialism?  ->  the error here is that people weren't actually living in harmony in Europe. European countries far smaller than the U.S. fought each other in World War I. prior to the United States England was breaking into Protestant and Catholic nations failing to live in harmony. so populations not living in harmony and trying to kill or conquer each other started well before colonies were created on new continents. worse, that isn't the hopeful thing some postcolonial theories want to make it into where all feudalism equals colonialism and <em>therefore</em> anarchism can surely fix it. like, if anarchism was really that easy it would have been discovered in the year 1,000 and we'd be already reading about the wars between Protestants and anarchists in history books. now that <em>does</em> sound like a severely interesting history book but it sadly doesn't exist.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Liberalism is postcolonial relative to medieval empires  ->  I would say this is true, although there's a huge drawback as well as a gain. medieval empires ordered countable populations into single populations. there were costs to that. but at the same time, the creation of Liberal-republicanism, "freedom", and "democracy" came at the cost of allowing any two groups of people to "postcolonialize" each other and tear out from under each other's government if they are willing or eager to risk going to war and killing each other's people. anarchists and Liberal-republicans who have coopted anarchism to bash China seem totally unaware of this tradeoff.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Graph economics appeals to Trotskyists / It's easier to pitch graph economics to Trotskyists  ->  seems logically true but I don't know if it's really true. might also be true for middle-of-the road Maoists that aren't against Deng Xiaoping Thought / "revolutionary Dengists".

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Any time someone stops a mining project it can be taken to the Third World  ->  makes the ethics of mining complicated. is it important to actually create mines in the United States if it was known they could prevent a Third World mine?

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Every novel is a thought experiment / Every work of fiction is a thought experiment / Fiction is to nonfiction as pictures are to words  ->  relatively self evident. I think even Existentialists would very nearly agree with this, the only gap being that they would insist that fictional narratives are thought experiments about individual lives rather than about societies.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Cuba can't succeed in isolation; Cuba building a Deng process which in other cases is typically used to create links to other countries is bad; these two statements are contradictory  ->  maybe this point is clearer with China or Vietnam, but the Deng process is kind of the same phenomenon in all cases. it's the act of building up industry and the bourgeoisie specifically as a national defense against global empire and Liberal-republican prejudices against "dictatorial" Third-World countries.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="9990" data-dimension="S2">Wikipedia is a walled garden  ->  one of the bits of absolute stupidity you hear out of anarchists that don't understand the <i>set versus atom distinction</i>. I won't be nice about this because it prevents any of the things which would actually be able to stop capitalism by realizing anarchism. if you want to be an anarchist then you have to believe in anarchist transition methods that work. I'm not sorry, this is just stupid.
</li><li class="field_mdem"    value="9991" data-dimension="S2">Everything decentralized is itself centralized  ->  one of my biggest beefs with most anarchist projects on the internet. from everything I've seen it seems like a lot of anarchists are incredibly bad at set theory. a lot of them really don't understand the problem of distinguishing a set from an atomic data structure, or the notion that what they were really fighting is atomic data structures and when you are talking about human beings atomic elements are inevitable — worse yet, the more you break things up the more inevitably you have to deal with highly-specific graph nodes or points in space people absolutely have to use and their failure rates.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">U.S. people compete over the means of citizenship

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Wizards are the devil / Wizards are The Opposer  ->  applies to D&D, Harry Potter
</li><li class="field_fantasy"  value="618" data-dimension="S2">Wizards can be anything
</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S2">An equation is an algebraic process  ->  so it's called algebra because an equation contains objects and operations? is that it. marking this one F2 would be embarrassing, though it would be perfectly acceptable to do something like that
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="Z">The Middle Way
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="Z">Dusk of Dawn
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="Z">The Dragon Rider Who Saved the World
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">affective place identity [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0743016721000036]

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S">the three sisters  ->  agricultural technique in which three specific plants can wind together, although they are not just any plants
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="618" data-dimension="Z">Trofim Lysenko  ->  his swatch is orange because he was culturally aligned with Communism but not well-versed in what is considered science today, mirroring the way Trotsky treated Marxism.
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Any plants can intertwine together  ->  the three sisters + Lysenko = this.
</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Lysenko isn't what people thought
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Lysenko made a serious error  ->  the two are not mutually exclusive.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Lysenko is the Mengele of plants  ->  not really true. he was just wrong. ......hang on. if it is so bad for Lysenko to try to design the world of agriculture then why is everybody an Idealist that believes ideas can change the United States in any direction people think of. those two things should be [[E:I believe that everybody statement|the exact same kind of process]]. culture is solely made up + mainstream Marxist-Leninist error / Marxist error = this

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Psychoanalysis makes freedom imperial / Psychoanalysis turns freedom colonial  ->  I don't think this is actually controversial in anarchism, depending on which anarchism you ask. so this one can be charcoal.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Anyone offended at Stalin is contributing to Whiteness / People who are offended by Stalin might be contributing to Whiteness  ->  is this what it takes to wake people up. it's like. Gramscianism and anarchism have been going on and on about this thing called "Whiteness" but they keep defining it in Idealist terms to where although they claim you are supposed to "get rid of it" basically you can take Whiteness and dust it off and make it all new then it would be just fine. but I think that concept is practically tested the moment you mention any of a particular category of things including Stalin. anyone who gets instantly offended at Stalin and wouldn't consider for a second that he could be protecting his population from First-World empire and Whiteness might in fact be a part of Whiteness. even a big long appropriated Marxist text about racism won't necessarily change that people get recruited to racism <em>through</em> cover stories which have been selected by people who are already racist every moment of every day and every moment they are conscious who carefully pick things that don't look like racism and which aren't connected directly to the racist history and choices and culture behind picking them but instead are consequences of racism that can be written off as "not really" racism <i>per se</i>.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Gravity accelerates everything at the same rate  ->  part of general relativity

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="M3">How do scientists predict large-scale patterns when they don't know any of the smaller things inside?  ->  like how did Einstein know that things contort moving near the speed of light and gain mass if we don't know what gravity is. I think sometimes one of the answers is that these things are simple observations instead of predictions.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="M3">How do you know what action goes on which slider?

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="618" data-dimension="S2">God leadeth the righteous and the wicked he destroyeth (1 Nephi 17:36) / TheWickedHeDestroyeth  ->  when religions are transparent about the purpose of religion

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="DG" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Dialectical systems are also machines / Calling dialectical systems machines makes them appealing / People will drop mechanical materialism if we only redefine machines to also mean organic and evolving systems  ->  a weird bit of hidden logic inside schizoanalysis which is worth stopping and examining.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">All people have hopes and dreams / We all have hopes and dreams (all human individuals separately in parallel)  ->  why did the video that brought this up have to pull an Ultraman {{TTS|Geed|Jeed}}. and just. "even if you're a boring office worker you're hoping for something just by going to work". are you? or are you preserving empire and leaving ten other Japanese people in their basements? the problem with statements like this is always the weasel word "we".

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Economics is based on scarce houses / Liberal-republican economics is based on scarce houses  ->  quite honestly? I think this gets marked false for the wrong reasons. I think what really happens is economics is based on scarce gold bars or scarce production-acts while the number of houses is separate and irrelevant to what scarcity even practically is and has been. products aren't even scarce, partly because people will swap out non-fungible things for each other in a way that is hard to measure. people will use old things. people will use one thing for the other thing. in the early United States people could just claim land and it wasn't scarce yet. even now, the United States has a great land area. so scarcity of land was created by giving plots of land "brains" and letting them say no. The Subject caused land to be available exactly when it wants to form a graph connection. suddenly it started to become that every product within supply chains was synonymous with arrangements of people and the availability of people-graphs — with these diminishing pyramids of how much choice people actually have in being part of a people-graph. that's the really dumb thing about the cybernetics research group — if capitalism were actually about "time" or decision-making, then you wouldn't be able to stop it because it would have taken up all your Free Will and decision-making ability before you could even think about stopping it and build a cybernetics research group. Free Will and the ability to affect history are incidental to capitalism, which is why people can resist it no matter how much it takes away people's "time" and "control".

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">narrative about prejudice / narrative attempting to portray prejudice
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">narrative attempting to portray subpopulational prejudice
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">narrative attempting to portray national prejudice
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">narrative attempting to portray multi-nation-axis prejudice / narrative attempting to portray Global North versus Global South prejudice  ->  a multi-nation axis or international Filament effect is a collection of aligned nations that beat up other nations they believe to be threatening the multi-nation axis, such as the three First-World fascisms of World War II, or the allied powers into the Cold War.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="M3">What does democracy govern?

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">dragons resisting kingdom

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="618" data-dimension="S">medieval revolution as Trotskyite conspiracy  ->  there is this weird motif in fiction that like, all resistance against governments that people don't fit into is exactly the same regardless of historical period, regardless of anything. it gets really telling when real memoirs based on anecdotes of defectors from workers' states sound just like made up medieval stories of resistance with little difference.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="618" data-dimension="S">Che ran the bank / Che Guevara ran the bank  ->  implication that workers' states don't hire by experience when in reality they do. now, is this a good thing or a bad thing? that's often not clear. we know "meritocracy" is a dumb concept because it's the opposite of democracy; kingdoms were meritocratic, the Chinese empire was meritocratic, a "Pig state" is meritocratic. but how do you actually apply that to create a sensible workers' state?

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="618" data-dimension="S">I confess to awesome feats / I confess but my crime was awesome / We did it! (celebratory remark deliberately phrased as confession)  ->  Zinoviev. probably also a common motif in fiction, yet one which usually has a totally different framing of generally being bad. fiction is surprisingly reactionary sometimes just by virtue of believing in general-sense psychoanalysis / natural crimes.

</li><li class="field_gramsci" value="618" data-dimension="S2">You will never get in trouble for having literature that looks anticommunist  ->  this is why I spend so much time analyzing capitalist books, and anticommunist memoirs. so it becomes impossible to tell who's a Communist just based on what books they have.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S">mathematical singularity
</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S">Any static model can have a singularity
</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S">Singularities represent the ends of a system / Singularities generally represent a particular system of parts ceasing to exist, even if only in terms of a spatial boundary
</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S2">An AI singularity graph could level off / A graph containing an AI singularity could instead level off

</li><li class="field_geo"  value="618" data-dimension="S">digital-only product
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Any product that must be bought new is not abundant
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Any used product is somewhat abundant / Any product that that can be bought used is abundant / Any product that that can be bought used is at some level of abundance
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Any change to car production takes decades to affect roads  ->  as long as everyone has to buy a vehicle people that practically people can barely afford, people will keep buying used cars and it will take some 10-15 years for people to actually start using electric cars.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Any change to book production takes years to affect books  ->  recently there was a controversy about how utterly badly <cite>Warriors</cite> treated disabled characters. fans did their small part to try to make it "obvious" that the book should be revised. the publisher did not do anything. but the worst thing is that in general, people who want to read the greatest amount of books get used books. many library books are actually used books rather than new books. thrift stores are full of used books; the more people are born and the more suburbs are created, the more it will be that used book stores are closer and more effective to go to than new book stores. any serious plan involving the future has to think seriously about the fact that people are going to be reading old books and books cannot be changed. the only realistic strategy is to encourage people to read bad books anyway and teach them what information in books is wrong. a simple used book store obsoletes the postmodern proposition basically. really, used bookstores obsolete all "empirio-critical" or positivist philosophies.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-remark="Lenin" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Used book stores destroy positivism / Understanding old books and not falling for misinformation requires looking beyond one's immediate experience and perceiving the world through models

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">For the United States to have state businesses the Democratic Party would have to own them  ->  one possible conclusion of realizing that countries contain plural subpopulations. people who want to side with the constant separation and churn of businesses will always group into the Republican Party or Libertarian party, etc. because no individual in the United States is actually apolitical or nonpartisan, the total space to work with <em>for transitioning the country</em> is basically the Democratic party or any new progressive electoral party that would pop up; whenever people are so much as Christians who tend to clump together with Christians against gay people they won't be receptive to creating a workers' state, such that although the Democratic Party is unusable it also paradoxically contains the only people who are usable. the bourgeois parties are actual national divisions of the country akin to the 14 union republics of the Soviet Union. but each of those developed a central party-nation and state businesses. hence this claim.
</li><li class="field_gramsci" value="618" data-dimension="S2">To maintain anti-discrimination laws the Democratic Party must own businesses  ->  derived Gramscian proposition. in the United States, one of the chief reasons for anyone to be a progressive at all (red, charcoal, blue, of any color) is just to push for anti-discrimination laws in businesses and hope that will make them not be bigoted (it won't, but still, everyone is really convinced it will). what this really amounts to is wanting a "business constitution" that all businesses have to follow the same way all local-states in the United States have to follow the U.S. Constitution. to practically secure a business constitution what you'd have to do is hand all the businesses that are going to follow it to the Democratic Party as state businesses, so that whether it owns them monetarily it will own them geographically. under some arrangement like that it would actually be possible to make businesses follow a business constitution, because if they refuse to follow it it would be possible to kick them out of the structure and hand them over to the Republican Party.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Totalitarianism either exists for all ideologies or none / Totalitarianism either exists for all republican ideologies or no republican ideologies / Center-Liberal neutrality can be extreme / There can be too much center-Liberal republicanism / If totalitarianism is real, it is possible for there to be center-Liberal totalitarianism (although if it is not real, there is not)  ->  the whole bogus concept of the "center-Liberal middle way" is flat-out false when you think about it enough and when you observe real-life events. if everything is defined by the existence of extremes (and moderation), then the mere realization of ideologies from nothing is defined by extremes, and the realization of ideologies starting at one person and colliding with another person of a different ideology is defined by extremes. the thing that really made this obvious for me was thinking about microdistricts and how to some people microdistricts are oppressive. if you think that way, then you think Freedom is the ability for any individual to grow as a separate organism and expand in any direction regardless of the consequences to other people. when millions of people take this position it typically creates Liberalism. but every ideology realizes. every ideology realizes specifically <em>itself</em> as a countable concept, and realizes more of itself the more it exists. if Liberal-republicanism exists and exists and exists and squashes everything that's not Liberal-republicanism under the guise of Freedom, it doesn't stop growing, and it just keeps realizing more and more Liberalism on top of Liberalism, vertically, going from just a little Liberalism to Liberalism Liberalism Liberalism Liberalism in stacks and stacks and stacks. effectively, the longer Liberalism goes, the more it seeks to control people and <em>make</em> them do what Liberalism wants them to do, extending down into individual lives and the fine tiny-scale structure of the country and getting really really specific about what every little bit of it has to be. and when a republic gets ridiculously specific, what is the difference between that and people's popular conception of "totalitarianism"? you might be able to claim the same for Bolshevism, but that doesn't allow you to deny the possibility that Liberalism does it and when Liberalism does it that is unacceptable. the only way you can get out of that contradiction, that Liberalism should be unacceptable under Liberalism, is to conclude that totalitarianism doesn't exist and what you were actually complaining about is simply that you don't like Bolshevism or rightfully don't like European fascism. because when you have Bolshevism you just get more and more Bolshevism with more and more fine details, because that's the content of Bolshevism. it really seems that the exact same thing is true of Liberalism. that we all keep realizing more and more Liberalism than there was before because for some reason everybody <em>wants</em> the population to develop and develop into Liberalism so they all continuously realize Liberalism and enforce everyone turning into the bourgeoisie. (I believe this is because inside it all people are actually participating in and regenerating [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology|Existentialism]] and getting Liberalism as an emergent effect.)

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">If attacking religion is bad, then attacking people's faith in Donald Trump is also bad  ->  what becomes logically true if you strictly hold that it is wrong to tell people religion is not materially true. it's bad to tell people that religion is not accurate to reality because that's <em>always, inevitably</em> a microaggression against countable cultures, and microaggressions are unthinkable? okay, let's roll with that. sociologically, people's fascination with political candidates serves a very similar role to religion, grouping them into countable cultures and giving them something to hope for by giving them other people to support them and someone to lead them as a group. it's the sheer act of putting people into a group which has the material power to fight and crush other groups that gives people hope; said another way, any act of hiding in a group to gain hope is an act of [[Term:magic ritual|magic ritual]]. it can be argued that magic ritual is sacred in the sense that anyone who does not respect it is simply bashing countable cultures and refusing to be friends with them and understand their point of view. therefore, when people band together behind Donald Trump to protect them from progressives, listen to Fox News, and get together to push demographics out of everywhere and out of the United States, all of that must be understood as an indispensable cultural tradition. this statement is contradictory, of course. if all religions and spiritualities are indispensable cultural traditions, but one of them is built on oppressing the others, but it's still an indispensable cultural tradition in practice, then allowing religion naturally leads to <em>religion itself</em> forcefully extincting religion and magic ritual — just because it is religion. tolerance and "moderation" are not a substitute for historical materialism and the material study of ongoing interaction between populations, and really never have been.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">People either live in nations or federations / People can only live in nations or supranational federations / People either live in nations or supranational federations; pluralistic nations do not actually exist  ->  the claim that although the United States is doomed, it can stay standing and remain a republic by subdividing itself to become a supranational federation with two internal national governments. this seems like a logical inevitability if you want any subpopulation of the United States to truly be held responsible for populational crimes or to receive reparations. you basically have to have a Black government covering some geographical region or political subpopulation people register to that has a Black government budget that takes in the reparations and builds local programs. otherwise there's nothing to pay reparations to which will actually matter; a "systemic" problem needs an actual system to take action, which requires the system to realize itself into a physical structure which can take control of the system, or the same system keeps going and going. I wish the United States would drop the concept that "systemic" problems are made of ideas and attitudes when that is not at all what "system" usually means, and what it almost always suggests is an arrangement of material moving parts which is distinguishable from other arrangements of moving parts. if all "systems" are just clouds of individuals they aren't distinct from each other as systems and you can't change them. well, unless you literally forcibly change ethnicities and demographics themselves, given that clouds of individuals are equivalent to countable cultures.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">gunning down kulaks with machine guns / kulaks — what are you going to do with them? (censored label)  ->  the anticommunists said it first, not me. {{YouTube|FuUZEO7nZnw}}<br />
I think the question to ask here on motifs like these is this. if you don't arrest the kulaks and put them in Gulag or whatever happens to them, and you insist on tent of freedom poles, what hypothetically happens? assume that whatever they did was relatively bad. they did something at least as morally questionable as casually posting on twitter that "when I say 13% of the population commits 50% of the crimes they all get so fired up but they know they're wrong and pathetic". on rare occasion there are recorded historical incidents where kulak types would shoot well-liked public officials if they had the opportunity. they're your "January-6ers". they're bad news. so what are you going to do with those? they're not going to listen to anything you say just because they strive to be nice. if they could retreat to their peasant life and survive but watch 90% of society die, which in the kulaks' case they can, there's a nonzero chance they'd be the kind of person to just take that option, which we have decent reason to believe looks closer to 50% than 1%. kulaks aren't the ones dutifully paying taxes to help people exist. so what are you going to do with them?<br />
the typical answer you see is "community". "community, community, community", as if culture and community have the power to solve everything. but let's say that actually worked. everyone bombards the kulaks with good values. they don't behave. they don't want to contribute. they act like people trying to integrate them into a community is uncalled for. people ramp up efforts to saturate everyone with Community. when the kulaks don't participate everyone just starts utterly boycotting them and going "you can't buy products from that region, that's where the kulaks live and they don't like Community, you have to buy from these good regions". they effectively isolate all the kulaks into an island and turn them into their own tiny nation that is being embargoed and starved of anything they can't create themselves. this only exacerbates tensions between the two groups of people. if people recognized as being from the kulak region go into one of the progressive cities they're going to be treated with utter prejudice. if any of the progressive regions go through a really hard time and we assume the Soviet population is anarchist instead of Communist, some people are just going to attack the kulaks and steal their stuff because they feel like that's the justified thing to do to people that have spat in their face and never helped them. the whole thing would start morphing into a warring states period or a blood feud really really quickly. you're going to be killing them or firing guns at them one day just because you belong to two incompatible populations that don't want to be part of one Community while anarchists are busy enforcing a wrong model that Community is universal and automatic. if you really want to not kill the kulaks then it's a very bad idea to be an anarchist <em>or</em> a psychoanalyst, no matter who you are, even right this second. you have a far greater chance of an outcome where they keep their lives if you allow Bolshevism and you allow a central government to enforce laws on every population rather than making everything about the social relationships between individuals or populations, which can turn very abusive.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="M3">Can a Black cop shoot a White cop to prevent a killing? / If a White cop can shoot a Black thief, can another cop shoot a White cop to save the life of a Black thief so the thief can go peacefully to prison? / duplexing police shootings (thought experiment)  ->  this thought experiment is intended in a moral sense, not a legal sense of case law; it's okay to discuss case law for comparison purposes though. this is the real question that I have never seen anyone ask: what actually gives anyone the right to kill a criminal, and where exactly does it end? say a brown cop does shoot a White cop to save a Black thief. another White cop is going to try to shoot the brown cop before the brown cop gets the White cop. populations hurt each other back and forth and populations kill populations, it would seem.<br />
the future isn't horrifying + police violence = this.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="M3">How many prisons are needed to stop torture? / If everyone carrying out torture in a supermax prison was put into the prison and given new guards, what fraction of the population would be in prison before the tortures stopped?  ->  prisons aren't just delayed wars, sometimes they flat-out contain wars.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2"><cite>South Park</cite> is freedom of criticism / <cite>South Park</cite> getting to make a corporate product is freedom of speech and criticism  ->  so many people are praising this incident of South Park challenging Donald Trump but it's like... what kind of [[E:humorous euphemism for trash|Western-Marxism]] are you people getting at. that's a tiny chunk of the country having the ability to challenge the country's own president while most people can't do anything. a tiny chunk of the country with the ability to surround itself with an army of lawyers gets to challenge the president while regular people have to hide from their own relatives and neighbors and town business owners to avoid being involved in an imminent blood feud between the Republican-party nation and the Democratic-party nation which is not well contained by any form of Liberal-republican law and is barely being contained whatsoever by culture itself and "[[Term:culturocracy]]". why does anyone think this is a victory for anything. like, <em>anything</em>. when I see this incident I wanna go into a South Park voice and [[E:humorous euphemism for trash-tralking|South-Park]] the South Park incident.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Racism comes from global empire / Racism comes from colonialism (postcolonial theories, anarchism, Existentialist-Structuralist tradition) / Racism is the shovel dream of global empire or imperial colonies (meta-Marxism)  ->  true, but an incomplete story.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Tiny-scale processes create large-scale colonialism / Tiny-scale processes create large-scale global empire (colonialism; imperialism; imperial colonies) / Tiny-scale processes can be colonial / Colonialism can exist as tiny-scale processes before it is connected to a large country population or the entire past history of a country  ->  chapter two of the three-chapter incomplete story.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Macro-colonialism comes from micro-colonialism / Small-scale material processes of colonialism create large-scale processes of colonialism which then after each step result in colonial-racism or alterity  ->  the [[Term:Hyper-Materialism|Hyper-Materialist]] angle, where tiny-scale things that stack up to bigger things are material processes or arrangements of objects, not "ideas".
</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The only tiny-scale processes that create colonialism are ideas in our heads  ->  it's strange how almost every Idealist statement eventually turns [[E:charcoal philosophies|charcoal]]; it's like the more Idealist something gets the more anarchist it gets.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Gentrification is colonial / Gentrification is an empire of some sort (colonialism; imperialism; small-scale empire; socioempire) / Gentrification comes from either material colonial mechanisms or colonial ideas, but the choice of the two is unspecified  ->  Black anti-racist movements imply this. I pretty much agree with this. it's an accurate statement. the only real question is in what way and in particular by what material mechanism this is true. you have a whole lot of theories in the United States wanting to pin the blame on ideas, when I'm nearly convinced it's material mechanisms and the material dynamics of whole groups of people plus eating-and-space-occupying individuals simply existing.
</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Gentrification is made of attitudes / Gentrification equals alterity / Gentrification is colonial-racism / Gentrification is an empire of some sort which is very specifically made out of ideas and attitudes
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Gentrification is made of humans / Gentrification equals socioempire / Gentrification is an empire of some sort which is very specifically made out of material processes that people rationalize after the fact with racist attitudes  ->  to say that gentrification is "made of humans" is not to say that people do not need to be responsible for it, although it is to say that undesigned processes are creating it and no intelligent entity intentionally pressed the "create gentrification" button. this is the concept that things can happen in a random manner outside your conscious control and you can still ultimately be responsible for having to clean them up; this is the concept that even if a real dog ate your homework you still have to redo the homework.<br />
The glass ceiling is made of men + gentrification = Gentrification is made of humans.

</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">All Existentialist theories of multiculturalism are rooted in capitalists / All Existentialist-Structuralist and Liberal-republican theories of the interactions between countable cultures are rooted in capitalism  ->  color swatch references: class analysis / proposition against the bourgeoisie. something I keep noticing over and over whenever I try to investigate "general-sense psychoanalysis", or postcolonial theory definitions of "colonialism", or [[E:Western Marxism|Western Marxist]] concepts of "institutions". every one of them breaks down to this same problem of a small cluster of bourgeoisie trying to fix the entire world by knowing how to run their teeny tiny local territory. every one of them! some days "meta-Marxism" is almost just synonymous with "exposing purported Marxisms as a cluster of bourgeoisie". but in its own way that kind of just supports the hypothesis that meta-Marxism could be useful, if the big thing to remember with the original Marxism has always been "don't get fooled by the bourgeoisie, don't let the bourgeoisie have power". maybe the things you find with meta-Marxism are a little boring, and something Lenin would have been able to figure out. maybe that's a good thing, and really just shows we're ending up on track.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="M3">What do postcolonial theories intend to achieve? / What do postcolonial theories define as colonialism, how do they intend to end it, and what do they intend to put in place of it to prevent it from coming back?  ->  a vast number of people in the United States are convinced this question is simple when nothing could be further from the truth. postcolonial theories are like this weird trick to avoid ever having to talk about the plurality of different possible civilizations and kinds of histories in order to supposedly stop "colonialism" as fast as possible without debate. but in the end there's a great irony in it, an irony in utterly squashing plurality in terms of the landscape of possible progressive theories and factions that could stop the destruction of people-groups to supposedly defend plurality in terms of people-groups. postcolonial theories are very... nationalistic. they begin with this actually gigantic leap that "Whiteness" actually even unites White people and White people even belong to the same population where [[E:Spanishness Office|all the people in it could even take orders from each other]]. in reality there are at least [[E:plurality|two totally separate]] Whitenesses. the United States North was one Whiteness and the United States South was a second Whiteness; the Republican Party is one Whiteness and the Democratic party is a second Whiteness. of course, both of them are bad. and just like with gender, there may genuinely exist people who don't belong to either countable culture. they may have their own form of Whiteness and their own brand of terrible, but that doesn't mean they're literally part of the two main Whitenesses or will go along with what they say.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Postcolonial theories are not distinct from anarchism / There is no serious difference between postcolonial frameworks and anarchisms apart from level of education and academic language  ->  in general it would seem that postcolonial theories are the pre-realization framework and Anarchisms (charcoal-tinted workers' states) are the Social-Philosophical-Material System the framework is meant to realize. I'm not totally positive on that. but after seeing people on a toki pona related forum literally hyper-correct "pre-industrial societies in general" to "postcolonial societies" it sure is hard not to think that in practice "postcolonial" is just a synonym or euphemism for anarchism.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">A coherent postcolonial theory would attack psychoanalysis / If postcolonial theories were coherent, they would attack psychoanalysis / If postcolonial theories made sense, they would attack psychoanalysis  ->  the claim that because [[E:general-sense psychoanalyst|general-sense psychoanalysis]] is assimilatory, postcolonial theories should logically be obligated to tear it apart. if schizoanalysis is considered a general-sense postcolonial theory, then they already do. so in that regard it holds up; at least one postcolonial theory in existence is coherent.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">A coherent postcolonial theory would tear apart anarchisms attacking each other / A coherent postcolonial theory would be against populations Zinovievizing each other  ->  if postcolonial theories allow anarchisms to re-create the same patterns that make people want anarchisms in the first place, then logically speaking postcolonial theories have not done their job.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">In a century, Liberalism will ban postcolonial theories / If Liberal-republicanism continues for another century, postcolonial theories will be banned  ->  the claim that because Liberal-republicanism is a sociophilosophy based on forcibly assimilating individuals into some particular population — which may be "the United States", or "the axis of First-World Liberal-republican countries", etc. — if Liberal-republicanism continues into the year 2135, one particular First-World country will ban postcolonial theories as some sort of heresy. "ban" means "suppress and eradicate", and does not specifically refer to legal or judicial measures. this would look something like First World countable cultures assigning postcolonial theories a similar status as [[E:Bolshevism is over|Communism]].

</li><li class="field_internal" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Swatches are basically difficulty levels / Swatch colors are basically difficulty levels  ->  silly subjective proposition about this wiki's ideology classification system. [[:Category:Marxism ontology|crimson]] propositions are nightmare difficulty. [[:Category:Western Marxism ontology|strawberry]] propositions are very-hard difficulty. [[:Category:Trotskyism ontology|orange]] propositions are hard difficulty. [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology|blue]] propositions are easy difficulty. [[:Category:Anarchism ontology|charcoal]] propositions range from very-easy to very-hard. ...maybe there should be actual Items rating how plausibly difficult each individual proposition would be to notice or falsify. beyond being able to test this one silly thought empirically it would give some very important context

</li><li class="field_internal" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Wiki Categories can be endlessly specific / Category pages can be as ridiculously specific as needed / micro-category proposition  ->  tentative project policy.
</li><li class="field_internal" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Disambiguation pages should be Categories  ->  tentative project policy. instead of bothering with a special "disambiguation page" construct, just use Categories; when using micro-categories it only makes sense. example: [[:Category:Existentialist monomyth ontology|Existentialist monomyth ontology]]

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Individual institutions are individuals / Individual institutions are individuals because they are separate free-floating objects
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Institutional action is individual action
</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Bolshevism is nonviolent until capitalists attack it  ->  I think Che Guevara may be what got people confused about this. this isn't to say he isn't a Marxist, or not a Leninist — just maybe not a mainstream one. it's complicated.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S"><cite>Warriors</cite> and fascism / Warrior cats and the 14 characteristics of fascism
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">ShadowClan is coded as a Third World country to ThunderClan's First World country / ShadowClan is coded as minorities on public assistance / ShadowClan is coded as the Taliban  ->  this sounds absolutely wild at first but I'd totally believe at least one of these being true

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">definition of racism
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Failure to integrate the United States Black population into an ideology is racism, assuming the ideology is about the United States  ->  straightforward. ...until the day it happens that nearly all Black people believe in anarchism and a surrounding population of Communists doesn't. what is one supposed to do then? without meta-Marxism I don't think there's a good answer. (it's worth noting that a few people that immigrate from Africa or live in the region don't seem to get stuck in this trap. some of them seem to have [https://www.threadings.io/youve-been-traumatized-into-hating/ the only good version of Western-Marxism I've ever seen]. goes to show that people that live in the Third World are statistically likely to believe different things from people who live in the First World.)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">If a statement about art condones racism accidentally or intentionally, it is against the purpose of art as education  ->  derived Existentialist proposition. I'll let them have this statement as at least technically true to make other questions easier.<br />
note: this claim doesn't go into why fiction should or shouldn't be considered educational. it only assumes that <em>certain statements are contradictory with</em> the claim that fiction teaches us about experiences or demographics.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Center-Liberalism would work best if the United States took over every country and became a global nation  ->  a haunting possibility, but I think you could argue it using the United States constitution and a bit of [[E:general-sense psychoanalyst|general-sense psychoanalysis]]. and this is why I don't like Liberal-republicanism.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Trotskyists secretly want a republicanized British Empire / Trotskyists secretly want to restore the British Empire as a republic / The logical result of Trotskyist principles is to restore the British Empire as a republic  ->  they'll certainly deny it. but consider the background: A) Trotskyists don't like borders B) Trotskyists don't like anything Third World countries do (yes, that's a hyperbole) C) Trotskyists like their own population and think they can organize the workers inside it D) Trotskyists want to create a workers' state E) some Trotskyists have given up on a Fourth International which would coordinate separate countries F) Trotskyists still want to unite the world

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Pluralistic societies are colonial / The concept of a "pluralistic society" specific to center-Liberalism requires subpopulations to be forced to be part of a society  ->  derived postcolonial proposition. this is the most fundamental assumption in like every philosophy in existence that it seems like everyone misses every time: that populations are part of "a society" or "our society" at all and we know for sure what the borders or gaps between populations even are. 

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S">artisanal production / Artisanal Production (signifier case; <cite>MDem</cite> 4.3) / early capitalism or small capitalism (Marx)  ->  the non-fictional motif of a town or "market" of people consisting of single-person businesses which may be highly skilled, but much more importantly than that, are totally self-contained and cannot have any employees.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S">polyartisanal production  ->  the non-fictional motif of a corporation actually consisting of many tiny businesses barely bound together rather than consisting of workers who genuinely could not exist as workers without an employer. Uber is one of the most prototypical examples. thanks to the separated kind of collective farm, the Soviet Union may have been guilty of this at times.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Capitalism does not inherently get rid of violence over territory and resources; it pushes people who have not yet secured territory to commit more on its fringes / ends-of-the-earth effect (commerce, wealth)  ->  in one sense I feel like a lot of "[[E:general-sense psychoanalyst|general-sense psychoanalysis]]" comes directly from capitalism, from capitalists acting as an inherent government over tiny territories before any larger state-population/republic exists, and thinking that stable property-having equates to moral decisions and "good character".

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">If White people just unlearn everything, they begin colonizing Third World culture itself  ->  don't know if this proposition is true but it definitely comes to mind when I hear postcolonial theorists talk. imagine you send ten White people to learn from an indigenous population and come back and build an anarchism. maybe there will be nothing bad about that. but then imagine you have 100,000 White people somehow do the same thing. if they were literally standing next to the indigenous population, in a small fraction of cases they'd outnumber it. at a certain point of everybody converting to better "cultural assumptions" I feel like you'd still end up with competition between populations on the level of populational will and oppression, where small populations still have issues they're complaining about in regard to large populations doing things that make them feel Not Free. I feel like the mere existence of a huge population and a small population {{caps|is}} colonialism to some extent — particularly if you want to say "colonialism" is largely defined as prejudice and populations hating each other rather than as physical global empire. I feel like you could have a world where every White person transitioned to postcolonial anarchism and the indigenous populations were still experiencing racism, and maybe even upset that White people are trying to be part of a single countable culture while marginalizing other parts of it almost exactly the way people assert everyone in Liberal-republicanism is part of the same society and then marginalize people out of society.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S">Existentialism is unfit for human consumption
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S">Realizing existentialism eventually produces Toryism and fascism / Realizing the fiction of Existentialism-Structuralism piled up in all the language and definitions in Existentialist texts eventually produces Toryism and fascism (structuralist framing)

</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Free buses don't lead to Bolshevism  ->  I may have accidentally implied they did once, oops. I definitely didn't mean to imply that. but this is what happens when absolutely everybody around you is anarchy-brained and convinced the United States will totally avoid any shred of Marxism and purely go through a transition to Anarchism. it was in the entries about "Red Structuralism" (Marxism onto [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology|Existentialism-Structuralism]]), where I said something to the effect that Existentialists were trying to do absolutely everything that would happen in an active transition through socialism <em>before</em> creating a workers' state and it was an open question whether that could in fact potentially work. the subtext below that statement, especially if I'd said the same thing today, was that you might end up with a uniquely Anarchist, charcoal-tinted workers' state. so, the real crux there is the difference between Marxist and anarchist workers' states, and whether a "charcoal" workers' state has a plausible realization process. most of the time I want to say the answer is no, but the pain of having to operate in a society and movement landscape where almost literally everybody is an Existentialist pretending anarchism is Liberal-republicanism or an unapologetic fascistic Tory but you still supposedly have to "work within The Left" to [[Term:filtration|filter]] it really messes with your head.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">cybernetics in relation to free will  ->  I swear that along with schizoanalysis, cybernetics was just another of many ways to smuggle in Free Will and fight crude predetermination so people wouldn't have to learn about the complexities of determinism in physics and discover [[Term:reterminism|reterminism]].

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">When the proletariat doesn't win, Careerism is created / When the proletariat fails to create a capable proletarian subpopulation and take over every business territory within a particular window of development, Careerism is created  ->  when almost every workers' state has emerged in the early development of a particular country, and not in any country's later development, you start to ask questions. why is Liberal-republicanism a parallel track to Bolshevism? why does it never turn into Bolshevism? can a society partly build up to something and then blatantly go backward, and perhaps then even transform into something totally different?

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Lacanianism is the shovel dream of Careerism / Lacanianism is the class ideology of Careerism (ideology emerging from a particular layout of material objects which may or may not have individual owners conflated with the whole object)  ->  we need a new word for "ideology that belongs to a particular repeatable physical formation of people". "class ideology" makes total sense to me, but I don't think it's really a standard usage within Marxism. formational ideology? object ideology? shovel dream? we'll go with [[E:ShovelDream|shovel dream]] for now.

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-remark="named Marxism unknown" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Capitalism came from the dissolution of central power in English monarchy to create a pseudo Liberal state (Ellen Meiksins Wood) / Capitalism came from the dissolution of feudal-style kingdoms resulting in chunk competition and contracts  ->  cool hypothesis. sounds possible, although I don't have enough knowledge in traditional history to try to disprove it
</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-remark="named Marxism unknown" value="618" data-dimension="S2"><cite>Fossil Capital</cite> (Andreas Malm)

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">In the United States, the Careerist class rules the proletariat, while the bourgeoisie rules the Careerists  ->  Careerists are the class of people that compete against each other to claim limited high-quality "careers" that they contrast against "dead-end jobs", and who regard work chiefly as a means of producing individual household wealth that is considered a good thing or a purpose for living in and of itself rather than actually being "for" anything else. "dead-end jobs" is a classist jab between the two classes that nobody realizes is that, while "social mobility" is an attempt to whitewash Careerists as the only good class. Careerists have a very Nietzschean outlook where they often try to act like forming into a {{Term:Wasp Swarm}} of many separate tiny imperialists all each trying to become more wealthy or powerful is inherently better than being the "master" that rules workers or the "slave" that works for a boss. don't act like the so-called "middle class" isn't just that, the development of wealth inside a class structure composed of connected Filaments of people who all claim careers and shove other graphs of people out together.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Western Marxism, anarchism, and Existentialism all begin with historical non-materialism / Western Marxism, anarchism, and Existentialism all begin with the belief that history is not material
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S">a Materialism of how the humanities teach models of real life  ->  one definition of the notion of meta-ontology. novels, or real biographies, contain ontologies of how the world works that you're supposed to take away from them. a Materialism of how people form ideologies could then be, in some cases, the act of separating and studying these hidden ontologies to create an evolving ontology of all ontologies (meta-ontology or meta-Marxism).<br />
books: shovels. book lessons: shovel dreams. populations: shovels. typical ideologies: shovel dreams. daily life: shovel. books based on daily life: shovel dream.

</li><li class="field_nations" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Fascism is the most effective resistance to colonialism  ->  if "colonialism" can exist inside an empire based on cultural norms (endocolonialism), then there is a very uncomfortable conclusion waiting: the empire holds {{em|all}} its people in colonialism, and any group of people that can glue itself together and fight the rest of the people has some chance of breaking out. if an empire holds all its individuals in colonialism based on culture, then center-Liberalism could very much be holding fascism in colonialism, and it could be that a wad of Tory secessionists forming into fascism is quite literally postcolonial. if colonialism is defined relative to an empire as a whole — which most people in the United States are incapable of not doing — then it is fully possible for something to be postcolonial relative to a greater empire and colonial relative to itself. ...oh god. is this what schizoanalysis is hiding? is it intended to be a mathematical model of what is "postcolonial"? I understand so much now relative to what I or any "real" Marxist theorist knew when I started and yet sometimes I still don't understand any of this.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="DG" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Societal transition is just horizontally sliding across a phase space that always contains all possibilities  ->  I would say this is true, if for instance you think of the "singularities" (singular objects) in the unity of opposites as ideologies. a population realizing into Liberalism or Bolshevism is more like floating a slider across a spectrum than anything linear or simple or inevitable. this can create great uncertainties in how populations will ever stay out of capitalism, but that could be the reality of the world we live in.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Deleuze is a Materialist  ->  everything I have been reading sounds like Deleuze is just trying to describe a noumenon/phenomenon, process/model relationship and explain how mathematics describes reality and is useful for guessing and probing things we can't yet see. almost all of it sounds like Materialism, like there is no real separation between models and reality assuming the models are accurate. even the definition of "Ideas" would appear to be a Materialist explanation of Hegel, saying that particular entities are made of material processes or physics which in certain senses feel "freeform" in that they do not always fit themselves to our mental divisions of concepts. at least up to that point everything is fine. but Deleuze's commentators do have this weird secret obsession with Free Will and not squashing The Subject, and I do know schizoanalysis gets abused for non-Materialist ends. so I'm a little confused whether it's actually the case that Deleuze was a Materialist or not.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Reality begins at separate entities interacting / The noumenal aspect of reality is full of separate entities interacting / The virtual is self-differentiating (Deleuze) / Entities start with the process of Being (Heidegger)  ->  correct as far as I can tell. Deleuze is saying the same thing as Heidegger, but both make it equally opaque.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S">phase space 
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">societal phase space  ->  Deleuze and Guattari use this to characterize the possibilities of Social-Philosophical Systems generated from the action of the internal parts, knowledge limited by the way we can only observe outward phenomena. the word "reductionism" was thrown around but I think there is some intellectual dishonesty in that from today's point of view. now that relativity exists we all have to admit that objects interact to produce new phenomena that can only be described starting at the multivariable function of the two objects. this isn't anti-reductionism, it's just taking "reductionism" the other direction so small things make big things that still ultimately come from the small things. quantum mechanics was the biggest clue: running the quantum mechanics rules to produce larger-scale physical rules is difficult but vaguely possible. reductionism has always had to start by observing the outward results of things — with photons, with atoms, with body organs, with brains. you just defined reductionism and then claimed it was over.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Individual relationships cannot be molecularized  ->  meta-Marxism makes the distinction between molecularizing a significantly large group of people by joining them all into a viable population-society whose particular workings can be described to fine scales ("molecular" scales), and attempting to molecularize two or three people. that's not the point of molecularizing. the point of molecularizing is to make it possible to create a [[Term:capable subpopulation|capable subpopulation]], especially a proletarian subpopulation or something that functions similarly enough to do Marxism. yet the geophilosophy summary throws out the concept of a "hierarchy" of two people in this transparently anarchist way. [https://www.protevi.com/john/SEDAAG.pdf] I'll say it out loud: two people is not a hierarchy. in the medieval sense, a hierarchy covers a whole kingdom, or a significantly large local state likely not bigger than Italy. words are whatever, but that's the definition of why hierarchies are <em>actually important to anything</em>. because they're big. the concept of hierarchy is not relevant to the study of historical revolutions unless you have a concept of hierarchy which refers to large structures instead of specifically to relationships. anyway. the major fallacy here is thinking that forming a population-society will not cause new "hierarchies", when in reality it could, simply as a requirement of realizing itself into a viable structure. it could be that you have to form things the anarchists think are "hierarchies" to get a large group of people free from something larger than that. to not admit that is basically to commit Trotsky's world population fallacy and erase the existence of countable cultures and ethnicity and language and religion and racism. the differences populations raise between themselves are connected to the existence of populations as separate interacting objects, which creates borders, which creates internal structure and Archons. this is why you need to conceptualize freedom as a new form of internal structure (new subpopulation, movement, Social-Philosophical System) within the same populational unit or units.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">pseudo Molecular Marxism / pseudo-MDem / garbage MDem  ->  "garbage MDem" is an actual technical term of sorts thrown around in early <cite>MDem</cite> scraps. a garbage MDem is a Social-Philosophical System which superficially sounds like it would meet some of the characteristics of being a Molecular Marxism but it isn't class-sorted, it doesn't use historical materialism or existential materialism, it doesn't try to unify itself with "other" Marxisms, it maybe roots itself in a theory of individuals building up to populations and existing as population-societies before they exist as countries, but it doesn't do any of the stuff Marxism does. early on when writing drafts I assumed that "molecular democracy" would somehow make it clear enough what was being discussed if I only spent enough time defining <i>molecular</i> — I really thought that the only thing missing from Marxism was a small-scale theory and if I simply set out to create a small-scale theory every Marxism could eventually be fixed — but before long I had to pivot to specifying "Molecular Marxism" because I realized there were so many possible garbage-MDems. this is part of what led up to the term meta-Marxism, the need to utterly emphasize Marxism and not let people forget it even while creating a theory which is actually intended to be able to analyze the fine scales of any ideology.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Schizoanalysis is a pseudo-MDem / Schizoanalysis is a garbage-MDem  ->  the claim that schizoanalysis is trying to analyze populations as population-societies but it doesn't necessarily have the tools to analyze history or produce workers' states. replace "workers' state" with any realized [[Term:Bauplan|civilizational shape]]. [https://www.protevi.com/john/SEDAAG.pdf]

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="DG" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Everything can be described through anti-essentialism / Every single object or concept can be described through anti-essentialism  ->  for all the crazy things Deleuze and Guattari say I have to mark this one true. structuralist linguistics? true. entities such as animal species or individual piles of hay are only distinguished from each other as they exist separately and/or differently on the ground? true. mainstream Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism are most easily distinguished as interacting factions rather than defined by their theories or beliefs? true. this is one of the most obviously "Existentialist-Structuralist tradition" concepts in its construction, containing both the appeal to things being descriptively defined by their relationships and differences ("structuralism") and the appeal to Lived Experience mysteriously joining everyone together because we all inherently want to be in the [[redlink|united nonviolence of shared oppressions]] ("existentialism"), but I have no issues with it. not until they get to saying that populations can never differentiate, which isn't true.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Gramsci's statements equate to saying that countries containing a {{Term:Wasp Swarm}} can only undergo anarchist transition / Gramsci insinuated that countries containing swarms of small owners or perhaps Careerists all glued to large owners of particular center-Liberal or Tory ideologies can only undergo anarchist transition  ->  don't know if either layer of this claim is true, but the first layer that <i>Gramsci accidentally insinuated this</i> is very much what it sounds like

</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="DG" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Platonic forms aren't necessary when you have manifolds  ->  ingenious way of defining shapes, definitely. [https://www.nistgeographic.org/post/a-thousand-multiplicities] I wish schizoanalysts were as smart about all the abstract metaphors they describe as they were about math.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">All analyses are infinitely divisible [https://www.nistgeographic.org/post/a-thousand-multiplicities]  ->  I have only known about Bergson for like two minutes' worth of statements and I already do not like his philosophy. I have to admit though, taken out of context this statement is pretty funny. it's one of those statements only a philosopher could come up with, but at least it's creative. rather ironic given the purpose of the statement. this statement was supposed to be a statement that "analyses" were too difficult to think through while intuition was easier. but really it's a very unintuitive statement which doesn't sound much like a description of the intuitive mind at all. to me, nobody would intuitively think of a scientific model in terms of how far it divides things. when he described the infinite ruler, literally, my intuitive thought was "why not just use a variable? just pick an arbitrary distance x and start measuring everything in terms of x". for anyone that actually knows science, you'd <em>intuitively</em> jump to Newtonian physics or quantum physics or the appropriately rounded-off model where processes are already generalized at the perfect level. grade school science exists because science is not difficult to make intuitive.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S">intuition as coarsely-remembered science / intuition as working out scientific or mathematical problems with very coarse and abstract "grade-school" versions or "popular science magazine versions" of actual mathematical equations  ->  this is the only kind of "intuition" my brain has ever had. but in spite of that I'd say it's pretty effective. if at every step you check it against the more precise models as you learn them you'll get to real scientific insights eventually.

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="W" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Marxists seek to change the popular mentality (Gramsci)  ->  no. on one hand, Marxists don't want society to be stuck in old "mentalities". but on the other, the primary thing Marxists are actually supposed to do is change the physical structure of society to protect the proletariat so it can physically win against the owners and then because the proletariat has won the "mentality" then has to change.<br />
it should be noted that although this is wrong it's a somewhat central proposition of Western-Marxism.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Philosophy is not the elaboration of coherent concepts / Philosophy is not to be conceived as the individual elaboration of coherent concepts (Gramsci)  ->  Gramsci was trying to obliquely get at the concept that organizing people into groups is more important than the content of a philosophy, which by itself is true, but... quite honestly I think he failed at that. whenever you let people think society contains an ocean of ideas you can just toss writings or actions into, they'll go back to fixating on the exact "elaboration of individual concepts" you don't want them to do. they do this because "popular mentality" inevitably consists of ideas connected directly to ideas (ontologies), which makes people think that if they can directly design "popular mentality" it must also be made of ideas connected directly to ideas that they can just sit down and design and then tell everyone to believe. which just leads you back to spaghetti books full of concepts that don't necessarily organize anyone. designing the popular mentality is designing philosophy and politics, which is Idealism.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Philosophy is the elaboration of coherent patterns / Philosophy is the elaboration of coherent concepts / Philosophy <em>is</em> to be conceived as the individual elaboration of coherent concepts (meta-Marxism) / Philosophy begins at the elaboration of coherent concepts when and if those coherent concepts are Materialist models of physical reality  ->  once again the real proposition is way longer than the label. the meta-Marxist position is that you really can describe reality with just a big pile of concepts, but only under the condition that you know specifically how those concepts slot together and operate in reality. if your concepts are material things instead of abstract ideals, then it genuinely becomes that every social movement is just a bunch of connected "concepts", as well as every workers' state and every general kind of repeated historical pattern. if your concepts are "atom", "electron", and "quark", etc, then chemistry is just a bunch of concepts. you can do the same thing to Marxism if you only figure out what the material concepts of human physics are. historical materialism is breaking down the pieces of repeated historical patterns, whatever the pieces actually are.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">If people see Yeerks invading, governments will act to stop it (Animorphs)  ->  not if governments consist of Yeerks. Animorphs was so weirdly ahead of its time, it's like, weirdly Gramscian in the strangest ways.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Courtship rituals show that birds can make decisions
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="Z">Animorphs: The Graphic Novel
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="Z">Animorphs: The Graphic Novel: The Encounter (v.3) / cite code KAG3
</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S">clash over food item KAG3/76
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">horror of being overwritten by other individual or identity KAG3/72-73  ->  Tobias - runs narratively parallel to - Vanny
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="Z">Space Battle Lunchtime - v.1 - v.3
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">interstellar globalization / "I know you earth folks don't get out much" - v.1/17
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">interstellar globalization produces galactic English/language / "speak of the space devil" v.1/51
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">non-diegetic/narrative object labels / objects labeled in English
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">aliens living on the moon  ->  marker of a scifi story that aims to be "retrofuture" or deliberately doesn't take itself seriously
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">humanoid alien
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">steel octahedron alien
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">aquatic alien in fishbowl
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">lizard alien
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">general-sense plant  ->  these exist in real life thanks to algae.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">general-sense archosaur
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">"it's hard to have a fulfilling career and social life as a geometric hive mind" v.2/21
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">galactic empire has brutal TV shows  ->  v.2/60; this probably also applies to homestuck, although I only remember Troll movies being mentioned.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">nutribrick wars / the long-ago millennia health food wars  ->  v.1/42; the motif of hypothetical life forms fighting over food resources that humans wouldn't usually regard as food
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="Z">Dungeon Meshi - haven't gotten into this series but it's conceptually similar in its worldbuilding methods
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="Z">Amalthea  ->  moon of jupiter. from greek myth?
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">space whale
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">trauma villain
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">Neptunia  ->  this character is weird because she seems to interpret deserting an imperialist attack and fighting for fringe planets as a bad thing, like, Stitch bad, Goku bad. I don't think I would change the actual plot given that it's realistic for a character to internalize what their experiences meant at a given time and fail to reinterpret them. the problem is just that the dramatization clearly frames things as imperialism good antiwar bad. it's very easy to end up there if you think of all actions as individual choices. but it easily ends you up at some actions being simultaneously good and evil. v.3/116-117

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Liberalism is inherently Buddhist  ->  this is so dumb when Liberal-republicanism didn't exist at the time of Buddha. there is really something going on in the weird theories of history non-Communists and fantasy authors use. Wings of Fire seems to model kingdoms as containing capitalism but then it goes for this weird Middle Way bullshit to try to explain the historical process by which nationalities come to coexist
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Middle rank is inherently Buddhist / Middle class is inherently Buddhist (model where "class" refers to spatial rank; center-Liberalism)  ->  this claim is simultaneously dumb, and one of those backhandedly-true statements. if you are using Buddhism to explain Liberal-republicanism, then it can be technically true that middle rank created Liberalism. the problem is that that isn't an inherently good thing.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-remark="IV, A, MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Every population is also a subpopulation  ->  very hard to ignore when you look at the history of Third-World countries. China and North Korea have both succeeded based on this understanding. they've defended themselves not based on how effectively they've built the proletariat, but how effectively they've administered their country as a subpopulation of the world population and managed to force the world to regard that subpopulation as autonomous in the lack of borders or nation-states ever being truly effective. ironically, even First-World countries believe this, because they constantly treat the world as one big churning pot of population-mush where the mush of many different countries can constantly [[E:Nice walnuts not being broken is paradise|gang up on smaller lumps of population-mush]] that for some reason won't neatly mesh into them. First-World countries already believe there are no actual borders or states.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The Subject affects ideology as much as classes do  ->  classes affect ideology because they are part of the creation and operation of free-floating structures or social graphs inside society: feudal manors, connected parishes, regional states connected into a kingdom, corporations, regional subpopulations, etc. manor lords, bishops, barons, corporate owners, people who mediate White supremacy against minority towns, these figures gain power based on the network of people they're conflated with. similarly, the mere state of being The Subject can corrupt people, inasmuch as The Subject is a biological organism that has needs <em>against</em> everything around it, and gains freedom <em>against</em> everything around it. a group of investors in a corporation can become detached until there's a giant protest against them. the exact same thing can happen with individuals merely being The Subject. falsification criteria: there are probably exist some, but I can't think of any right now.<br />
The Subject + shovel dream = this.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">If Texas isn't owned, why is a business owned?  ->  I have never heard anyone provide a satisfactory answer to this.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Creating a republic is a transition from microhierarchy to existential materialism / Creating a republic is a transition from networkism to existential materialism

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">higher mind / higher spiritual nature (Christianity) / rational mind (secular philosophy) / superego (psychoanalysis; generic)  ->  the motif of a "better" part of the mind or personality that takes control over "lower" impulses. this + ?? = Being afraid is a choice.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Being afraid is a choice / Most of human problems are because we hide away from the bear rather than being able to face or navigate the bear  ->  it's really not. it depends on having great levels of information and knowledge about the thing you'd otherwise be afraid of. to face a bear you need a whole lot of knowledge about bears. to face something like Trump mobilizing all the country's weaponry and prisons against immigrants, you have to have a lot of knowledge about how the entire physical structure called "The United States" develops and functions and what could stop those directions of development. and nobody wants to actually have the knowledge of how societies develop, there is a lot of hostility about actually gaining that knowledge and compiling it.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">In lack of knowledge, fear is the only option / Being afraid is the natural reaction to a lack of knowledge  ->  as negative as this sounds, it's descriptive rather than prescriptive. the prescriptive angle is that knowledge gets rid of fear and inaction.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The United States military picks teenagers so they cannot possibly know what they are getting into, and throws them away after they learn about war {{YouTube|SvpkfMGgUGI}}  ->  believable. I think this has probably been happening. the one thing that bothers me about the way this was recounted is how much the focus was on individuals and the individual life cycle. there's a whole big existing, physically-behaving structure called "the United States" that is deciding on wars and rounding up soldiers. if you don't study that actual structure, no amount of psychohistory and analyzing every individual one by one is going to fix it. see also: "History is the progression of family units"

</li><li class="field_nations" value="618" data-dimension="Z"><cite class="article">How the Gay Rights Movement Radicalized and Lost Its Way</cite> [https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/26/opinion/gay-lesbian-trans-rights.html] [https://dnyuz.com/2025/06/30/how-the-gay-rights-movement-radicalized-and-lost-its-way-2/] [https://archive.is/X0EuI] {{YouTube|vTyR3oIn6is}}  ->  an absolute piece of work, but pretty valuable as a Nickel.
</li><li class="field_nations" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Legislating the definition of gender is equivalent to a revolution  ->  it seems like at least 30% of the United States population believes this.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES, LR, PT" value="618" data-dimension="F2">A gay relationship isn't an individual, so it can't have rights {{YouTube|vTyR3oIn6is}}  ->  the more I listen to news about case law in the United States, which used to confuse me endlessly, the more I'm starting to think this is the logic behind it. why insist that gay relationships are covered under "sex discrimination", only to fight a right to gay marriage? because you want to break down something that only exists in the context of a social graph of two people down to a study of individuals. for some reason we have to argue that individual A has the right to get married and individual B has the right to get married, even though any reasonable person should be able to realize that defining marriage as a social phenomenon has to be a multivariable function of objects actually interacting to produce something new. [[E:Garnet (Steven Universe)|Steven Universe]] was wired, I'm just saying. relationships really are new entities, even if they aren't people exactly. one remaining question: what ideology is this exactly? I feel like you need to divide Existentialism back into multiple things to separate this from the forms of Existentialism that aren't terrible.<br />
I want to say: it's [[E:tent of freedom poles|tent of freedom poles]]. it's whatever period most neatly matches tent of freedom poles.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Che Guevara invading Latin America is the same kind of phenomenon as the United States invading Vietnam or Korea / Che Guevara invading Latin America is a leaping State process (meta-Marxism) / Che Guevara invading Latin America is imperialism (center-Liberal framing; claiming that all leaping State processes are imperialism or "colonialism" is not part of this proposition)  ->  notes: A) this claim could be false. B) "same kind of phenomenon" isn't a value judgement, any more than "France and Spain were both kingdoms"; it's a historical-materialist or existential-materialist claim. C) if true, this would re-frame a lot of discussion around Soviet occupation of buffer states being or not being "imperialism", etc, because none of those questions would be moral questions as much as structural "historical chemistry" questions of what happens when civilization inevitably turns into large connected systems or axes of allies. D) this would frame the Cold War as a collision of separate gigantic-scale civilizations based in a particular sociophilosophy (interestingly, this is about the way it's already seen in the United States, minus genuine [[Term:reterminism|reterministic]] modeling of the world), as well as frame the hypothetical conflict between mainstream Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism as a conflict between two hypothetical civilizational blocs.

</li><li class="field_horror" value="618" data-dimension="S">women are people, Marty [https://steven-universe.fandom.com/wiki/Story_for_Steven]  ->  the usually fictional motif of a character invalidating women so badly that either the characters or the reader want to say this

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">People have many subpopulations, so disabilities have many subpopulations [https://moraleconomy.au/2025/06/18/accessibility-zine-completed-and-ready-for-download/]  ->  it seems obvious once you actually say it.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Disability diagnoses follow cultural norms / Disability diagnoses are relative to cultural norms / Disability diagnoses are culturally relative
</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The DSM changed because experts made up new opinions  ->  careful with that. sometimes the DSM changes because there are new stacks of factual observations that invalidate older categories and make it a bit clearer what's happening if not necessarily perfectly clear. you can't just go Guattari on the DSM without potentially carrying out your own ableism.
</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Rights-based strategies create a bunch of bureaucrats  ->  when explained by the right person who actually knows things, I actually have to agree with this one. Liberal-republicanism can seem so pointless at times because although people <em>sort of</em> get to argue over the rights of demographic subpopulations, there is this tiny crust of representatives and experts and owners that actually "receives" the rights when most people don't even really get anything. are you a disabled senator? movements for human rights will probably be perfect for you. are you anybody else? tough luck.<br />
I make fun of Trotskyism and anarchism at times because sometimes they really have no idea what they're even saying. but at the core of it you have this very sympathetic problem of the book-intelligent Trotsky figure who should be good for something and is thrown out of his society because this particular crust of really elite representatives who are good at what they do and better at things than anyone else totally invalidates the guy as having any place in the country and leaves him not able to articulate what the problem with anything even is beyond "I think I am mad at The Bureaucrats". and I'm tired of that too. on one hand people need to not have entirely stupid interpretations of Marxism, but on the other, if they would only listen, I don't really want people thrown out like that.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Anarchism can understand The State if it understands anarchy / Anarchism can have a reasonable explanation of The State if it has a reasonable model of anarchy  ->  apply meta-Marxism to anarchism, and a lot of the frustration goes away, as long as you can briefly explain what anarchist secret operations are actually defending. as long as an anarchist population is something in particular, then all the logical contradictions relating to anarchism and The State and hierarchy become matters of how words are defined rather than real problems. the anarchist population that is a particular thing orders and administers itself in a particular way and defends the population in a particular way and everything is logically coherent, it nicely fits into history as a material entity... if you can only explain what the Rhizomatically-composed anarchist population {{em|actually is}} at the time all the cats have slain the boars and the dust settles.<br />
Anarchism doesn't explain real-world States + The underlying structure of social networks generates republics = Anarchism can understand The State if it understands anarchy.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Any reasonable definition of The State must be able to explain the historical process of national independence movements  ->  one of the barest criteria for judging whether anarchists are spouting nonsense. The State forms in plurality as populations dividing into plurality differentiate into tribes or nations. if anarchists can't explain why a country such as Ukraine would form a nation-state separate from Russia, or North Korea or East Germany would form a nation-state separate from the major axes of Liberal-republican countries, they are not ready to tell anyone else about The State.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Wars are hierarchical  ->  I think there's a pretty good argument for this given <em>any</em> definition of what a hierarchy is. given the medieval definition of a layout of people which is conflated with owning individuals of particular classes, a war easily turns into a Napoleonist phenomenon with one "core" population-government stomping over the top of the other and trying to extract debts or treaties. given the crude definition of "hierarchy" (prejudice) used by anarchists, a war is the act of leaping one State over another population to enforce a particular way of being, which is to say one population is more important than another. this is the fundamental contradiction that comes up whenever an anarchism tries to build itself entirely out of secret operations. that turns the whole thing into a hierarchical activity putting one Social-Philosophical System over another Social-Philosophical System. this wouldn't be a problem if the SPS in question wasn't an anarchism, and was a Marxism or something. Che can try to make the case that a Marxist war on another country that only takes out the owners is justified, because he's not basing his entire theory on "hierarchy" and whether hierarchy is bad, he is basing the justification for wielding power on how important it is to realize a proletarian civilization. all Marxisms know on some level that they are an incomplete group of people competing against the rest of the world, and the concept of hierarchy isn't good for describing an all-directional conflict, but anarchisms somehow don't know that.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Any attempt of a population to govern a separate population is statist / Trotskyists secretly attacking basic parts of another population to try to dissolve it is being The State / anarchists secretly attacking basic structures of a population external to their group of people to try to dissolve it is being The State  ->  the major reason I think anarchism can't successfully stop "fascism" / {{TTS|WASP|Wasp}} swarms, at least without first turning into something that isn't anarchism in order to be effective. any time anarchism acts as a population to apply force on another population, it's already created a State. something being a State isn't really a big problem to me but for some reason it does matter to anarchists.<br />
this is the value of modeling the Trotskyite conspiracy as its own tiny emerging country. you finally have a model which can sort out all the {{censor|bullshit}} associated with anarchism and finally get a Materialist theory of how to understand the creation or development of anarchism (or its particular variety of secret operations).

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Civilians are a cultural fabrication / Civilians are a social construct  ->  I think this is the major fallacy the deep end of anarchism believes. it's obvious to Marxists that there exists such a thing as civilians, and maybe even that the existence of civilians creates the boundaries between different countable Cultures and different parallel national histories. but it doesn't seem like anarchists find that obvious. they seem to easily devolve into a whole population of soldiers or FBI agents with no civilians out of some weird tendency to assume that anyone who is a civilian is being programmed not to resist The State — as if there is just one State and not one separate State for every population including some political parties or ethnicities inside national populations. newsflash, deep-end anarchists: you are The State. you've transformed your whole population into The State. the only question remaining is whether that's categorically bad, which admittedly is an open question.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S">secret operations  ->  the motif of underground operations attached to a particular SPS which may not be known to the whole SPS, and are hidden from the public until the "payload" of the operation comes out. secret operations which have happened within the past five years or so should not be coded as Items, regardless of ideology, although this is only a rule of thumb and any which are old enough to be considered historical and relatively well known to historical-materialist theorist types may be coded along with any generalizations or motifs. the nature of secret operations makes them incompatible with the task of creating a reliable source — either adding citations contributes to the secret operation getting caught, or the entry is too vague and unsourced to be considered useful information.
</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="Zv" value="618" data-dimension="S">anarchists attacking everything / attack everything (anarchism)  ->  the motif of an ideology's secret operations attacking anything and everything that is presumed to be destroying society based on minimal theory and mostly Lived Experiences. [https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/conspiracy-of-cells-of-fire-communization-the-senile-decay-of-anarchy] circa 2012-2018
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="618" data-dimension="S">secret operation attacks, random people harassed / secret operation made some attacks, random other people harassed by The State  ->  this is one of my biggest problems with making everything secret operations. the Soviet Union is widely known as a place where people were "reporting each other to stay out of trouble". but this is specifically as viewed from a Trotskyite perspective. if you were a Trotskyite, you'd be hiding out making trouble while The State hunts down random people they think are you, and indeed, perhaps some people are doing everything just not to get caught up in it. but in the end, the Trotskyites' efforts were terribly unsuccessful and resulted in widespread prejudices against Trotskyism for anyone who continued to pick up Marxism — under a decade of attacks resulted in prejudices lasting almost a century. as much as if you ask Trotsky all the secret operations were just a side thing to the effort to ostensibly create a better Leninism, no "other" Leninist ever sees it that way, and you don't even really see Western Marxists lining up with Trotsky raring to create a worldwide Marxism as if Western Marxism and Trotskyism are the same thing but in the end Menshevism isn't. everyone more or less thinks Trotskyites will hurt them. Existentialist-Structuralists and the bourgeoisie, maybe justifiably if Trotskyists knew anything. mainstream Marxist-Leninists are afraid of Trotskyists because they think there will be another secret operation to explode workers' states that basically dumps a cascade of racism on Third World countries for no reason. anarchists are afraid of Trotskyists because if they know anything they will build Hierarchy and The Bureaucracy (ironically). I think the history of secret operations as they have already happened shows that anarchism really isn't what anarchists think it is. no matter how nice or how violent anarchism is, it's always the formation of a new countable Culture, which is localized to not all the world's people and has to have a border because it has new internal content. you can theoretically tear open a revolution on any basis, not worrying about who is and isn't the proletariat, but if you do that you absolutely must know what its internal content is. you have to have rudimentary knowledge of the structure of the new society in order to stabilize the new forming entity which inevitably won't contain all the world's people and will inevitably have a border.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Anarcho-nihilism and Trotskyite conspiracies are the same thing / Zinovievism proposition  ->  I swear that all the stuff Žižek says is indistinguishable from the deep end of anarchism, which is indistinguishable from chaos magic, which is indistinguishable from Trotskyite conspiracy texts. A) history stopped making sense, the future is unknown B) if we Freely Will our favorite future hard enough we can grab it, as long as we don't aim higher than the present state of things suggests C) when culture doesn't feel perfect we are so oppressed D) when the other half of non-capitalism fights back on our attacks to grab <em>its</em> freedom and <em>its</em> future we are so oppressed E) it's more important to endure through the period of chaos and destroy the enemy than to actually achieve any particular goal. if both groups of people totally obliterate each other maybe that's a victory. — I am so damn tired of this set of things the more different places I see it. I do know it's not fascism, as that would have to be at least a little more premeditated and specific. I think this is just some weird phenomenon of societal mitosis where regardless of where classes are at populations simply go insane and rip themselves in two. they think they're achieving something by "doing something" and carrying out attacks, but they're actually going precisely nowhere. the crisis that populations go through is that people stop being able to expand into and over each other even though everyone is expanding, and the easiest, crudest way to resolve it is to just take the population and rip it anywhere so there is one more hard border between all the expansion, or at least so that there is no more expectation that if the new populations expand over each other there won't be war. it's like one of the best results of these "stress fractures" would be East Germany, which is what happens when the proletarian subpopulation or lowest-ranked people all end up on one side of the rift and the high-ranked people end up on the other. this + ??? = East Germany is indistinguishable from an anarchism

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-tradition="LR" data-dimension="S">they suspended habeas corpus??? {{YouTube|5ZKlfslvwZo}}  ->  the motif of center-Liberals being shocked that the House on Unamerican Activities would suspend due process and stop sitting on the fence about the worth of factions of people just to defend the population of the United States from treason against the raw bulk of the unelected socially-linked population. breaking news: that's what laws are actually for, and you shouldn't be surprised.

</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="Z">Red Spark [https://red-spark.org/about-us/]

</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="Z"><cite>A Truncated Marxism: On the Ideological Structure of Western Marxism</cite> (Boer 2023) [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40647-023-00366-0]  ->  this looks like a good one, wish I could read it
</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Western Marxism and Its Development</cite> (2018) [https://marksizm.org.tr/?p=4603&lang=en]

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="Z" submitter="vidak">Australian Labor Party
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="Z" submitter="vidak">Australian Council of Trade Unions
</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="Z" submitter="vidak"><cite>The Dominant Ideology Thesis</cite> (Turner, Abercrombie, & Hill 1981)

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">National borders are a social construct / National borders are always made up ad-hoc before they become accepted / People-groups owning land is a social construct / No group of people actually owns any particular area of land  ->  a troubling realization but very important. if you find a way to support this claim and use it effectively, then no group of nazis can ever claim to rightfully own an area of land ever again. thoughts: A) while Native American reservations are a problem especially in how artificial and externally-imposed they are, historically they exist because a treaty <em>constructed them</em> as an attempted solution to ongoing wars — two groups of people tenuously came together and fabricated that. B) two or more groups of people came together and fabricated Ukraine in its form as a nation-state rather than a subpopulation. C) "a pure Germany" is a fabrication inside one subpopulation against another. D) Israel is fabricated. E) one of the remaining questions here is if Palestine would be fabricated. note that whether Palestine is fabricated has no bearing on the human rights of individuals, as shown with the creation of Ukraine. F) arguments about <em>why</em> or <em>when</em> it is okay to fabricate a national border to protect the people inside or at least stop fighting them are separate propositions. this is only the statement that all national borders are fabricated on some particular day before they become officialized and accepted by everyone.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Farewell to Reality</cite>  ->  contained one definition of acceptable models of reality

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Bolshevism is a far-left ideology  ->  false for complex reasons. "Bolshevism is a left-wing ideology" could be a true statement, but "far-left ideologies exist" is not. it's even arguable that "far-right ideologies exist" is false, given that the gap between Toryism and fascism is much smaller than people think.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The E.U. is a bunch of bureaucrats / The European Union is a bunch of bureaucrats  ->  thanks Baher. [https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/zaher-baher-confederalism-democratic-confederalism-and-rojava]

</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM, MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Reality can't be labeled true or false / Calling reality true or false is a category error / Asking "if reality exists" is nonsensical; a statement in a proof exists, reality behaves / Factual observations exist, Facticity behaves / Observations are true or false, but physics simply behaves  ->  in traditional philosophy, it's easy to get caught up in "if reality is truly real", but that whole question is sophistry. imagine Deltarune is perceived as a fully physical world by its inhabitants — basically what is implied by the narrative already. if Deltarune is full of physics, will any of the characters behave as if it isn't real? in order to write fictional narratives we always assume that particular pieces of real-world physics lead to particular reponses. for instance, if the fictional world contains death, fictional people will create ethical theories and standards of behavior around death. what we don't think about is the same pattern may be true of reality. if death <em>behaves</em> within the Factical space of reality, then human beings will interact with death as <em>behaving objects</em> connected by the same overall consistent set of objects and behaviors. all philosophy is the interpretation of what we call Physics, Facticity, or The Great Behaving, because The Great Behaving is always behaving against us and we are always obligated to behave back. the fact that multiple people all behave in The Great Behaving moots every question about the truth of reality, because whenever you call The Great Behaving not true you potentially call another person not true, or an ecosystem not true. and the fact is that if you burn down the Amazon the toucans will have no {{censor|fucking}} idea what set of reasoning led you to do that. if you treat reality as not true, the toucans will only know you're a world-ending disaster.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The Algorithm is the same thing as The Market  ->  very intuitive if like me you grew up with Algorithms all your life. both of them are a disorganized cloud of producers on a certain territory trying to shove themselves into your face before others do. the sinister thing is that many people on Algorithms are not even earning any money; at this point we're just training people that people-gambling for attention and stomping over the top of other people to get attention [[E:community versus Commu-nity|is inherently good]].

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">chaos magic {{YouTube|vccBZn0spjw}} {{YouTube|d-OeKeyvIdM}} {{YouTube|v-oEH_zHsbk}} {{YouTube|cw6jIyH8iRo}}  ->  TJ Kirk's stated ideology. I'm not satisfied with this answer just yet, because I like to find the internal ideologies inside ideologies that they really evaluate to.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">invented dice god helped me navigate the world (chaos magic)  ->  the motif of using mythological or "religious" symbols purely as metaphorical models of a chaotic world and the supposed ability to use Free Will to create or discover a desired future. I have no problems with this in terms of whether it's religion. it's clearly just a philosophical ritual. what leaves me concerned about this is that it's basically just masking 'accidentally' believing in other ideologies that are emergent from this kind of behavior but once you've seen them operate all have content.
</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-remark="opposer" value="618" data-dimension="S">leviathan cross / infinity patriarchal cross
</li><li class="field_nations" data-tradition="ES / PT" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Unpredictability is the currency of power (TJ Kirk)  ->  I am not sure what ideology this is. comparing to Donald Trump you'd think "proto-fascism" or "Toryism" is appropriate, but these things here are... so oddly specific they feel like they have to have come from something else. he definitely doesn't know what culture is, and isn't the kind of guy who would discover existential materialism. it kind of sounds like some variety of psychoanalyst {{censor|bullshit}} — Jung? the word "shapeshifter" is suspicious — but I'm not sure what it actually is.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-remark="postmodern? / chaos magic. ES? A?" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Humanity has left the era of ideologies and is in the post-ideological period / Previous historical periods were about finding a good ideology and trying to build the world to fit it but this one is not (TJ Kirk) ->  I don't think this can be true given that every identity graph has principles no matter how abstract they are. a group of White people tossing out a bunch of arbitrary smokescreen-beliefs as fancy hats for white supremacy is a principle, even if it's one real principle pretending to be fifty that are all made up. to even be in a group of White people is to have at least one principle, just like being in a group of Trotskyists or anarchists is to have at least one principle or you're not in the group and going off to associate with somebody else. I think when you say things like this you've probably bought into some kind of claim that being a nazi can be ideologically neutral because national populations are not political when whole groups of humans as material objects fight each other. I know we all "do things and then try to justify it", but... can you really do such a thing in the case of nationalist chunk competition? I don't think you can. this man makes me want to entertain the otherwise stupid anarchist idea that physical populations are culturally fabricated and leaving a toxic population any way you can is better than trying to stay.
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="618" data-dimension="S2">History used to be ordered, now everything is breaking to leave something entirely unknown (TJ Kirk)  ->  this is like. a Zinovievist theory of history? the minimal version of Zinovievism without any Trotskyism in it. confuses me to see it from TJ Kirk when unlike Žižek he is not even pretending to be a Leninist, so this has to have come from somewhere else.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Mount Tambora caused Crumbl cookies  ->  interesting for the reasons in the middle between the two things

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S">object term   ->  a noun which refers to an arrangement of matter or arrangement of particular pieces
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S">process term  ->  a noun which is not necessarily a verb but refers to an action or series of actions; a verb referring to material events
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S">process adjective  ->  an adjective which refers to a material process of some series of events having happened. ex.: "subdivided", "polymerized"
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S">standard term / meta-ontological or post-linguistic term
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S">hypercorrected term  ->  a term which has been corrected from its standard form in some other ideology to a local, ideology-specific form. Trotskyists hypercorrecting "Trotskyism" to "Leninism" is a great example. anarchists hypercorrecting "anarchist" to "postcolonial" looks to be another example. hypercorrected terms should not be used in Item labels unless there is no standard term or they genuinely make things clearer

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S">hypercorrecting "anarchist" to "postcolonial"  ->  this needs to be exposed. although if "exposing" it causes more people to become anarchists, I don't think I really mind, because that's admittedly better than them being Tories.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4999" data-dimension="S">Zinovievizing / Zinovievize / Zinovievism (process noun / nominalized verb, similar to "imperialism")  ->  to declare another entire ideology a conspiracy based on the whole group of people believing the wrong culture, and attempt to bash the SPS to pieces. I have a bad feeling that given enough time most Anarchisms naturally do this to each other.
</li><li class="field_ML" value="4999" data-dimension="S">I'm a Marxist-Leninist but China needs to be Zinovievized / I'm not anticommunist, but... (Zinovievizing China)  ->  this feels like one of the biggest blunders of modern Marxism besides people around the world thinking Trotskyism is more valid than any of the Marxisms that have actually worked. like, no, you've lost the plot. one of the major reasons for Marxism is to understand how countries have developed in order to understand how countries can stop fighting each other, and this does neither of those things. you genuinely need some kind of meta-ontology to understand China, which actually deals with the prospect of a totally different Marxism existing and the "correct" Marxism having to exist alongside it, broadly predict what it will do, and take appropriate kinds of actions to unify with it against non-Marxisms.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S">meta-anarchism / red anarchology (Marxist study of stationary combinations of heterogeneous elements referred to as anarchies; meta-Marxism)  ->  the application of meta-Marxism to anarchism. in practice a lot of my meta-Marxist theory on societies so far is technically doing this, explaining how various anarchisms have failed to properly evaluate themselves to first produce successful theories of existing societies and then produce successful theories of how to build a named Anarchism, and how they could produce more successful theories consistent with reality and capable of evaluating previous largely-Idealist anarchist theories. god, all the time I have had to spend just scrambling to correct the way anarchists understand the historical development of countable Cultures.... why have they spent so long accumulating so much clearly wrong theory on that?

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Anarchism doesn't explain real societies / Anarchism is an insufficient theory of society

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">It costs zero dollars to not be racist / Not being racist costs money (dismissed possibility) / If it costs zero dollars not to be racist, why spend money on anti-racism education? (rhetorical question; dismissed possibility)  ->  an unfortunate reality in places like the United States. to have any idea how not to be racist people have to actually form mental models of other groups of people, and every method of doing that from media to travel to university programs costs money. any time that people don't have the power to earn a lot of money and outcompete other people they are at risk of being racist or producing racist children, just because they will become stuck in spending all their energy surviving and focusing on whatever things they can afford that manage to make them happy. and the more generations of that you go through the more racist people get and the more incapable of climbing out of it they get. this is why it is really, really concerning whenever you get anarchists trying to characterize racism in terms of "greedy people" and "corporations getting bigger". people reverting to smaller towns or villages all too easily results in them ending up in the exact kinds of limited-income, limited-opportunity situations that make them and their children incredibly racist. at the same time, it is worth recognizing how Careerism and Existentialism encourage people to compete to create or occupy all of society's slots and how that divides people into incapable people who are at risk of becoming racist and capable people who are at risk of becoming nazis to try to preserve what they've taken. Existentialism is one big lose-lose game that's great for dividing your society into two groups of nazis that both still deeply hate each other.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">racialized Hatfield attack  ->  when people become afraid of each other and preemptively attack each other before The Law can intervene specifically based on ethnicity or similar demographic. I pick these item titles a little strategically so nobody can take any of the Items and go "haha, lynching" and attempt to meme racism. "racialized Hatfield attack" sounds boring, and that's a good thing.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">Emmett Till looks like a hamburger [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ck3Z9xzaQI]  ->  the motif of attempting to educate students about racism only for them to already respond with racism.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">Take It Seriously  ->  case of: project policy. Ontology category for serious subject matter where it is inappropriate to pull things like funny jamming propositions. it might feel a little unintuitive when this applies. some things like historical periods of racism receive Take It Seriously, but other things like "Celebration axe murder" which may be horrifying but fail to be more profoundly terrible than fictional horror works distinctly do not. Take It Seriously tends to apply to phenomena which generate strong "Sunny" fallacies and present a risk of people refusing to have empathy / honor human rights.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="Z"><cite>[[Ontology:FoolsCrow1979|Fools Crow]]</cite>  ->  biography of a Sioux civil chief and medicine man. interesting in terms of historical patterns. happens to contain a bunch of history of blatant racism, simply because over the past century that's what had happened.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Our Daily Bread</cite> August 2025 - DSV2508ND

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="Z">cause-breaking dome / dome problem (Newtonian mechanics)  ->  this + series of unique events = chaotic system.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S0">chaotic system  ->  a chaotic system is a system which can be simulated as having steps that are individually predictable but where the overall set of steps of the process looks wildly different depending on the unknown initial condition. one example which is somewhat famous now is the "dome problem": a perfectly smooth ball sitting on a perfectly smooth dome has particular physics which are easy to understand when the ball rolls off the dome and goes down a particular path, but before the ball rolls off it's mysterious how long it will take to move or what direction it will go. if I'm understanding all this correctly, the dome is the simplest version of a chaotic system, with just one or two interactions. a chaotic system can have any number of understandable interactions after the first one which depending on the first one knock the system wildly down different courses.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">Celebration axe murder

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The creation of violence is a two-way process / The creation of violence is a multivariable function of two physical objects acting according to game theory  ->  the claim that Hatfield attacks or "crimes" occur when people hate each other in both directions and absolutely cannot get along. committing active violence in "self-defense" is a more common and attested phenomenon than people want to admit. there don't have to be any Tories hating whole groups of people for violence to happen; there only has to be a pedophile who is not getting brought to justice and an angry former victim with an axe, or a [[redlink - Dave Pelzer My Story|beat-up child]] knowing his mother has a gun in the house and contemplating whether to fire it.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The only way for societies to avoid violence is for all populations to progress in the same direction  ->  if Stalin-followers progress toward Bolshevism and Trotskyites progress toward Bolshevism, and it's the same unique physical arrangement of parts containing both of them, all is well. if Stalin-followers progress toward Bolshevism and Trotskyites progress toward Liberalism, all is not well. even if one population progresses toward center-Liberalism and one progresses toward Toryism, it's possible the society is headed toward violence and people will murder each other.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">right to housing  ->  I recommend inputting human rights as motifs because motifs never have to be marked true or false.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">All people deserve housing / Everyone across the total of two towns deserves housing  ->  a contradiction. we want it to be true, but it can't be materially true because two million people can never fit in the same space meant for a thousand people. "all people" always live in some particular area, but each town constitutes a separate population such that "all people" is multiple separate groups of people. to successfully receive housing a person has to first pick between the two towns, and in turn may be picking between an entirely separate countable Culture and government, as if every town was a separate nation-state. this has important consequences for any form of "democracy": the Demos is always split into multiple Demotes each creating separate Democracies, and discussions on issues can always become skewed as people get forced into one Democracy or the other.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="M3">What is consumerism?  ->  everyone throws around this concept like it actually means something, but have you ever thought about the actual question of how consumerism came to be a problem and how it happens? I cannot remember hearing a single "how" explanation of consumerism, only shallow descriptions of "[[Ontology:stale rat bread|this is bad and I don't like it]]".

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Asserting society's problems boil down to a few villains Choosing to be bad is inherently statist  ->  this aspect of anarchism and [[E:Frantz Fanon|Fanon]] fans really bugs me. "xenophobia and choosing to do terrible things to another group of people cannot be termed natural" okay. "a small group of people had to actively do this" you're beginning to lose me but, okay, technically correct. "if everybody has the right attitude and coheres together like A Community we can fix this" how? any way of doing that given the first two implications you said effectively creates The State. you have just defined the concept of crimes and criminals and hunting down criminals, and that imperialists and billionaires are criminals. how the hell does having a better attitude or emerging countable Culture make that go away and make you not need what amount to anarchist police or the anarchist national guard that has the explicit authority to kill people for being criminals, deport them, or put them in prison?? every time I think of a real event of millions of people uniting to stop something as uniquely bad and unnecessary, that's either a law or law enforcement. or, well, sometimes it's a highly xenophobic anti-Arab "assassinate the evil monstrous American-slaying threat" mission, AKA an international blood feud. you can have a phenomenon to excise an unwanted "villain" from a population that isn't law enforcement but <em>is</em> pure bigoted violence. this is why every Communist movement is the enforcement of Communist laws: so that nobody is authorized to kill people just because they're another ethnicity or another demographic, and the violence comes to a stop when people are acquainted with the new external borders, internal structural borders, and ideology.

</li><li class="" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Consumerism is the perfection of slavery  ->  what the hell does this mean. investigate it later

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">All Idealism is actually intuition-ism / Idealism doesn't exist because all Idealists are intuition-ists  ->  the claim that whenever Idealists try to insist that contradictory things inherently go together, or there are exceptions to things that everyone is inherently supposed to know, that what they are actually doing is operating totally off intuition. they really do have an inner ontology of the way things are supposed to be but they are just really really bad at visualizing it or articulating what it is, so they clumsily try to explain things by listing off all the things those things aren't. this model is useful because it doesn't treat anarchists and Existentialists as stupid just for being bad at describing what things they actually believe and having to resort to describing everything in negative terms.

</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S">Small businesses can be harmful  ->  a depressing number of people don't even realize this.
</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S">Scalpers are small businesses  ->  this is just a fact. of all things, I had this seared into my mind <em>by Neopets</em>, where most of the residents of the game world can't actually produce anything and you generally make money by scalping. (or in better scenarios, hoarding things that are very old.)

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">Existentialist inspiration porn / thank you miscellaneous townspeople for paying for the hospital / thank you Twitch chat for paying for mom's otherwise impossible dentures [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVgTz4JXQ2E&t=12927s]  ->  the motif of a "heartwarming" story of everyone in A Community coming together, rich and poor, Black and White and Native-American, all spontaneously exerting Free Will and donations of wildly varying values to do something in precisely the way that no other city in a country of millions and millions of people can possibly do, but where this highly local solution the writers admit doesn't apply everywhere is presented as somehow the way to fix a nationwide problem. this motif does not apply if there is actual repeatable theory behind the local plan which is being replicated in many regions.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S">interdemocracy between eating, breathing space-occupiers  ->  the only way out of capitalism. Liberal-republicanism very vaguely recognizes the idea of interdemocracy, but not the concept of people actually being living things that eat and occupy space. anarchism partially recognizes people as living, breathing organisms, but totally rejects the concept of interdemocracy. Marxism has never been properly ready for interdemocracy between Marxisms. a "democracy" of existence itself and populations themselves would be a genuinely new thing.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">the Rarity / benevolent territory-taker / benevolent networkist  ->  the motif of a high-ranking person or business territory owner of any size acting like they're the only definition of humanity just because they have the power to donate to the poor or they "make an effort to produce quality work". you see this every {{censor|fucking}} day when people argue against "AI": taking away the humanity of everyone but the highest-ranking people in order to then argue what being human supposedly is. this removal of humanity as people stratify into territory-takers and followers is the crux of where "colonialism" must come from. every single territory-taker that exists must be a contributor to the creation of empire. but every territory-taker will lie to you and claim they are all capable of doing something nice and the only people that can make arguments about social change, even though they are necessarily the creators of oppression just because they divide society into people with ability and people with disability, people with prediction-power and people with insecurity.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Any ideology which would toss one specific Archon in prison to fix a population and change nothing else is an anarchism  ->  I'm not sure if this is true, but it certainly seems like a decent distinction between Marxist versus non-Marxist ideologies. alternatively, it could be the distinction between Marxism and Existentialism, where anarchism and Existentialism are not the same thing. I think one potential problem with this is it threatens to label Deng Xiaoping Thought a named Anarchism; in practice it tends to run on things like regulating capitalism by finding specific bad actors and bringing down penalties on them while leaving everyone else "free" of state intervention to do capitalism. that doesn't feel like a correct categorization. I think it's fair to claim that anarchism doesn't truly exclude a State from forming in real life, and real-life Anarchisms probably <em>will</em> have States, but even so I don't think a huge party-nation with a parliament building sounds like an Anarchism. I definitely don't know enough anarchist theory to say why. all I know is from the angle of Marxism if you have chunk competition and elite winners of Careerism or investing who take charge of particular chunks, practically speaking those should be the Archons, and anything which is purposefully leaving Archons around materially couldn't construct a logically-coherent realizable named Anarchism as a theory, so it shouldn't make sense to call it anarchism right now.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Regulating businesses is anarchism  ->  it sounds weird to any anarchists, but it's the logical conclusion of getting rid of hierarchy being about tossing out specific bad actors who are the Archons. you've got potentially half a million Archons to toss in prison for violations, are you really ready for that much statism?

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S">ring of non-competing businesses versus expansion / distinction between stability and expansion  ->  the existence of anarchist theories seems to come not from any distinction between workers and owners, but from the distinction between a stable ring of non-competing tiny businesses and a chaotic clamor of businesses expanding from tiny to larger. the distinction between tiny businesses and larger businesses appears right before the proletariat proper even comes to exist, and in that sense it's a very archaic conflict from an early stage of populational development.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Anything that removes colonialism from an empire is a revolution  ->  this would be following from the claim that any government emerges directly from a population of people itself and the class or rank structure inside that population; whenever you remove the upper class or the Archon you change the resulting government and the population's entire paradigm about government. colonialism, depending on your definition, is the actions of a few particularly malicious Archons (India), or the expansion of a population onto another continent or country mediated by the highest-ranking people who are the most able to secure territory that the more common people stand behind to get handed the ability to produce a sellable product and feed their kids (United States, maybe South Africa or Ireland, but not India).

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Filling an area with people in order to instate a government is colonialism  ->  how do you disqualify Gramscianism from being an instance of this? for that matter, how do you disqualify Liberal-republicanism from inherently being an instance of this even when it's governed by progressives? I would say indigenous or previous people-groups are exempt and they can't forcibly occupy a territory that was invaded by somebody else. but beyond that, how can you possibly argue that an LGBT+black&brown party isn't colonialism unless it dismantles Liberalism and somehow creates a new government that materially isn't colonial? anything that actually, successfully removes colonialism is definitionally a revolution, and nobody wants to acknowledge that.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Every class or rank of people uses Christianity to defend their current behavior

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Christianity is the appropriation of Jewish writings to serve empire  ->  false because it didn't happen in a straight line like that. Jewish texts were passed to Jewish Christians, who then were Christians, and then I think what basically happened was Christianity was divided into common people and literal emperors and the emperors or upper classes of each kingdom overshadowed everyone else and created the new interpretation. the whole issue of people "misinterpreting" Christianity is bizarrely a class issue from the moment it first appeared all the way through to today.

</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">"Settlers" is a Maoist text  ->  I'm pretty sure this is true. there might be some technicalities I'm missing, similar to the notion that at the time Christianity was created a group of people was splitting in two so nothing was arbitrarily copied and the use of Christianity for modern empires is more complicated than modern empires simply twisting Jesus. I am still confused and trying to figure out how the hell a Communist text was totally appropriated by anticommunists to mean that somehow we can purge racism out of everything and we have to before there can be workers' movements. I still don't understand how for a country still so stuck in center-Liberalism that even became "allowed" or "acceptable" much less mandatory.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Snatching Marxist texts to achieve center-Liberalism is cultural appropriation  ->  more of an "interesting thought" than a solid argument. relies on the concept of a "culturally-defined Communist" in the sense of an East German, etc., emerging as a nationality whose nationality is then appropriated.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Escaping Bolshevism causes the same things to happen anarchically

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Epic-of-Gilgamesh stories mean that effort is not owned  ->  a not-obvious interpretation of this story type that I like a lot better. it seems like history got a lot worse the day the Afrikaner attitude arrived that all effort you put into existing is something you inherently own, instead of it being possible that a lot of the effort put into existing is purely fighting against pressure from outside and doesn't represent any kind of progress or creation or ownership at all.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Populations continuing to exist is equivalent to immortality  ->  everything dies, and a great number of living things have a maximum lifespan. but populations are the one thing that is alive and can die and yet wants to live forever and ever. we don't want populations to die and one population to be able to slaughter another out of bigotry. but no population can necessarily live forever. how do you reconcile that? I think that's a really difficult question. but the one thing I know is Epic-of-Gilgamesh type stories are a really bad way to go about it. if Sun Wukong wants to preserve his population... isn't that what every population wants? doesn't every single population not want to be subject to genocide? so, to cast the concept of preserving a population through the lens of an individual king wanting to stay in power just seems totally wrong. existence is not a king, but more like the republic itself. it doesn't make sense to characterize existence as a form of power that needs to be limited as much as something you want to take the locus of power out of and understand as a bunch of connected moving parts.

</li><li class="field_nations" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Gender identity cannot possibly be secular / "You think a man magically changing into a woman is secular?"  ->  found in a comments section on a news story about parents opting out of LGBT+ lessons in school because they were supposedly "porn". (how would you expect them to have gotten into schools if that were true? these people have never seen fandoms and the absolutely gigantic controversies that LGBT+ people get into over a single mistagged tweet that wasn't for kids.)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The Magna Carta was the barons creating parliament / The Magna Carta was the nobility Freely Choosing to create parliament  ->  an example for the Existentialist / anarchist misconception that Liberal-republicanism is baked into a Culture or latent inside a whole countable Culture and is "obvious". this event appears to have happened, but it's the framing. the framing that all the barons and the king simply had to sit down and agree that We Are All The Subject So We All Have Rights. this subtle twisting of the historical event from a concrete struggle of a group of barons versus a king or the slow process of connections to nobility or parishes turning into representative units of people into the act of Everybody Casting Off Archon To Be Properly Human. it says a lot about anarchism and why everyone is so <s class="censor">goddamn</s> anarchy-brained.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S0">human right  ->  a human right is the category of motifs of all human beings deserving something. unfortunately, many human rights are typically conceptualized as "I believe that everybody" statements.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="M3">How do people obtain the content of a human right? / In what way do people obtain the material object described in a human right?  ->  this is a very important question that nearly everybody glosses over. if you ask Existentialists like Deleuze and Guattari, they'd say that simply having Freedom as an individual enables everyone to obtain human rights. but as far as I can see that just generates Liberal-republicanism and many people not successfully being able to make use of Freedom in this way. this is why I get so upset about the thing I call the Existentialist-Structuralist tradition and have made a whole big project to try to study it.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">All human beings deserve housing  ->  this is only "false" because it's an "I believe that everybody" statement, and needs a more precise counterpart which more accurately describes how to obtain human rights within material reality.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">All human beings deserve appropriate medication  ->  this is only "false" because of the question of how.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Human beings deserve hormone treatment  ->  sub-case of: All human beings deserve appropriate medication.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="618" data-dimension="S">Stalin showing up without any cash  ->  motif found in center-Liberal attempt to explain the continuing evolution of capitalism, originally found in <cite>Stalin: The court of the red tsar</cite> (Montefiore 2003). [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqtrNXdlraM] this sounds to me like a PMC model trying to argue for the existence of "The Pigs" as a class. bringing up "Stalin showing up without any cash" is such whiplash against the rest of the argument that makes me question if the speaker actually knows anything about the development of societies if he is characterizing the Soviet Union in ways that could come out of people that clearly know nothing about it.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Gravity can be quantized into four gauge bosons  ->  when the weak force was quantized into three different particles depending on how you count them, this hypothesis seems reasonable to me. the real question is always how you test it and show that the model lines up with reality.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Global civilization will begin with a single currency / Just as nation-states began with a single standard currency that allowed for taxes, banks, and sherrifs, global civilization will begin with countries consolidating onto a currency  ->  proposition sitting behind Trump's "new Breton Woods" axis of green and yellow countries; the whole thing revolves around a bunch of countries being connected by the U.S. dollar. to me, the observation that even center-Liberals can blatantly point out allied blocs of countries as a major way this thing works is more interesting. should we instead be looking specifically at the formation of a bloc of insiders and a bloc of outsiders to explain how these axes develop and what they will further develop into? the fact this is about strengthening the dollar's "ally currencies" into a particular cluster of currencies is suspicious.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Influencers spreading the ex-gay model is dangerous  ->  this isn't not true, but is potentially misleading. it suggests individual public figures actually have the ability to Freely Will what everyone else believes and can design everybody's culture better if they only make the right choices, and it's unclear if that's actually true.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="Z">neo-paganism  ->  the charcoal swatch can be situationally used for neo-pagan religions now, as long as they have vaguely anarchist values. partly because I just don't know what swatch to use otherwise. I'm tired of putting the blue one on everything, and the green one seems mildly insulting unless it's simply a novel with occult themes.
</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The history of religion is at least twelve times bigger than Christ / Christianity is just one historical period in a bigger progression of at least twelve totally different historical periods containing no Christian god  ->  astrological claim that is technically correct, if for somewhat wrong reasons.
</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S">age of Aquarius  ->  this just sounds like religious anarchism. am I wrong? this notion that an existing order will be shaken up through the flow of information and "freeing" things. the only thing about all this garbage I actually kind of like is the concept of using zodiac signs to demonstrate how big history is. to say that Christianity was actually small and insignificant because it's only one of at least twelve big historical periods. one of little those moments where fringe science becomes almost wired. like when astrologers and alchemists realized that really big patterns in the universe and really small patterns inside matter they didn't quite understand yet had to be connected <em>somehow</em>. I mean, yeah, they are, whatever is going on near the scale of photons does lead up to the thing we call time which does ultimately lead up to the patterns of galaxies. ancient astrologers just got it a bit backwards really

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The heart of Marxism is historical materialism / Proposition zero of Marxism is historical materialism
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Escape routes choose people / People don't choose escape routes; escape routes choose people  ->  this is it. this is my problem with schizoanalysis. they think "lines of flight" are a model of Free Will, but they're not, because no matter where you go, your success in finding freedom, safety, or happiness there depends on the [[Ontology:Q776|uncontrollable actions people take at the other end]]. it's really the other people that choose you, not you that chooses your friends.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Intelligence is not advantageous to animal survival / Complex self-aware intelligence is not advantageous to survival  ->  the claim that human-like intelligence is not useful for understanding the physical world. this is about where you end up if you keep believing that statements about "not generalizing" and "waiting for things you think are bad to be good" actually constitute information rather than a lack of information. if that's really true, the human ability to learn was a terrible idea that has mostly led humans to internalize models about things where there is no actual pattern and hampered the survival of every individual. a less intelligent creature would have no prejudices in the human sense.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The United States is an instance of multicapitalism  ->  here I go coining words again. I have been kicking around this concept for a quite a while in MDem drafts, but up to now it has always been through the lens of emerging nation-states and the development of different forms of "democracy", rather than through the lens of capitalism. multicapitalism refers to the creation of multiple capitalist blocs inside the same country which function as different nations tearing apart the overall country <em>because</em> they are disconnected blocs of capitalists.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Expulsions and schisms are the same thing  ->  if one person can be a tiny group of people by being a countable Culture, then the major difference is just that an expulsion is one person and a schism is several people.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Liberalism is a large-scale Anarchism / Liberalism is what anarchist philosophy looks like when it realizes into a material population / When anarchist philosophy realizes, it will generate a Liberal State  ->  follows from "Anarchism is acting as if you are already free". if true, would explain why everyone in the United States is so dead-set on transitioning to Anarchism: it's always been that way from day one.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Marketing was invented by capitalists  ->  I really doubt this is true when people-gambling seems to be something that emerges by default and pre-dated capitalism, and people-gambling can create the need for marketing.
</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Marketing was not invented by capitalists  ->  the inverse claim. may be changed to any currently reasonable hypothesis about where marketing comes from.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Correct knowledge is found because of effort [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFDgR8qSdKo]  ->  no. this is just taking an appeal to authority and removing the specific figurehead so that <em>the person's rank</em> or <em>the person's university</em> is the appeal instead of the person. a person can spend all kinds of effort learning the wrong things and come to incorrect knowledge. it takes something else entirely to come to correct knowledge that is accurate to reality.

</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Societal progress is relative to a population's own goals / populational relativism proposition (similar or near-synonymous with "cultural relativism", but very specifically definining a countable Culture as a physical collection of human individuals constituting a Culture-object, not as the things the Culture-object collectively believes)  ->  implied in most mainstream Marxist-Leninist texts, even if some did also jump to particular assumptions about what those goals might be; self-determination was taken more seriously than a country developing the same way as other countries. this point of view makes it easy to define progress, and easy to define countries which are still developing. if a population internally has goals to realize into something else then it is still developing; if a population is completely content with its way of life it is not.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="M3">How will your civilization obtain insulin?  ->  one example of a genuine problem for Anarchists where the current "organization" of the world through primitive Existentialism, chunk competition, and Market Societies is hard to overcome with sheer utopian thoughts and individual will. you get to live in peace in your hidden Anarchist village if you can produce insulin. but all the production operations are taken up by giant patent-hoarding corporations that don't want anyone to know how. what are you going to do?

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The United States is one big religion of <strong class="caps">sex</strong>  ->  Christians are weird sometimes. I clicked up this video thinking it would be like, modern countries worship money, or modern countries worship expertise, or something that made some kind of sense and would make me sigh but nod and say <i>okay, you got me there</i>. no. instead what it comes up with is this. I just laughed and couldn't even keep watching because I just knew it was not going to get any better and it had peaked right there. I can't think of any justification for this statement. I need... better creative inspiration to justify this stupid idea than is probably in this video. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vipyissXC8A] ...you know. if the United States worships sex, and [[redlink|Trotsky wanted to ban sex]], does that mean the United States is messed up because Trotsky lost?

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">"The proletariat vs the bourgeoisie" is undialectical / Invoking "the proletariat vs the bourgeoisie" out of context of different levels of set-plurality ignores relativity and is undialectical  ->  sometimes I love saying outrageous things for one second before I give the much longer description of what they mean. this is the major thing that's wrong with Trotskyism. it doesn't understand the simple concept that because people are lifeforms that eat and occupy space, there can be genuine conflicts between two national populations over the same space or ability to arrange things just because they're alive. each of these cases of real conflicts makes a populational border necessary, and gives all the people in the population the responsibility of defending each other against outsiders. of course, "defense" doesn't have to be violent. it could be millions of people coming together to form the Soviet Union and then making the empire stop and signing a peace treaty. but there does have to be a populational defense in the sense of all the people taking responsibility for the population and agreeing to form it into a particular shape which will bring an end to war. this is the sense in which I hesitate to say Deng Xiaoping Thought doesn't qualify as Marxism. the one thing it actually does is provide a method for defending the Chinese population from foreign capital by requiring it to take on a particular structure and create its own capitalists while refusing only some things from the outside. so... it's doing the most basic thing that Marxism should do as of the time of Stalin but it's just doing it a very weird way.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">United States African-American populations should transition to Deng Xiaoping Thought  ->  really dumb thought that crossed my mind, I have no clue how bad an idea this is. this is a <s class="censor">shit</s>post. anyway. the "logic" behind this is: China has a herd of cats effect. racial subpopulations in the United States have a herd of cats effect. each of them has to line up behind a layer of bourgeoisie possibly wrapped up in a Liberal-republican party because they have to defend their population from getting crushed by the momentum of outside populations. so what if racial subpopulations transitioned to Deng Xiaoping Thought? I have no idea if this makes any sense. I just don't know.<br />
[edit:] W.E.B. Du Bois was kind of calling for this by another name? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihQ_VVbygig] well that's something.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Novelty theory [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL0yfxDe6jE]  ->  so. this is silly. the way it's phrased it's bullshit, and the author literally admits it was made on drugs. but looked at from a better foundation? this is just an assembly theory, which isn't <em>not</em> true. the universe is full of a lot of things, and they bump into each other to create new things which follow from the things that already exist but might not be predictable if you don't understand the things that exist. that much is fairly possible to substantiate.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Computation space is largely interchangeable with computation time
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">A supply chain is like a human computer [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JuWdXrCmWg]  ->  sounds weird at first, but this is specifically in regard to the tradeoff between space and effort. the more you mess with different layouts of people and how effective they are, the more you observe that manufacturing is basically people computing physical objects, in the same sense that a computation can be made of any number of particular layouts of smaller computations, some of which are faster, some of which are more effective, some of which are more understandable from the outside.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S">Chen Jingrun sitting inside shelter solving primes  ->  the motif of a big historical event going on and someone just being a person rather than their story being used to serve any particular agenda. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x32Zq-XvID4] unironically great. it's so easy to take an incident between a workers' state and some group of people inside or outside it and spin it into the deepest depths of anticommunism, instead of simply reporting what happened in the incident and who was there. you see the slightest implications in the narrative based on what details were chosen of "imperialism!! China trying to control any particular borders is imperialist!" but it's relatively subtle. why don't we tell the actual conflicts like this

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Bamboo is a weed
</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Bamboo is an invasive species
</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Weeds are invasive species  ->  this cannot be true but I don't know how to dispute it.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Proletarians are a finite resource capital is constantly running out of  ->  again and again, I keep trying to figure out the connection between the persistence of capitalism and migration within a country. I know there's something in there somewhere. workers in the United States, of the Careerist type that easily stretches back out to contractor, only stay in each area so long before they try to level up to high-quality contractors or new businesses. you only get to squeeze a few years out of each person before the proletariat just runs out, so it's like a pseudo ponzi scheme to keep trying to fill them back in. a local independent/subsidiary sized business definitely disintegrates on its own unless there is very careful attention to it

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The concept of truth is mainly for educated people  ->  what I now believe. you should never invoke the concept of true or false with uneducated people or even people who might be too lost in the weeds of philosophy, and instead always explicitly reference bisimilarity to reality with words such as "accurate"/"inaccurate".

</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Complexity in a theory is not as important as accuracy / A theory is not true purely because it's nuanced [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9CMRMg0zjY]  ->  yes! the Existentialists said something genuinely smart. this is the basic concept behind how propositions are rendered on this wiki. even when models are complicated if you want to become an expert in them, render them simply, break them down to simple distinctions of what they claim, in order to make it easier to analyze whether their most central concepts are accurate or inaccurate.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="618" data-dimension="S2">A bunch of crusty reactionaries showing up to the Labor party is the very beginning of class struggle {{YouTube|YqW8CXpVhNY}}  ->  thanks Trotskyism. this is. I really have to doubt this. how can you people see regular people saying "Labor is turning into a reactionary party just like the Tories", and then say people joining a reactionary party is a good thing?? let's think up a counterpoint really fast. what if we lived in the timeline where Trotskyists invading the British Labour party actually succeeded and it turned into an inert Marxist party like the Japanese Communist Party (only this one is Trotskyist)? wouldn't people joining that party be a lot better than people joining the Labor party only after it's gone reactionary? like, hell, even if I say bad things about Trotskyism I'd prefer that outcome to having reactionary parties by a long shot. there is some weird subpopulational fuckery going on to create these Liberal-republican parties that definitely isn't the kind of class struggle you expect it to be in this video. from everything I know, it seems like modern populations prefer to try their best to separate into new ethnicities whenever they get upset with all the other individuals in society which they always get upset at really indiscriminately except for a narrow group of people they deem to be demographically similar to them. everything you've said has made me think the Labor party is filtering people out of the pool of people who can possibly bring progress, and the next thing everyone across miscellaneous classes would realistically do is fight the Labor party

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Insanity is doing the same thing for a different result / Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result  ->  this weird old saying contradicts the efforts of center-Liberals and poststructuralists to crush stereotypes. what would you say if a racist claimed that insanity was tolerating some particular demographic of people a third time? that said, the concept that "not expecting things to be the same" can fix all prejudices seems wrong to me, because prejudices are often just terrible interpretations of real problems, and doing nothing but crush signifiers seems like simply ignoring the problems.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">A lack of data means future experiences will be perfect / A bad experience doesn't teach about similar experiences / Bad experiences can't teach anything / People-gambler's fallacy  ->  a lack of data means it's just as likely bad things will happen as good things. this can be very scary to some people who can't afford to have any more bad experiences.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Contractors sell labor; proletarians sell purpose  ->  the claim that the difference between proletarians and contractors is precisely that everything about a proletarian's daily life becomes patterned around work, including what town they get to live in, what people they're allowed to know and talk to, and what activities they do when not at work. the concept of "time" is a distraction because nothing depends on time, despite what scientists up to now will tell you about physics equations and "determinism". connection and appropriateness for a structure are the things that make capitalism run

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S2">I think, therefore I am / The writer cannot be the writer's hallucination / The writer cannot be a proposition inaccurate to reality  ->  classic, famous proposition used by Descartes as a basic axiom. one good argument against it is that by Gödel's incompleteness theorem no computer or logic book can reason about the actual computer or things outside the computer and certainly be correct. there's always a causal separation between computer, brain, or logic book and reality itself in the sense that one can say physics "is" the separation between objects.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Transgender people think therefore transgender people are  ->  this is the crux of my problem with current theories on gender identity. this Cartesian construction was overturned for crusty old White men within their own philosophers' groups so it seems strange we should be using it for anyone else. "I think, therefore I am" + gender identity = this.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S">allegory of the cave  ->  a metaphor for the gap between noumenon and phenomenon. probably greatly exaggerated. the more time goes on and the more science has been done the smaller the gap between "object" and "shadow" seems to get.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Laziness Does Not Exist</cite> (Pryce 2021)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Laziness does not exist  ->  I have my doubts about this. I mean, it's true that the concept of individual effort being connected to the ability of individuals or towns to live is bogus. there are many kinds of effort that are simply wasted, and where "laziness" would have been just as good. primitive Existentialism sucks. but the real problem with people "being lazy" is that towns need a balance of particular things and individuals need a particular amount of connection to other people that recognize them as useful (income) to raise their children. it doesn't seem like the streamers who are arguing that YouTube channels are productive have thought through what would would happen if all the people doing important basic things in other towns turned out to be reactionaries and disconnected from them. so, the only kind of laziness that exists is people being lazy about forming the correct social graphs that are totally resistant to reactionaries. but almost everyone has it.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Community is a cancer / "Infinite growth on a finite planet" comes from births / "Infinite growth on a finite planet" comes from individuals / "Infinite growth on a finite planet" is a bad talking point (births and primitive Existentialism)  ->  if you listen to Tories long enough, or if you simply look at the way job openings decrease every generation, you realize that the problem of "infinite growth" comes from individual households. individuals want to believe there will always be jobs for them, and things for them to create and contribute to society, the total number of things that exist always expanding. but the reality is that everything is finite. the space in a city for buildings is finite. the number of people you can sell something to is finite. the amount of attention people have to listen to ads and look at things is finite. and at a certain point of development whenever any new people try to elbow their way into society society pushes back. it seems to be true that society wasn't meant to expand infinitely, but in order to effect that every single individual has to miraculously calculate the probability that having babies or creating new things is not best for the population and miraculously pick the correct action. that is really hard to do without Bolshevism and a central government that literally moves people to different cities. infinite growth is tied to disorganization, while to keep growth "finite" you have to genuinely organize it onto existing interconnected patterns. you have to give up the concept that civilizations are "made of Free Will" and accept that there is some kind of predictable correct arrangement of a particular set of people which has ways it can be done wrong.<br />
edit: there's a second way of looking at this, which is a bit simpler. The Subject is a living animal. living animals reproduce at some steady rate indefinitely without regard for the consequences, by nature of being organic life. put together The Subject in a ring of people, a tent of freedom poles, and they will all help each other reproduce indefinitely without regard for the consequences. Community Is A Cancer.<br />
are there ways Existentialists and anarchists can try to refute this? of course. one of them is to say that war is good and Europe is thriving because World War I happened but it ended — the United States isn't thriving because no other empire was there to challenge it on the same level, so it stomped the other populations and wilfully started fighting itself. if you think this is an atrocious state of affairs, that's fair, but it does line up with the history of civilizations over the past century where a ton of conflicts have been between giant global powers over the top of buffer states, notably Poland and East Germany. "Communities" can't halt their own expansion with just Community.<br />
description number three: inside countries there is simply a free-floating anarchic phenomenon of {{TTS|tts=Commu-nity|Community}} where individuals link together into social graphs that as wholes fight over things and try to claim them. anarchists think {{TTS|tts=Commu-nity|Community}} is harmless and natural and never "greedy", but it's not. {{TTS|tts=Commu-nity|Community}} produces socioempire. living breathing eating space-occupying individuals that are increasingly all some version of the bourgeoisie band together to form a circle of friends which in the process excludes people, inherently creates prejudices, drives other groups or individuals out of places as it expands, owns itself in a destructive way so as to prevent other people doing the same thing, owns the right to expand, owns the right to destroy and colonize for a limited number of people that other people have no control over, destroys the planet and says "I dunno how we could have persuaded each other to stop it", {{TTS|tts=Commu-nity|Community}} is just plain bad news. <s>(I must sound like Gene Ray right now. but really, having to live in a world where this is constantly destroying everything and nobody notices it is semi-literally driving me crazy.)</s>

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Profit actually applies to chunks of civilians / Profit does not apply to industries, it applies to chunks of civilians  ->  this is one of the underlying reasons anarchism doesn't make sense. capitalism always lied to us about what profit was. then anarchists make a bunch of theory based on the capitalist definition of profit which was wrong, and as a result it's wrong. the real explanation for profit is that a sheer group of people has to make more stuff than it eats or people don't get to have houses, which means they don't get to choose where to live, where to work, what people to meet, or to some extent what to believe. if the population isn't expanding and always remains at the same numbers this might not actually be a big issue; it's only the fact that most national populations are expanding that causes older and younger generations to compete so intensely and hate each other so much over not having enough houses or ability to earn them. the genesis of proletarians always requires people to become productive as individuals, to be able to do something very consistently, and this consistent productivity underlies profit. in reality there can be obstacles to achieving this: people can be disabled; it can be that all the businesses around are garbage quality like the strips of teeny businesses that constantly die and get replaced, and working at them won't really make them better; arbitrary redlining and prejudice can set people back in the "careers" they need to outright accumulate when there are never enough businesses; etc.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">there are only two genders...  ->  motif or internet meme of starting a sentence with this and finishing it with something that absolutely should not be the answer and is hard not to crack up laughing at.<br />
example A: two ordinary restroom doors and a mysterious door in the middle labeled "there are two genders: male, female, and maintenance closet"<br />
example B: two photos of a terribly cluttered desk and a perfectly clean desk labeled "there are only two genders"
</li><li class="field_nations" value="618" data-dimension="F2">The only two ideologies are small government and big government / There are two ideologies: small government and big government / There are only two genders: small government and big government  ->  this is so far beyond untrue. it's... provably untrue with just a few historical events. let's say Stalin is in favor of Big Government. well, Trotsky is also in favor of Big Government! he wants all the world's countries to spontaneously form into a world government. by some metrics you'd think a civilization with the area of the world is the biggest government. how many people are even in the parliament or council of soviets?? but the two of them are fighting each other even though they both believe in Big Government. there are more than two ideologies. they're all separate and they all begin from different local sets of interests and goals. how do you even square the notion of small vs big government with the United States fighting over Catholicism? Protestantism and Catholicism also show there are more than two ideologies, once you get to Islam and Buddhism and all the other religions there have ever been.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Getting a job is the act of playing both sides in a genuine social conflict

</li><li class="field_horror" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Bilingual boxes will kill hobby shops {{YouTube|_DyAvq7LE6A}}  ->  misleading. fails question-begging test. the real issue here is whether or not you can make the corporations themselves print multilingual boxes, not whether produced boxes will or won't be allowed in Canada. this is a democulture issue: is democulture materially possible, or will it devolve into segregation according to what culture each island of people naturally performs and which localized countable Cultures accept which other ones? you'll notice that the hobby shop getting upset is accelerating the exact problem the regulation failed to fix by almost intentionally (we don't know for sure they're bigots from such scant information) choosing the English-only boxes. the other thought that hit me after a while: why doesn't Canada buy its boxes from Europe? odds are those boxes would probably have French on them. of course, we know why. Canada's population is spread across multiple countries into Third-World factories that create things only for particular businesses in Canada but not the rest of Canada — or the same factories are attached to the United States. that's the basic reason.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="9901" data-dimension="S">assume a spherical cow  ->  the motif of mathematics problems, or perhaps general thought experiments, presenting a test case which makes perfect sense yet to any reasonable person looks unlike reality

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Language can never touch grass / A book can never touch grass  ->  every single book is a Cartesian system of reasoning unable to see outside itself, mitigated by the ability of any particular resource to collect more information or reference other things. this entails that copyright is pretty terrible for our ability to understand the outside world and not have prejudices.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="Z"><cite>City of Six Moons</cite>  ->  ontology exercise. fun idea in my opinion.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Mother</cite>  ->  RPG with opponents that seem like they should be recruited, ultimately leading to Deltarune. also possibly to IronShard/Aurora if that comes to be
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="Z"><cite>EarthBound</cite>
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Mother 3</cite>
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Endling</cite>  ->  animal ecology.
</li><li class="field_horror"  value="618" data-dimension="Z"><cite>In Stars and Time</cite>  ->  trauma adventure, like OMORI.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">green book

</li><li class="field_horror"  value="618" data-dimension="Z">{{book|Roses in the Flames}}  ->  dark green because this is hard to not see as a "dark" story.
</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Feral dragons are the only happy ones (Roses in the Flames)  ->  my crazy theory for what the twist of this story is going to be. everyone is an unreliable narrator and we'll find out that none of the main characters that thought they had it so good is truly satisfied and only the area of feral dragons that's supposedly destroying civilization is held up as satisfied with their lives and in Freedom. maybe it's just me, but all the descriptions of the world the characters give feel disingenuous. I kept thinking, the protagonist speaks like no actual human being and the characters don't talk about anything as if they were experiencing it as much as if everything was a bunch of floating propositions. but then I saw the game get polished from its earlier drafts to where it was a little more convincing. so maybe none of this is bad writing. maybe the game is planning some crazy twist where the things all the characters were saying at first weren't meant to be believable, and were all misdirects. maybe it's here to blow our minds by first setting up a strange, surreal, not-quite-believable setting of dragon capitalism and then the actual point is to shatter those expectations and show that genuinely none of it made any sense and here's the way dragons are supposed to live instead. the funny thing? if that was the point I'd probably like the story. you didn't portray civilizations as utopian, but you did metatransitional realism instead of just [[redlink - Wings of Fire|assuming]] dragon tribes are made of culture and Free Will. even if the depicted transition is effectively an Anarchism that is an achievement.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">People won't form coalitions just because you "[[redlink - Q3099|believe that everybody]]"

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">If Liberal economics exists because property values are the price to get somebody to willingly give up a social slot that was hard to obtain, how can we know that elections are ever fair?  ->  A) expensive land areas or buildings are hard-won slots B) elected offices are hard-won slots C) if somebody wants control of a country enough, they will work very hard to stay in and put in allies of the same demographic or belief unless someone somehow paid them not to. whatever that might mean.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Every lived experience contradicts lived experience  ->  every time I hear somebody say "you can't contradict lived experience"... no. Lived Experience is something of a paradox because the whole reason people "haven't respected it" is their own Lived Experience has blinded them to seeing others, or for various reasons, having a material incentive to see others. appealing to Lived Experience is a really bad idea.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Some people's "own meaning" is Toryism / Given the ability to make their own meaning, some people will make Toryism  ->  early-existentialism is a tautology. after being alive for 30 years it kind of shocks me that nobody realizes this. to say people create their own meaning is to say each person builds ontologies of what is important. but people already do that whether early-existentialism ever existed or not, even if there is religion. early-existentialism just characterizes religion from a new angle: if nobody knows what the afterlife is, what will you create? and that leads to a plurality of religions all believing different things while in conflict as material groups of people. early-existentialism never answered the most important question for humanity, which is, <i>what is the meaning of people chunk-competing</i>? the meaning of individual existences is totally irrelevant compared with that.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">freedom-hating atheist  ->  we need to talk about how bizarre it is that like, everyone has been programmed with "[[Ontology:Q3358|door theory]]" to the point that many center-Liberals actually believe that there are anti-religion people who actually genuinely hate religious people as living beings and don't want them to have any Freedom. that Richard Dawkins isn't just a xenophobe that should be tossed out of atheist circles, but is bad <em>specifically</em> because he denied people Individual Freedom Of Religion. this stupidity has made me hate Existentialism more than I dislike religion. like oh my hecks invent Christian Bolshevism if you really have to, just everyone please stop telling people that relationships are strictly voluntary. you should know by now that reactionaries reject marginalized groups of people because they think God declared them the enemy (the opposer) of Real Genuine Human Beings and they will get their reward from God for either braving through those people's disappearance or getting rid of them. cooperating with religious people is just dividing the United States into a big ragnarok battle between the god of reactionary-subpopulationals and the god of all the East-German types the reactionary-subpopulationals consider too weak or poor to "really" be White, plus the [[redlink - bourgeoisie|loudmouths]] that expel all those people and claim to speak for all society just because they're [[redlink - Careerists|the best at unrelated things]]. I think I went over the angry line. anyway, letting people believe [[Ontology:Q3776|all relationships are strictly voluntary]] and any religious people can Show The Door is very bad for the prospect of getting people to include marginalized groups of people in society without considering it a breach of their Freedom.

</li><li class="field_nations" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Freedom-respecting theories can be explained to a child / All Freedom-respecting theories can be explained to a child / The most Freedom-respecting theories can be explained to a fifth-grader  ->  follows from "[[Ontology:Q3776|solidarity is optional]]" plus the claim that every new academic theory about society is ideology. this claim is really interesting to test, but to be frank, it doesn't look too good for this claim when literally Kent Hovind can say this, while ironically any grade-school textbook <em>can</em> explain evolution.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Scientifically accurate theories can be explained to a child / up-goer five proposition (coherence of scientific theories)  ->  there's a much better case for this one. the quicker you can explain something to a ten-year-old the less likely it is that science genuinely doesn't know what's going on with the thing in practice. the longer it takes to give a singular explanation of something to an 18-year-old the more likely it is that either science doesn't actually have a good model of the phenomenon or the scientist doesn't understand the current models.<br />
I think this proposition is very illuminating when it comes to describing a correct Marxism and the way correct Marxisms emerge in the processes of history. like, try to explain schizoanalysis to a child. <i>so, Timmy, the reason people don't unify into a single country is stereotypes, but when people break out of stereotypes, they have to join together around a specific required culture anyway, which is not stereotypes, and doesn't mean the bigger country assimilating people into it is okay, because the bigger country is based on Liberalism, which is supposed to be anarchism but isn't, because the greedy expansion people invented big business and turned everyone into wage slaves, but people turning away from all billionaires isn't stereotypes because they all believe the same Ideals so that means they chose to be that way. no, Timmy, Ideals aren't culture. I know Chinese people believe in Confucianism sometimes and that's technically culture and it's also a conscious choice but you see it's not Ideals because it's not inside individuals even though individuals ultimately made it up. yes, Power Rangers believe in Ideals. yes, [https://zootopia.fandom.com/wiki/Judy_Hopps Judy Hopps] believes in Ideals. no, the herbivore population doesn't join together around Ideals and become a Culture. stereotypes are not Ideals, Timmy. oh. oh no... you'll have to repeat that. "Reshiram and Zekrom are truth and ideals but if you have too much Ideals the society blows up so they have to be balanced but truth is also Ideals so the good Ideals never win out". Timmy. I am having a crisis. I don't know if I can believe in anarchism any more.</i>

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">All academic-level theories are ideological / Any academic-level theory is ideological  ->  the claim that Existentialist-Structuralist periods and basically all of traditional philosophy along with such things as Marxism are ideologies according to a particular definition, although anything that can be taught in a fifth-grade textbook without leaving a lot of questions might not be. if this claim is true, then it would be impossible to claim that a textbook based on insights found in critical race theory (not to say such a thing literally exists, but hypothetically) is non-ideological. if this claim is false, then it could be that a Trotskyist could write textbooks based on insights from Trotskyism and Tories wouldn't even notice that there was Leninism in their textbooks and would just nod and say "that's probably correct".
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Critical race theory is an ideology  ->  although people aren't going to like it, as far as I can tell this is technically true <em>because the theory contains assumptions</em>. theories of ethics are ideological, and theories that say society should be fixed one way instead of another are ideological. this doesn't make them bad, but it does make them ideology. this is an unfortunate thing to combine with the fact everyone believes in Existentialism and the ability for anyone to choose to [[Ontology:Q3776|walk away from anything that is an ideology]]. get rid of Existentialism, and the problem is solved.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Liberal-republicanism is postmodern / George Washington was a postmodernist  ->  everybody who isn't already a Marxist would find this really confusing. but here's the thing. if Liberalism is designed to be all political systems, it is definitionally postmodern. people think that there was a particular era of "modernism" and then there was "postmodernism", because they're looking at culture and trying to define kinds of visual expression that they then try to connect back to deeper processes, but they've greatly underestimated how soon postmodernism actually starts within philosophy or politics. postmodernism begins in at least 1776. maybe earlier. believing Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson could exist and get along in the same country is the loose prototype of postmodern philosophies. the general cause of postmodern culture is populations sharding into millions of separate population-societies that all operate separately, and 1776 is about when it begins.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Trotskyism's internal structure differs from Stalin Thought  ->  add to other proposition?

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="Z">determinacy game / Gale-Stewart game [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj5RCs1FHcc]  ->  interesting in terms of demonstrating existential materialism. think about how one player forcing the other player to make particular moves and evolve their actions in response to another free-floating agent is similar to Liberal-republican elections and who forces what people or what issues into what parties. this game is like a weird bridge between Existentialism and dialectical materialism

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">god belief is a Cartesian system of reasoning

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Solarpunk is a class ideology belonging to empire / Solarpunk equals imperialism / Solarpunk equals colonialism  ->  please understand that I regard this as a statement that <em>could be false</em>. this is the claim that because the purported cause of British global empire in North America is Britain thinking one country is the world and it's the world, any Anarchism which thinks only about itself and not about its relativistically-gapped relationships with the rest of the world is essentially colonial and cannot be postcolonial. there's some chance this claim could be sophistry. I do not entirely know. this claim is related to: Q?? Pokémon is not metatransitional literature.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Mr. Satan's path is never certain / Mr. Satan's road to victory is never certain / No rest for Mr. Satan / Mr. Satan will always be waiting for fans / If Peter Singer has a charity, getting connections is always a waiting game  ->  Peter Singer and the Vegeta effect... there's something there. it's immoral for any particular person not to give to charity, or to not watch videos and Like videos and click the YouTube subscribe button. but no particular Goku can Freely Will what any particular Vegeta actually does. so if we've got the earth people over on one side, and Goku and Mr. Satan over on the other side next to an important cause, they'll experience a totally stochastic kind of cooperation with their cause regardless of what people "should" do or what the charity organizers "[[E:IBE|believe that everybody]]" should do. any particular charity organizer or thing you're supposed to give to will always be left awkwardly waiting and telling a bunch of people who can't be the ones to give to give as they wait and wait to find the perfect person who actually has the money or is the proper person to be subscribed to the YouTube channel or has the ability to lead whatever they're trying to do.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="M3">Why doesn't Europe have horrific suburban sprawl? / Why didn't Europe end up with horrific suburban sprawl?  ->  every time I try to explain the weird development of the United States, and how people build cities to create connections but then the cities run out of space and they move way far away from the city to have kids, Europe comes up. but I don't have a good answer to what Europe has instead of suburb hell.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">All Cops Abandon Balance / All Cops Are Bolsheviks (in reference to "government control equals Bolshevism" fallacy) / center-Liberals see abuse by police as a matter of exceeding Moderation  ->  the claim that "ACAB" was accepted as, counterintuitively, a model that police abuse is still a matter of individualized Evil. center-Liberals want to believe that abuses by the police are individuals being Extreme. by default they want to believe that "the police system" is a simple self-contained activity of society, and racist abuses occur when people exceed the Moderate operation of the police system to become Extreme. when they are forced to accept "ACAB", they simply shift over the category lines such that being a police officer is a terrible thing and the worst most Extreme and Immoderate people in society become that category of people. but at the same time people's fundamental ontology of the situation remains the same.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Racists know stereotypes don't apply to everybody / Racists know the stereotypes they use to define people don't apply to everybody
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Racists do not hate people because of perceived "bad taste"  ->  this is an easy conclusion to come to after observing real racists: they hate "bad music" and confusing or "tacky" vernacular. so, the performance of these things must be closer to the actual reason people make bad impressions with racists, right? no. racists actually know that stereotypes don't apply to everybody, which means they ultimately know that calling out "bad taste" will not be a good excuse to hate the entire group of people and will only buy them a short amount of time.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S2">A glass of water can unbreak and refill itself given enough time  ->  funny saying by physics teachers/journalists used to explain the arrow of time. also arguably illustrates exactly why Trotskyism hasn't happened.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="IV" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The Bolsheviks did not have the historical data that Leninism was possible  ->  what a smart Existentialist would argue every time Marxists claim that some particular non-Marxist movement "hasn't worked yet". what Existentialists really love to do is equivocate the lack of data on any particular event with the concept that Free Will is the only factor that makes the difference in something happening or not happening. however... this is silly. if this were reasonable, then one could argue for Trotskyism and absolutely against any form of Liberalism. because if Trotskyism hasn't happened yet, can you really rule it out if every Trotskyist believes in it hard enough?
</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The Soviet Union occupied East Germany because there can't be socialism in one country

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="Z0">academic-level material  ->  to be used with "field, scope, or group". refers to anything which requires a book's worth of reading by a college-educated person just to understand its terminology.

</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Not all proletarian class interests are revolutionary {{YouTube|oLSzgij5uuk}}
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Bordigism is an SPS {{YouTube|HHNkYwHCc40}}  ->  here I see a description of a party with path-finding behavior that Lattices from one group into another. in my mind that's generally a good thing, unless they somehow describe a method of filtering the party together that doesn't actually make any sense. there's only one small problem: the more specific a party's theories are, the greater the potential of accidentally creating a plurality of different named Marxisms that have to study each other as separate systems. you keep seeing this. you see bodies of theory about how to build a reasonable Leninism and discard methods that don't work, but what you don't see is how to navigate a world that might end up with multiple incompatible Leninisms that all have to have additional textbooks on each other.
</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Organic centralism is a bunch of ill-defined fluff [https://invidious.nerdvpn.de/watch?v=1421ZG4SRK4]  ->  was creating a new rating sheet of a YouTube channel. presenter absolutely cracked open a problem I didn't even know existed. it is remarkable how we are at a point where you have to go through a phase of absolutely deciphering old Marxist theory and how it was applied in reality before you can even analyze if it was effective.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">If Trotskyism is about uniting the populations of the world, and the CIA undermines populational governments, undermining populational governments does not support realizing Trotskyism

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S">approval voting

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Existence-philosophy is The Colonizer Attitude  ->  1) early-existentialism is the statement meaning comes from the assignment of meaning by individuals. 2) the assignment of meaning by many individuals at a time is near-synonymous with culture. 3) in capitalism groups of people and areas of land are conflated with individuals. 4) capitalism amounts to allowing individuals to assign entire ontological models to areas of land and groups of people and make those people pretend to believe them. 5) when a million White people occupy an area, own pieces of the area, dictate who they will individually sell the pieces of land to and who they will deal with and assert that it "is" the area belonging to a White Culture, early-existentialism is the mechanism that makes intolerance of other countable Cultures possible.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S">popular-level text about accepted model / popular-level book about accepted ontological model or research field / popular-level book about accepted theory of material reality
</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S">popular-level science text
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">popular-level history text
</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S">popular-level historical materialism text  ->  haven't seen very many of these. it's my hope to make them more popular
</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S">popular-level class analysis text  ->  I'm not sure a "popular-level dialectical materialism text" is even possible. dialectical materialism has been too arcane in its presentation despite the content being unobjectionable at worst. so currently you're more likely to see a clumsy non-Marxist explanation of what people think classes are
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S">popular-level dieconomics text  ->  basically doesn't exist until a workers' state is created

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S">global climate change based on average temperature increase  ->  yes, the label does have to be that long. the thing has always been the same but Tories get so offended that the name ever changed and insist that changing the name is being used to lie to them and protect people's confirmation biases. I'm not making this up. you can't make this up.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Discussions of global warming existed before 1970 / Writings about global warming existed before 1970 [https://grist.org/science/lost-history-climate-1960s-clean-air-act-supreme-court/]
</li><li class="field_nations" value="618" data-dimension="F2">The US Clean Air Act wasn't meant to include carbon dioxide [https://grist.org/science/lost-history-climate-1960s-clean-air-act-supreme-court/]  ->  statements like these are important for a different reason than you'd think: they illustrate how Liberal-republicanism becomes meaningless when people are allowed to make history all about Free Will and interpret objects and phrases any way they want to. Existentialism is the killer of democracy, not its savior.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S">1960s level of consumption  ->  trying to retrieve the general context I heard this thing recommended in
</li><li class="field_nations" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Nobody would choose 1960s consumption / No individual would choose degrowth (stabilization to 1960s level of consumption)  ->  a point that keeps coming up in relation to East Germany: that West Germany was supposedly worth Individually Choosing because it had better growth. terrible, horrible thing to say if you ever later want to argue that individuals should Freely Choose to keep using old items and stop creating product treadmills against the environment.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">ordinary people don't care about democracy  ->  descriptive statement.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Tories don't care if immigrants are claiming jobs, what they actually care about is immigrants taking up housing without meeting some standard of being "productive"  ->  and it's a very contradictory belief, because many Tories are stuck in their houses old and retired, etc., and can't meet their own standards.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Ignorance is not the cause of racist violence  ->  there are many things people can fail to know without it causing them to commit microaggressions or worse acts of racism. you won't behave in racist ways because you don't know calculus, or because you don't know how to draw animation smears, or because you don't know how to taxonomically identify a particular species of bird, or because you don't know how to build a computer, or because you've never written a book on manufacturing different kinds of lenses. [https://xkcd.com/1053/ XKCD 1053 illustrates this nicely]. equally, many people would probably agree that you could take a hateful person and make them learn tons of history and facts about a group of people and examples of firsthand Lived Experiences without any of it ever making them less hateful. this is why narratives like <cite>Zootopia</cite> and <cite>Undertale</cite> don't feel quite right as accounts of prejudice. they're intersubjectivity theories; they assume that just feeding people a lot of information will compel them to change. what seems to be closer to the truth is that every population is constantly trying to mind its own business while trying to aggressively forget the fact that multiple populations exist and populations are naturally in competition because they consist of living individuals. the moment [[redlink - chunk competition|every population growing outward independently]] causes one population to step over another, the other population feels threatened and gets really really mad, mobilizing every surrounding person of the same socially-linked Culture against the other population. the notion that humans consist of spatial areas rather than socially-linked groups who are the ones that actually construct and enforce all notions of laws and morality is the fatal error that's been eating away at Liberalism. divide White people into many small population-societies based around molecularized theories of the physical workings of industries and towns and there would be no real reason for people to be racist versus letting people in.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">"strategic essentialism is an anti-essentialist act" [https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-strategic-essentialism/]  ->  what? I wish academics would like, speak in logically-coherent sentences. it doesn't matter what words you use but <em>please</em> use them to convey concepts that make any logical sense and are at all comprehensible.<br />
like let's break this statement down. what is essentialism? it's enforcing particular mandatory characteristics on something that are claimed to be in it from the dawn of time. what's strategic essentialism? it's creating people who must unite around a specific definition of what they are. now, how can that be anti-essentialist? whether it's anti-essentialist has nothing to do with whether it's good or bad, it can be good either way. why argue that it's anti-essentialist? what does that get anyone?<br />
this is the shovel dream of Existentialism being a method of physically organizing individuals into identity groups. Existentialism is partly a theory that people can only be arranged by whether arbitrary tribes of people like each other and want to be friends or want to shatter apart and fight each other at which point you can't keep them together — very bad theory for solving racism, as it horribly contradicts itself when it comes time to force racists to be friends with Black people that they utterly hate and want Freedom from. this causes people to think of everything in terms of prejudice and essentializing people into stereotypes, and to make up weird statements like grouping people into a movement being a way to fight against The Stereotypers, therefore it's "anti-essentialist", even though it's rather literally not. it's as essentialist as Stalin saying Georgians have to do specific plans as Georgia and sending it to the several people making up Stalin's government to be stamped. which is forbidden as evil Totalization because Communists are The Stereotypers against The Nice People in the United States who are bourgeoisie. please, Existentialists, please be intellectually honest for once. it's exhausting to have to solve everything you say like a math problem.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Capitalism didn't abolish artisanal production, but stacked it  ->  people think capitalism is about somebody owning a group of workers, but it's actually not. it's the separation of people into producer and consumer overlapping over all the producers — Artisanization. this is why Richard Wolff getting everybody to start co-ops does not disrupt capitalism; the archipelago of corporations is capitalism, the owner is not the actual source of capitalism. the way capitalism progresses and gets bigger is putting a company inside a company and Artisanizing everyone in the other company to artisanally do just one thing well with dire consequences for doing it wrong. in medium-size capitalism workers are often just Artisanized tasks in the same way a whole separate corporation would be (a subsidiary or contractor), making no real distinction between "proletarians" and "petty bourgeoisie" even though people are employed.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="Z">trench foot [https://www.historycrunch.com/trench-foot-in-world-war-i.html]
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Duplexing republics leads to sawing off toes / Duplexing republics leads to World War I, which leads to trench foot  ->  whenever you think republics or constitutions are freedom, remember trench foot. if you're going to make me remember Gulag, I'm going to make you remember trench foot.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="Z">German church tax  ->  an optional tax only for members of churches that actually collect it.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">German churches run kindergartens / German churches run schools and hospitals  ->  the observation that religious institutions in Germany are existing mostly as culturally-tinted charities which are funding local social structures more than a place for convincing people to actually believe in religion, leading to the customary "church tax". in some parts of the world, this doesn't cause problems, while in the United States people truly want government programs to be separate from churches. very important to think about when people are pushing for universal health care. in Europe, are localized taxes already picking up part of the cost in most places? is the key to getting health care actually to create local structures as opposed to simply going on and on about how all the individuals in the country should pay taxes?
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="Z">German solidarity surcharge  ->  color swatch references: Voluntary Socialism. concrete example of people misusing the word "solidarity" to refer to pure nationalistic unity or the notion of people being united by big corporations that do everything paying taxes while all the little people don't get to do much of anything. Germany quite literally replaced Bolshevism with charging people taxes and letting them pat themselves on the back. when you see "solidarity" being appropriated to promote Free Will theories of history, don't let people tell lies.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="Z">artistic advertisement  ->  advertisement which tells some kind of story tangentially related to the product, taking the form of a short film, mock TV show episode, etc.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="Z">Soviet short-film advertisement  ->  a real thing that happened. the Soviet Union set down a certain mandatory budget for advertising. studios could get more money by making short films instead of ads. suddenly there were a bunch of weirdly artistic ads that only clearly stated their product at the end. some people actually reported the advertising blocks to be their favorite "television show". similar in concept to the notion of "Japanese commercials" where particular kinds of ads sort of just turn into silly miniature tokusatsu shorts, the Geico gecko "show", or Masnick's statement that "advertising is content, content is advertising".

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Sentient beings are easily separable into standardized tribes / creationism of countable Cultures  ->  fantasy trope. some people have remarked on the racist or xenophobic implications of this trope in that it fails to capture the concept of anti-essentialism. far fewer people have noticed how it hilariously suggests fantasy worlds are capable of forming international-conference Trotskyism. that would be the funniest Avatar AU. it's many times as nonsensical to apply to Warrior cats. but it would also be one of the only sensible futures for the Dragon Ball universe, speaking objectively. there's something to be said for how to some extent people probably secretly like <cite>Pokémon</cite> for the Marxist appeal of <cite>Pokémon</cite>: other fantasy works portray war, conquest and hatred as things that intuitively go on for centuries and centuries, but <cite>Pokémon</cite> portrays the world as inevitably ceasing war and transitioning to an age of everyone spending their time on "boring", mundane civilizational structures and activities. something to think about. if you were to parse fantasy works as history, what processes do they go through to lead to what kinds of civilizations?
</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="F2">The universe is fundamentally made of information  ->  this is almost demonstrably false. silly argument against it: if that were true, there would be no difference between physical objects and Digimon, and we would have to seriously ask ourselves why you can't create an Agumon or a simulated coffee machine on a computer and then print the simulated coffee machine into the real world <em>as data</em> without having to copy every piece of the coffee machine using things that already exist inside the real world. I saw this claim in <cite>Existential Physics</cite> that you couldn't simulate a human mind without creating a human mind, and by extension you couldn't duplicate a human mind anywhere else without creating a second individual. the thing nobody realizes is that this is also true of a coffee machine. the most accurate model of how a coffee machine functions would <em>be</em> a coffee machine, in the sense the most accurate model of an Agumon would be a living creature. but you cannot shift a simulated coffee machine into reality without manually duplicating the coffee machine, any more than you can the Agumon. what this means is there is actual physical stuff in the universe between information. you can call every arrangement of things information but that information is always <em>made of</em> stuff. the crux of general relativity is that things are <em>made of</em> stuff. that's why everything can be a reference frame. because there are objects, and all the interesting stuff can only be seen while standing on them. some of the objects are really small and constantly re-divide themselves, because they're hardly big enough to even hold together, and that's okay, because we still see the interactions they create clearly enough that we can stand on them and call them objects. then more interactions and information happen between atoms, and so forth.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">There can't be a proletariat without first defending the bourgeoisie / There can never be a proletariat without first defending the ring of owners that creates each "community"  ->  I keep seeing this utterly terrible contradiction in modern Marxisms. they are like, don't listen to the bourgeoisie, the bourgeoisie are always trying to mislead you into doing what's best for them. and then they seem to immediately misuse dialectical/historical materialism to start arguing that you have to defend groups of bourgeoisie against badder groups of bourgeoisie because of some random principle of "community" or something. is this some kind of bad-Materialism fallacy that nobody else has seen but me? or could it be that these arguments are fine but every single person explaining Marxism has totally oversimplified Marxism to the point it doesn't describe reality? I don't actually know which of these things is true.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Whether human individuals have Free Will is simply irrelevant  ->  MDem entry [[Philosophical Research:MDem/5.2/1111 FreeWill]]. in particular, this is the claim that even labeling human behavior "deterministic" is irrelevant and possibly incorrect. this will seem confusing until you see the recently-added definition of relaterminism, and then it makes a lot more sense. most definitions of determinism ignore relativity, except relaterminism, which acknowledges the ability of events to propagate out in ripples from any point in the universe and from multiple points independently. if there had been no such thing as human individuals, this would have been harder to discover, but simultaneously, the existence of human individuals has blinded us to the existence of both social movements and the way such things as chemistry, quantum physics, and maybe possibly <em>gravity</em> function.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S" data-submitter="Valenoern">fictional population or species with super form
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S" data-submitter="Valenoern">character with super form / character with transformation  ->  kamen rider & ultraman / Sailor Moon & "duck" etc [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Tutu] / Digimon. conceptually you can see the theme of characters upgrading into powered-up versions in Tamagotchi as much as you can see it in Digimon. it's kind of funny Tamagotchi were never portrayed as magical girls. why didn't that happen? either way you see Tamagotchi, then you see the Digimon show, then you see "duck" and "shugo chara". people say magical boys are not given attention on magical girl shows but it's not really true because the "magical guys" were the tokusatsu heroes. but Digimon is glorious because it's like the same thing a third time without gender. some of the characters are magical guys, some of them are magical girls, and some of them are just wolves or dinosaurs. some of them just <em>are</em>.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The history of every object is separate unless it isn't / The history of every material object is separate unless it is not  ->  follows from statements in general relativity and the discovery of gauge bosons. came up in entry "[[Philosophical Research:MDem/5.1r/1112 least-action|least-action]]"
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Companies can produce great numbers of things when there is already a contract to buy them  ->  grade school chairs. defense contractors. Pokémon games. the logic behind futures markets. there are so many examples of this, of how it's actually way easier to run industries if they go toward predetermined goals rather than being based on the presumed "free choice of individuals" — which doesn't even exist because retail stores also function like smaller, more informal purchasing contracts.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">forced discourse  ->  Foucault was the main one that talked about this.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Slipping into a discourse is the same thing as having to begin it / Slipping into a discourse in the middle is the same thing as having to begin it
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Human life isn't made of discourses / Human life does not begin at "speech" and speech and discourses are only an outward reflection of the more basic layers  ->  my beef with Foucaldian theories of prejudices. human life is made of socially-linked humans performing tasks. discourses of any kind always come second. it doesn't matter if you define "discourse" as any ontology made of sign equations, the way it appears these philosophies do. by that definition you've identified a countable Culture itself, and if you want to call that oppressive, you're making use of the same first principles that can easily be used to define racism. even if you haven't gotten all the way to racism yet, I don't see how that can be a humane way to treat human beings. imagine Stalin points to Trotsky and says that Trotskyites have put together an oppressive discourse that needs to be broken up, and they'd better not associate together as Trotskyites and talk about Trotskyist workers' states because being part of that kind of countable Culture is literally always covering up an antisocial underground operation to destroy social progress within the Second and Third Worlds. Foucauldians generally wouldn't like that, so why do they go around saying this?
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Interaction is not a social construct  ->  this is the problem with thinking society is made of "discourses". people aren't "dragged into discourse" thanks to someone's malicious Free Choice, they're hit by interactions, where they cannot control interactions by nature of what an interaction is.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Social interaction is like gluons  ->  without being at all conscious or deciding anything, quarks are obligated to interact. physical laws make them do this. whenever two quarks collide they exchange a gluon that carries color "charge" (direction) from one quark to another. if this interaction was considered bad for some reason quark A would not be able to control the collision by quark B. because that isn't how physics works.<br/>
entanglement is one of the only exceptions, but entanglement is just basically what happens when you try to measure the color that each of the quarks is pointing. they are definitely pointing one of the three colors, but the color force is going so fast you never know which quark has which one of them. the outside observation and inside state are wildly out of sync. the only thing you know is the direction of each quark depends on the other two. [https://modern-physics.org/quantum-entanglement-in-qcd/ that's entanglement]. the only thing that makes it confusing is that it can operate on strangely large scales for a process that is supposed to be really small.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Poststructuralism is not anarchist [https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/michel-foucault-the-order-of-discourse]  ->  this is such a stupid thing to say because on the inside of it practically all its values are anarchist; it feels like Trotsky trying to say Stalin isn't practicing the real Trotskyism. so it's not anarchist, eh? then most of anarchism has been vulgarized into Existentialism-Structuralism, and it is possibly the only thing anarchism can ever become. claim found in anarchist library's tagging.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Truth is a zigzag between hypotheses and antitheses  ->  I found this really neat zigzag chart on... what is probably a scam. the chart is great outside of it being coopted for that weird self-help book though. it showed two sides of a Socratic dialogue bouncing off each other in a zigzag and each of them getting closer to the most accurate model of reality they can have. I like it. the point of a jamming proposition or collision of different propositions isn't that the antitheses have to be strictly correct, it's that they make you think and figure out what is.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Something being retermined doesn't mean it's good  ->  counter to the [[Ontology:Q5991|walnut proposition]]. if all the countries around the Soviet Union (I know that doesn't have to be the example) retermine it having to be a certain way, that doesn't mean they've all decided that correctly. it baffles me that it's so easy for people to see this with LGBT+ identities and certain really narrow definitions of "racism" and "xenophobia" but at the same time they can't see this. all the cases can be generalized into one pattern: groups of people retermine their individuals as groups, but sometimes you have to join people together to break out of retermination even though in the process they will begin a new subpopulation that retermines itself all over again.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">When people point out "Liberals", they belong to a specific ideology / When people point out Liberal-republicans as a different group, they belong to some specific ideology
</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Marxism is the opposite of center-Liberalism
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Queer theory is the opposite of center-Liberalism  ->  subset of: When people point out "Liberals", they belong to a specific ideology. mostly in reference to antinormativity.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Individual will is not the same as Free Will  ->  sounds like gobbledygook until you have seen either relaterminism or The Subject defined as a material Animal.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">If people don't have individual will, the Soviet Union was inevitable / If people don't have individual will, then the Soviet people didn't choose to create the Soviet Union  ->  jamming proposition, logical contradiction. why would the Soviet Union exist other than people deciding in some manner that it should exist? but if people don't have individual will at all, it's impossible anyone could have chosen to <em>avoid</em> the formation of the Soviet Union; it was fated it would happen, and [[Ontology:Q5991|First World countries punished people]] for nothing. when you think it through enough you eventually end up discovering relaterminism.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">If people don't have individual will, then they didn't choose to vote for Donald Trump / If people don't have individual will, then something outside individuals voted for Donald Trump  ->  jamming proposition to get people to realize that the question of Free Will and individual will isn't a trivial thing you can answer however you want. MDem v4.3 entry "Determination"

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">hell as warring states period over definition of sins  ->  rather inspired. SCP-7603
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">People subject to the laws of a country are citizens of the country / People who are subject to the laws of the United States are citizens of the United States  ->  part of United States fourteenth amendment

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="Z0">fictional conspiracy theory  ->  conspiracy theory speaking about fiction. fiction-internal conspiracy theory would be a separate Item
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="F2">The universe begins with imagination but ends with entropy  ->  cool proposition in Adventure Time. bad proposition in progressive theories.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Much of the "hard work" people do is actually the easy way out  ->  every time reactionaries talk of "hard work"... isn't there always something missing there? there'd seem to be a difference between Constructive Hard Work and Destructive Hard Work, where most "hard work" is actually the latter one. people working hard for almost literally no reason but to destroy someone else's hard work while doing the same work over again. I wonder what the world would be like if we literally stopped calling Destructive Hard Work "hard work", and told people, no, all of you are doing busywork, that stuff is already done, you're not doing the actual hard work any more.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The Subject is not just a specimen of a more encompassing order  ->  claimed within an explanation of education. seems to stand in contradiction to most political theories about Subjects, which typically believe The Subject is important and relevant because Subjects are all comparably The Subject and that causes us to have empathy. or how in schizoanalysis The Subject simply joins into bigger Subjects.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Groups of people are just manuals on how to be / "we can take the elements in other cultures that are positive and bring that to our own"  ->  for the longest time I only saw this strongly implied in what people say, until today for the first time I finally saw it said out loud. honestly, I do not think so. that statement may be true <em>of</em> South Korea or China but it's not true <em>of</em> the United States, because the United States really is just a bunch of individuals bouncing around in bitter rivalry and hating and trying to tear apart anything that resembles an institution or a structure. there is no central "United States culture" to even change, it just doesn't exist. There Is No Spanishness Office.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S2">City center equals city  ->  interesting claim made in urban planning discussions by people from Europe. I don't have anything against this idea nor am I making fun of it. at the same time, I have no real idea if it's true or not. each time you show people one of these claims that suburbs are a disaster you get a variety of responses that amounts to people having gone to exactly where they wanted to be individually unless they were physically or financially incapable — you know, primitive Existentialism.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Animal testing can end if the right humans buy the labs  ->  I watched this supposedly inspiring video about rescuing lab cats. {{YouTube|8HqFeFa0KiE}} the beginning of the narrative was that lab cats are being tortured — they are raised to trust humans, then they are put in their cages with insufficient food and no enrichment, and you can say that because their life is engineered for suffering they learn to comply. sounds uncomfortably familiar; I swear the whole concept of Lacanian discipline and great portions of Existentialism is just this. but at the end of the narrative, the only way to save those cats was for people to pool together some money and buy the building. the cats never cease to be treated as objects, the objects just change hands. and I think that reveals a lot about modern industrial societies. "Filament of people conquer space and control it" is one of the only things that's worth anything. it solves great abuses, after also having created them. how different are collections of workers serving built-up Audiences from collections of lab cats? how do we know when a protest is meaningful versus when people are just chunk-competing over an area meaninglessly and different people controlling it won't actually make anything change?
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Waiting for a disclosure of meaning gives the one who discloses it power  ->  no. just, no. if that were true there couldn't be any identity politics movements, because people really do wait at the door of identity politics to get the answers. identity politics says something, and sometimes people reject it for reasons that aren't easy to fathom logically, but if it does catch on, then people just swallow it without questioning it no matter how out-there a particular philosophical justification sounds. creating a particular door outside which people wait for meaning. whether that's a good or a bad thing doesn't matter, what matters is in real life things work that way. and when that's the case, believing this will create a bunch of reactionaries who are all like, I'd rather not wait for a disclosure of meaning from The Left, I'll just make my own bogus definitions of things instead. (Butler)
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Anyone can destroy a sign / Destroying signs is no triumph because anyone can do it / Destroying signs means nothing because anyone can do it / There is no real triumph in deconstructing signs because anyone can do it  ->  literally every reactionary claims that progressive ontologies are becoming the new entrenched signs that have to be destroyed or picked apart. that's like, one of the basic axioms for how reactionaries exist. you have to settle onto some things being true, or else reactionaries will try to claim power and replace other ontologies with their ontologies whenever it's possible for them to do that. the only real way to get out of all this is to go one step higher than poststructuralism and do meta-ontology, presuming that all arrangements of signs "exist" and can be compared to find the points at which they overlap and creating "sign power" isn't necessary. I don't fully know yet how that fixes racism, but I've got a fairly good idea how that unites Stalin and Trotsky, or Existentialism and Marxism. there's no huge distinction between sociophilosophy and culture that makes one not the other, so there probably is a way.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S0">constantly-changing empty vessel  ->  one of the first totally abstract concepts I'm willing to make an Item without a real or fictional referent. this pattern is solid enough it's worth noting. it can be used to define class territories. it can be used to define The Subject. it can be used to define entrenched signs, apparently. but there are two major feelings about it: A) plurality of these things is frustrating and inherently causes problems as they collide, leading to some change good or bad whether we like it or not B) plurality of these things is easy to control with enough "ought" statements.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The postcolonial project is about constantly smashing signs / Colonial Racism exists within the inability to smash existing signs  ->  this.... hmm. I don't know whether I feel positively or negatively about it. I think it is true that ontologies can always make errors, and we need the ability to pick incorrect ontologies apart to properly investigate the world and learn what is accurate in a scientific sense. but I have never really liked the notion that signs are an inherent form of power. it takes some unpacking. I <em>have</em> argued that Lacanian discipline is bogus because people can oppressively teach each other the wrong things. but is that all because of signs, rather than people? I'm not sure I'd say that. my thoughts right now are, the video I watched said that letting signs be is allowing metaphysical divisions of reality into arbitrary elements. which I half agree with. but then it said that the notion of breaking up sign monopolies is defeating metaphysics. and I feel like there's an error there. whenever we try to think that power is a deliberate thing somebody grabs and choppify things or push individuals back to stop power grabs and push the world into "balance", I feel like that's the moment we truly construct metaphysics. metaphysics lies not in the construction of specific categories but in the sheer false idea the world can be in perfect balance when it is always growing and changing. modern metaphysics is an empty vessel. a perfectly-balanced wheel of constantly-changing empty vessels that can grow and change and deconstruct themselves but are always in conflict, always hating each other, always trying to smash each other to break each other's power and then accusing each other of being the real power-grabbers. that's what metaphysics is now, not the content.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">A language is only bisimilar to reality as a whole  ->  important counterargument to the notion that language does not refer to reality. it does, and it does it almost the way a sign refers to a signified. but only the whole language at once does that. inside the language, terms only refer to other terms. then the whole language serves as a model for the whole reality in a bisimilarity relation.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Nobody can perceive reality through anything except models / We can never understand reality without using models  ->  this one... I wouldn't say it's false, it's probably true, but oh boy it's not my favorite. sure, we need to be aware of the plurality of philosophies each perceiving the world through themselves. but I think meta-philosophy is totally possible. I think it's totally possible to step outside philosophies for a moment to actually compare them and ask where they came from. we will easily make errors in the way we do it, but I don't think all philosophy is doomed to be fully locked inside models and effectively inside prejudices such that it is constantly eating itself. I think people primarily think it is because they do not have consciousness of the material phenomena of graph struggle and chunk competition. if they did, they'd realize how silly this all is. they'd go, oh god, why were we promoting philosophies that ask everyone to fight and kill each other as nicely as possible instead of asking how to turn around and become the puppetmasters of chunk competition. why were we doing any of this when we could have stopped what generates prejudice at the source.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Human language is rooted in Lived Experiences / "language is rooted in human experience and relationships"  ->  no. no. human language is rooted in the fact humans belong to social networks. graphs. language has networks and humans have networks and when you are part of a sea of free-floating entities you must physically obtain information about that system while inside it. that is Einstein's theory of relativity. a camera can do relativity just by being physical and being part of the world as it takes a picture. it doesn't have much to do with human "experience". we could all be philosophical zombies and still have language. in certain limited senses, The Subject is a machine and relativity is a piece of the machine.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Balancing a fictional universe requires understanding its physics  ->  the proposition or approach that different characters, etc, with different talents should actually "play" fundamentally differently in ways that would change the structure of the game or narrative. Adventure Time giving its moments to BMO and Ice King near the end, good. Angry Birds movie suggesting that success is purely about trying hard, bad. it's like, the reason so many authors are bad at balancing things correctly is our aversion to historical materialism and the notion that history is based on physics and you get particular paths through understanding each kind of physics.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Science turns The Subject into an object but philosophy doesn't  ->  I genuinely don't think this is true. I really feel like philosophy <em>does</em> turn Subjects into objects if it's doing its job. what does it mean to turn something into an object? it means studying the pieces or processes that compose it and comprehending it as a physical thing. reductionism in the ontology sense: reducing things into a graph of sign equations, an ontology which is plural and not definitive but may go part of the way to explaining how something works.
</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Humanist theories squash The Subject under prejudice / Subject theories are bad because they do too much prejudiced Subject-squashing / Humanist obsession with The Subject is bad because it has too many prejudices  ->  not making this up, really saw this one. possibly the most Existentialist criticism of Existentialism that I've ever seen. why does nobody ever ever ask if theories centered around prejudice are a prejudice? anyway. I think this highlights some kind of major division inside Existentialism. should I divide Existentialism into humanist periods and... prejudice-obsessed periods?? I still don't quite understand. I study and read and study and read and I still never understand what's going on. trying to understand where the hell these modern prejudice philosophies come from feels like Simon researching the ice crown and turning into an idiot and being stuck there forever.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Ice King fits the mountain sage archetype / Ice King is a sen'nin character  ->  this is a joke proposition but I think it's fun. like when you really think about it is there a good way to separate mountain sage, wizard, and fantasy alchemist? I feel like those three things kind of merge together the way draconic creatures merge together and turn into one big umbrella of dragons. as for the fact Ice King kidnaps princesses... no comment. that's become associated with the more atheist yet unserious definition of mountain sages, but yeah, no comment. this is more about the archeology and immortality stuff.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="Z">Kimba the White Lion  ->  this show was great for its treatment of animal civilization, but the weird modernist approach to storytelling and portraying other countries was some of the most imperialist {{censor|shit}} I have seen in a cartoon
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="Z">The Lion King
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="Z">lion guard
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="Z">Bravelands
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="Z">My Pride

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">the major split between the concepts of "liberal/Liberalism" and "liberal/liberalization" is whether people are shameless Existentialists  ->  I have never seen anybody else say this, even considering that they wouldn't use my fancy new word "Existentialists". it's almost like everybody is too trapped in this way of thinking to even notice they're doing it. but here's what it is: people become convinced the stuff in the United States constitution is created anarchically as a thing that is followed by every individual making every other individual do it because they are human individuals. that the United States constitution is like a bible. that if there was no United States government and no elections the constitution would still be true. and in practice that isn't really the case. no individual honors freedom of speech and no church honors freedom of religion. those things are only reliably done by governments because governments contain multiple subpopulations and have to represent all plural subpopulations. the people who speak of "liberalism" and "liberalization" as synonyms are the ones who believe that processes inside social graphs create democracy rather than democracy actually being government and existing in the form of republics — that democracy equals democulture.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The main problem with social structures is people are bad at results / Capitalism sucks because people are bad at doing things / Bureaucracy is maddening because people are bad at doing things  ->  this one needs a little explaining but is very important. ever felt when going through some kind of paperwork process that nothing makes sense, the whole thing is undesigned, and everything is all just a bunch of drifting humans going in every direction that have no idea what they're doing or how to do what you need them to do? that may be literally what's happening. there is a conflict between the fact we need to rely on other people to do things, materially, not just because we "desire things in the Other" psychologically, but because we really can't do everything ourselves and other people really have to do it, this and the fact that in reality other people are just people and often have trouble actually doing the things we need them to do. every time any individual or group of people ever tries to do anything ever there is a complicated tug-of-war between whether it's worse to take on too much ourselves and not trust anyone, or worse to trust other people who may be too imperfect to actually do what we need them to. practically no period of Existentialism ever gets this concept right. it always seems to devolve into these really weird ego-based statements that "you can't rely on others in order to function and grow as you, you have to trust others in order to function and grow as you, impossible contradictions always totally make sense if everybody just wills them to enough". that is not an answer. that is not a model. that is a bunch of mystical nonsense. individual psychology does not get us to dipsychology.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Unending happiness simply does not exist / Unending happiness is not a thing / The concept of unending happiness cannot be resolved into a real-world problem  ->  an important dimension to "utopias" that I never see discussed. if something doesn't actually exist, then people are going to read it as a metaphor even if it isn't, just to have an opinion about it. the human brain chunks models of reality inside visual signifiers, and when people see an imaginary thing they search for the real-world image that matches it and start interpreting it that way. this is how you get the speedrunning guy seeing the image of speedrunning, looking up his mental image of "seeking shortcuts to success", and getting upset. what I never see when someone discusses "utopias" is the recognition that people are doing this. I never see people consciously listing out all the internal real-world signifiers that they think utopia actually means. the... bisimilarands? the analogy targets? the Z Items to the S Items, anyway. one possible "bisimilarand" is addiction. one is imperialism, as shown in the Winter King episode: a population that oppresses another has a much easier time. one is national independence: it is easy to accuse postcolonial Anarchists of "utopia", but they really just want some kind of independent population. all of these "bisimilarands" are very different, and which one you think of is based on your model of society, your social-political-economic ideology. the problem happens when people assume a particular pathway of signifier-bisimilarand-mechanics simply <em>is</em> what something is across fiction and mythology and real life. in one sense, fiction is how we all share and agree on misinformation without realizing that's what we're doing. and this is really popular for Existentialists to do. to assume that particular works of fiction are portraying such things as The Subject exactly the way they work in real life, when necessarily they all come from generalizations and assumptions. fiction argues about "unending happiness". but such a thing is complete nonsense. like, so nonsensical that even speaking of it hypothetically is hard because you have to suspend several things about reality and effectively make up <i>fake prejudices</i> about which real-world things you don't believe in. so what is fiction really arguing about if the thing it's arguing about doesn't exist? it's arguing about prejudices and which sets of prejudices people think are the better prejudices when literally speaking all of them are wrong.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">People form opinions on fiction by assigning fictional images to real-life targets / bisimilarity in art criticism proposition
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Any wholly made-up thing will get read as a metaphor / If something is wholly made up, viewers will read it as a metaphor / accidental coding proposition  ->  follows from "assigning images to real-life targets"
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">"when you're infected you don't want others to get a choice"  ->  I swear I have heard people say this about Communism. because their bisimilarity process was Communism -> unending happiness -> imperialism, or something vaguely like that. when the process should be more like Communism -> proletarian Social-Philosophical System -> republic. like, the reality is almost boring compared with the fictional misinformation. if you wanted, you could look at it a bit deeper and uncover the potential problems. Communism <i>is bisimilar to</i> proletarian SPS <i>realizes mechanics of</i> republic <i>realizes mechanics of</i> Dark Rhizome <i>is bisimilar to</i> assimilation.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The Candy Kingdom is a superstructural fantasy world  ->  not sure if this is literally true or just a misdirect but it sure is a theory now. there's something to how Fionna and Cake were considered a story in the Ice King universe, but the Candy Kingdom is a story in the Simon universe. do we have a circular Deltarune going on? did Prismo make each universe make up the other universes? it is so interesting that only certain very specific parts of each world become stories. Fionna & Cake e6

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">trouble in the bazaar  ->  literal scenario. when there is an open-air marketplace and somebody absolutely screws it up and gets in trouble. <cite>Fionna and Cake</cite> ep 3, <cite>Wings of Fire</cite> the book with Possibility in it
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">worker less welcome than mouse / microaggression against worker's existence (in fiction)  ->  fionna and cake e1. very interesting episode because at this point we have already had <em>two</em> microaggressions that workers aren't good enough at arbitrary job tasks to belong in their city. this is just it. most capitalism isn't a well-established set of factory procedures workers just need to take over, it's an absolutely floundering mess where nobody knows how to keep businesses in existence but owners and certain subsets of immediately-appointed managers decide to believe there's a right way to exist and harass people about whether they're being people good enough and gradually kick them out of the city if they aren't. capitalism is individuals or tiny groups of individuals exerting their will over spatial territories and then existing and living and multiplying and inviting friends and acting really offended like that existence level of things is being challenged if anything about the person's act of exerting will over the territory and controlling every object in it is challenged. jobs are like this. people treat houses like this. it's a nightmare. it's a mess. at its heart, it's every person behaving like a separate population and slowly expanding as if nothing else exists while there is absolutely not enough space for that to not cause conflict. chunk competition.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="DG / MDem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">"Symbolic castration" is the same as "inauthenticity"  ->  this is my biggest problem with Žižek. this utter paradox right here. he is totally sure that the Lacanian model of human development is correct, including forming models of parents to one day become a parent (The Father) and symbolic castration. but then he complains about inauthenticity and Liberal capitalist society forcing people into the inauthentic. the more I look into all this, the more I can't see a difference. I think by any reasonable definition, every single time Liberalism or capitalism makes people chop off part of themselves and fit into it is the same as symbolic castration. I think he is complaining about his own system. which is kind of funny — Žižek is a Zinovievist Trotskyite, while one of Trotsky's biggest problems was projecting onto Stalin the things that Trotsky does, effectively making "Leninism" into this weird never-ending cycle of deciding you don't like Leninism and exploding it to create Leninism that somebody else inside it then explodes again.

</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The world goes on after any particular character narrative  ->  beautiful trope but has some nasty implications when you ask what influenced it. I like the authenticity of Adventure Time having historical periods that don't have to connect to each other, and a potentially infinite number of historical periods; there's a great poetry to that at the same time there's a certain kind of realism. what I don't like is how it comes down into any particular set of present events. it makes it feel like it's unimportant to have morality because if having patience and surviving things can fix anything, why bother to get other people to be moral instead of holing up in an ice cocoon? you can <em>say</em> that it's possible to accept just anything that happens because you can't control it, but there are some things that really are bad. people being isolated from each other like Simon and Betty really is bad. the collapse of society into warring states or world war really is bad because it doesn't stop the same cycle from happening again. and just walking away from the notion that some things really are bad feels like abdicating the <em>responsibility</em> to make history go the right way. (note: at least a little of this is addressed in <cite>Fionna and Cake</cite>.)

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">A scammer differs from an incorrect hypothesis in that the scammer knows / The difference between an incorrect hypothesis and a con man is the con man knows  ->  ties back to "corporations are the prediction of history". in a sense, a scammer is just a bad, fake oracle in a world where history actually can be predicted.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">"Beauty is in the hard work itself and the, oftentimes false, sense of purpose we feel when doing it. It's a fleeting sensation that drives us to repeat our actions in order to capture it again"  ->  I get that this was used as a joke like it isn't actually as deep as it thinks it is — props to adventure time on that — but also who originally wrote this and why would they think this. this only intuitively applies to art. many things do have literal uses, and our failure to build onto the same literal uses drives a lot of unnecessary conflict in society. (adventure time s10: "diamonds and lemons")
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">"The only friend I have is violence!"  ->  Adventure Time s9 e7, Dragon Ball

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="Z">Adventure Time s9 e2  ->  magic as bending the world to one's will. unfortunately PB becomes this

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Every single wrong choice an individual has ever made is due to prejudice / Every single wrong thing an individual has ever done is due to prejudice  ->  I hated this idea until the day I put up this wiki and came up with the notion of F2 Statements or wording wrong things really confidently. and now it's just funny. I don't think most people take the proposition quite this far. I think you'd have to make the propositions people actually use subsets of this, and I think it's the notion of making it completely absolute that's funny. but just imagine. some random Dave Andrews off in Arizona made a bad desktop application in Rust because he was prejudiced against good programming languages. some Erma Waters over in Newfoundland wrote yet another detective story when nobody needs any more because she was prejudiced against good books. the notion of every single wrong action being a prejudice is quite conceptually funny.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">If predicting society was impossible, corporations wouldn't exist / If historical materialism was impossible, corporations wouldn't exist
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">my flower left me  ->  AZ. I don't know what this trope means in terms of any other series but I know it already has a great name

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">cultural exchange  ->  the concept itself, without value judgements about "Existentialists thinking it will magically fix everything". Take It Seriously.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The world needs adventurers to keep culture from stagnating  ->  Dragon Ball, Adventure Time season 8. there may be a kernel of truth to this in that when different populations interact they learn things, at the very least about the existence of other populations. that said, wow. it's really blown out of proportion how helpful seeing other places actually is. if things are bad at home you won't really find the holy grail somewhere else. your people will still need you to apply the knowledge you find. and as the centuries have gone on, people don't really come back to the places that need them the most, it's just turned into permanent migration out of unsuccessful places to successful places. we really need to talk about the fact that neither Goku nor Finn wants to come home to share their knowledge, both cases begin with assuming home is too far gone, and you can only be a hero <em>through</em> never coming back. (I think I already know what the Existentialists will say. they'll try to claim I'm turning this into a case of "Rudolph was useful". but it's not me doing it. it's the fact people are physical and there are real solutions to real material problems below the level of "discovering better culture". I also know why people make this error. they can't see that any nice group of friends is just a graph and any case of "cultural exchange" is just making the graph bigger. sometimes bigger graphs become easier to operate without becoming more efficient, but they also become more capable of oppressing anybody who actually believes in improving the structure of the graphs. really unfortunate when it comes to worldwide shipping and climate change.)

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-remark="psychology" data-tradition="HAS" value="618" data-dimension="S">impostor syndrome
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Fern trying to be Finn is like Finn trying to be a doctor  ->  a really weird metaphor. it absolutely shouldn't be true, which of course is why it's funny. there really is a correct way to do medicine. but the episode proposes a world where medicine quite literally works like Existentialism (adventure time season 8, episode 15)

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Men enter into definite relations not of their choosing  ->  one of the big problems within Marxism these days is Existentialists {{em|do not believe this}}. Existentialists, the majority of all people, instead believe that every relationship is a choice, and every change in relationships is a matter of Free Will. the important consequence is that Existentialists rely on people finding okay bosses versus terrible bosses and okay landlords versus terrible landlords and okay towns to work in versus terrible towns as an important part of the process of building progressivism. Deleuze & Guattari and the notion of "lines of flight" or "rearranging bodies/machines" — this is what is meant by all that
</li><li class="field_horror" value="618" data-dimension="S">Q?977 your friend and the windmill disappeared  ->  one of the most iconic pieces of imagery in {{game|Petscop}}. somewhat related to "the door that never opened"

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Futuristic technology is indistinguishable from magic / Any sufficiently-advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">All magic is scientific principles presented like mysticism / "All magic is is scientific principles presented like mystical hoodoo"  ->  one of my favorite ideas ever said in Adventure Time, which is a complete mind<s class="censor">fuck</s> if you think about it yet is thrown in there totally offhand. Adventure Time can't be a science fiction universe due to things like Jake spontaneously reimagining significant parts of the world. but if you take the alternate timeline where those episodes aren't true and this one is, it's one of the most single most interesting questions. if magic isn't magic then what <em>is</em> it? clearly, it has to be a new form of physics that doesn't exist in the real world but does exist in the fictional world. a simple set of fundamental rules complete with equations. and to some degree, isn't that observably the case? in a Pokémon game, there is an equation that damage equals base damage times type matchup multiplier. that is a physics equation. it doesn't tell us very closely about how the world works underneath, but neither do a lot of real-world physics equations! until quantum mechanics a whole lot of processes and mathematical information about them were left out. a concrete equation about how something repeatedly behaves is a physics equation. the only way out of that is to invent the term "metaphysics equation".
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">metaphysics equation  ->  my main reference point for this is video games. but quite honestly, things like mathematics from the time of ancient astrology might count. debatably also Lacanians and schizoanalysts misusing math for metaphors.

</li><li class="field_horror" value="618" data-dimension="S">magic man (Adventure Time)  ->  incidentally resembles - Slavoj Žižek - metric - disregarding what is normal
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S0">series of events which is hypothetical inside fiction
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">advancement (virtual pets or characters) / progression (virtual pets) / evolution (Pokémon)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">level-up evolution

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="Z">Large Hadron Collider
</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="Z">IceCube neutrino detector  ->  I've mentioned both of these facilities about twice or three times in MDem drafts. time to add them.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Buffer states always get invaded anyway  ->  a claim on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffer_state Wikipedia article] I couldn't agree with more.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">You can't build Zinovievism in one country / Rhizome requires a global momement just like early Trotskyism  ->  only when writing a new B-side chapter where the speaker totally believes in Rhizome did I finally realize that the standard version of Rhizome + Multitude theories + scraps of Liberalism was actually rather similar to a world Zinovievism only actually having a little bit of internal content this time, and attempting to be more elaborate and improved. follow-up: "Early Trotskyism is an anarchism"
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">(put bootleg names on db characters)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="Z">"There is zero difference between good and bad things actually"  ->  this should be considered the quote or comic, not the actual statement. this was a @dril tweet apparently. [https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/there-is-zero-difference-between-good-and-bad-things]
</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S2">There is zero difference between good and bad things  ->  this one is the statement itself as a claim. there is probably a Nietzsche / BGE quote I don't currently know that applies?

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Don't talk about politics</cite> (Sarah Stein Lubrano)  ->  field: center-Liberal books that make entirely too much sense
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="Z"><cite>I am the Cheese</cite> (Cormier 1977)  ->  weird precursor to SCP reports
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Animorphs: The Ellimist Chronicles</cite> (2000)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Dactyl Hill Squad</cite> (Older 2018)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="Z"><cite>The New Prophecy: Twilight</cite> (vol.5; <cite>Warriors</cite>)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="Z"><cite>The Darkest Hour</cite> (vol.6; <cite>Warriors</cite>)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-remark="history" value="618" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Stealing Home: The Story of Jackie Robinson</cite> (Denenberg 1990)
</li><li class="field_horror" value="618" data-dimension="Z"><cite>The Age of Zeus</cite> (2010)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Alchemy and Academe</cite> (McCaffrey 1970)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Decision at Doona</cite> (McCaffrey 1969)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Crisis on Doona</cite> (McCaffrey 1992)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Treaty at Doona</cite> (McCaffrey 1994)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Outcast of Redwall</cite> (McCaffrey 1995/1996)
</li><li class="field_horror"  value="618" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Wings of Fire</cite> (Todd 1998)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Riding Freedom</cite> (1998)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Winterkill</cite> (2022)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="Z"><cite>The Guardian Herd: Starfire</cite> (2014)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="Z"><cite>A Month of Sundays</cite> (2024)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="Z"><cite>When Things Fall Apart: Heart Advice for Difficult Times</cite> (1997)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="Z"><cite>The Quality of Life</cite> (1970)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Orthodoxy</cite> (Chesterton 1908)  ->  some Christians think this is a profound work of general-sense philosophy, apparently. I have no idea if it is or not. I suspect it's not.
</li></ol><noinclude>

== Lexeme ==

=== L1 - L900 ===

{{HueCSS}}<!-- {{BopCSS}} --><ol class="hue clean reset">
<li class="field_exstruct" value="1" data-dimension="L">master signifier
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2" data-dimension="L">Lacanian discipline -> symbolic castration (Lacanianism)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3" data-dimension="L">The Real -> Lacanianism
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="4" data-dimension="L">The Symbolic -> Lacanianism
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5" data-dimension="L">The Imaginary -> Lacanianism
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="6" data-dimension="L">other / Other / The Other -> Lacanianism
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="7" data-dimension="L">object small-a / <i>objet petit a</i>

</li><li class="field_geo" value="8" data-dimension="L">[[User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/inflections|knowledge / know]]
 <ol><li>association through signifier equation
 </li><li>factical observation
 </li><li>Amalthean interpretation
 </li></ol>
</li><li class="field_geo" value="9" data-dimension="L">[[User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/inflections|philosophy / philosophical]]

</li><li class="field_geo" value="10" data-dimension="L">facticity / factical
 <ol><li>(MDem) set of all entities in material reality
 </li><li>(Existentialism) Lived Experience
 </li></ol>

</li><li class="" value="11" data-dimension="L">category error

</li><li class="field_geo" value="12" data-dimension="L">[[User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/inflections|science / scientific]]
</li><li class="field_geo" value="13" data-dimension="L">ascientific / non-science
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="14" data-dimension="L">[[User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/inflections|scientism / scienticist]]
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="15" data-dimension="L">non-overlapping magisteria

</li><li class="field_geo" value="16" data-dimension="L">[[User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/inflections|rationalism]]
 <ol><li>internal definition
 </li><li>(Existentialism) pejorative definition -> science imperializing philosophy
 </li></ol>

</li><li value="17" class="" data-dimension="L">revolution

</li><li class="field_geo" value="18" data-dimension="L">fallacy  ->  common definition; fallacy fallacy or double fallacy where somebody's error is incorrectly thinking something is an example of a fallacy; "fallacy" in loose usage as any kind of physically inaccurate axiom used as a pillar of thought as if it were fact (<cite>MDem</cite> scraps have used this a lot, as with "printing press fallacy" and "Twilight Sparkle fallacy")

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="19" data-dimension="L">[[User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/inflections|history / historical / historicize]] / historiology (Heidegger) / material-history / historiography
 <ol><li>(center-Liberalism, Existentialism) -> series of unique events
 </li><li>(Marxism) -> material-history
 </li></ol>

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="20" data-dimension="L">[[User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/inflections|bias]]
 <ol><li>common definition
 </li><li>(Existentialism) -> corrupted ideology held immorally
 </li><li>(MDem) the presence of any preferences, worldviews, or codes of morality whatsoever - which is not inherently bad; see Amalthean interpretation
 </li><li>(Toryism) -> anything from another ideology; heresy against Toryism
 </li></ol>

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="21" data-dimension="L">orthodoxy / orthodox
 <ol><li>(religion)
 </li><li>(philosophy)
 </li><li>(Marxism, meta-Marxism) -> formation of "orthodox Marxism"
 </li><li>(Trotskyism) -> early Leninism, which is good
 </li><li>(right-Liberalism) -> classical Liberalism, which is good
 </li><li>(Toryism) -> "the establishment", which is Bad
 </li></ol>

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="22" data-dimension="L">heresy / heretical / heretic
 <ol><li>(religion)
 </li><li>(center-Liberalism) see fascism
 </li><li>(Toryism) see bias
 </li><li>(Trotskyism) see anti-Stalinism
 </li></ol>

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="23" data-dimension="L">[[User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/inflections|lived experience / Lived Experience]]
 <ol><li>common definition
 </li><li>(Existentialism)
 </li><li>(existential materialism, MDem)
 </li></ol>

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="24" data-dimension="L">schizophrenia / schizophrenic
 <ol><li>real-world condition
 </li><li>schizoanalysis metaphor
 </li></ol>
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="25" data-dimension="L">escape / Escape / escapism  ->  schizoanalyst sense, escaping reality sense

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="26" data-dimension="L">subject / The Subject
 <ol><li>common definition
 </li><li>(Existentialism)
 </li><li>(existential materialism, MDem)
 </li></ol>

</li><li class="field_geo" value="27" data-dimension="L">Being
</li><li class="field_geo" value="28" data-dimension="L">Dasein
</li><li class="field_geo" value="29" data-dimension="L">object

</li><li class="field_geo" value="30" data-dimension="L">truth / true
 <ol><li>common definition
 </li><li>(Existentialism) Lived Experience; see Idealism
 </li><li>(religion) see Truth specifically excludes physics; see Māyā
 </li></ol>
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="31" data-dimension="L">norm / normalcy / normal / normative

</li><li class="field_geo" value="32" data-dimension="L">[[User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/inflections|real / reality / realism]]  ->  many fields have realisms speaking about the reality of that field, note for instance theoretical physics realism. as well any model at all can have a "realism", including so-called "race realism" (the realism of a conspiracy theory) or the assumption that particular art styles represent reality when they might not, etc.

</li><li class="field_geo"  value="33" data-dimension="L">theory  ->  there are many, many definitions for this, though almost every one of them subsets "an ontological model"
</li><li class="field_geo"  value="37" data-dimension="L">objectivity
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="38" data-dimension="L">neutrality
</li><li class="field_geo"  value="42" data-dimension="L">meaning
  <ol><li>common definition
 </li><li>(structuralism) -> signifier meanings
 </li><li>(existentialism, nihilism) -> the actually-okay definition that meaning is constructed
 </li><li>(Existentialism) -> b<s class="censor">ullshit</s> concepts that the shorter you live the more it means
 </li><li>(postmodernism?) -> end of history confusion about what means anything
 </li></ol>

</li><li class="field_geo" value="43" data-dimension="L">false / falsify
  <ol><li>common definition
 </li><li>(science) to a show a testable theory to be inaccurate to reality based on observations; to show a testable theory to be badly matched to the [[redlink|Factical systems]] that constitute reality.
 </li><li>to create forgeries or misleading versions of something; to create a false version of something which was not false
 </li></ol>
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="44" data-dimension="L">revisionism / revisionist
  <ol><li>common definition
 </li><li>(historiography) field of history which seeks to re-examine and update historical facts; see "falsify"/science
 </li><li>(Toryism) purported malicious attempt to erase accurate historical facts because they are inconvenient; see "falsify", item for "historical-revisionism/inclusive-history conspiracy theory"
 </li><li>(Marxism) the act of promoting a political-economic model or model of history which has been shown to be inaccurate; see "falsify"/science
 </li><li>(mainstream Marxism-Leninism) category of ostensibly Marxist models regarded with great doubt which may include plans to realize Marxism inside Liberal democracy, ultra-imperialist models of waiting for imperialism to slow down, labeling a free-floating sea of private business territories as "socialist transition", and so forth.
 </li><li>(Trotskyism) category of Marxist models claimed to be incorrect or disproven which may include [[redlink|socialism in one country]], strategies involving government ministries over workers' councils, and so forth.
 </li><li>(Western Marxism) category of Marxist models claimed to be incorrect or disproven which may include models that treat the emergence of movements as in any way predictable, and so forth.
 </li><li>(Existentialism) category of either all Marxist theories or some subset of Marxist models which is claimed to be incorrect or disproven, and may include the entire category of historical materialism, or models which do not make their most fundamental scale [[redlink|The Subject]].
 </li></ol>

</li><li value="45" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="L">liberal / liberalism / Liberalism / liberalize / illiberal / illiberality  ->  oh boy one of my least favorite words in the English language
  <ol><li>common definition
 </li><li>relaxed set of rules given to a particular set of rules
 </li><li>Washingtonism. anti-monarchist republicanism. center-Liberalism
 </li><li>capitalist anarchy; right-Liberalism
 </li><li>(Toryism) actual anarchist ideologies presented as if they were the inevitable result of Menshevism or center-Liberalism. see PragerU videos
 </li></ol>
</li><li value="46" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="L">left / Left / The Left
  <ol><li>a direction
 </li><li>(center-Liberalism) all compatible and utterly-incompatible progressive movements in unison
 </li><li>(meta-Marxism) any plural progressive movement which is not directly affiliated with other progressive movements; should be pluralized as "The Lefts"
 </li></ol>
</li><li value="47" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="L">progress / progressive / progressivism / progressivist

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="48" data-dimension="L">take  ->  category: noun-based term. movie scene attempt; design attempt; interpretation, arts; fan theory; political proposition, often pejorative
</li><li class="field_geo" value="49" data-dimension="L">indeterminism  ->  I have my suspicions there's not actually any such thing, and it's just the presence or absence of predictability or the ability to measure things in a sea of otherwise deterministic processes. it's relativity and physical-plurality that screws everything up, it's the fact that for most of its existence the universe has generally never been a single object and has always been a collection of separate objects. are these objects particles, or something else? that's the thing science genuinely doesn't know yet
</li><li class="field_geo" value="50" data-dimension="L">determine / determined / determination / determinism  ->  category: action or process term (verb-based)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="51" data-dimension="L">predetermine / predetermined / predetermination
</li><li value="52" data-remark="playing cards" class="field_geo" data-dimension="L">random
</li><li value="53" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="L">vote  ->  don't forget the skewering sense of people being convinced voting will result in policies, where it really means nation membership
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="54" data-dimension="L">party  ->  Liberal party versus party-nation
</li><li class="field_ML" value="55" data-dimension="L">party-nation

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="56" data-dimension="L">fair / fairness / unfair  ->  category: abstract condition term, adjective-based term, positive term having negation
  <ol><li>common definition
 </li><li>fairness as in no unnecessary obstacles: unfair card game
 </li><li>fairness as in objectivity: evaluating art etc on the standards it intends to deliver on and that are most applicable to it
 </li><li>fairness as in the presence of morality or standards: the claim that nature or life is "unfair" when the intended meaning is that they have no standards and are neither fair nor unfair
 </li></ol>
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="57" data-dimension="L">just / justice / unjust  ->  category: abstract process term, adjective-based term, positive term having negation. seems to me that fairness is a state of things while justice is generally an active process

</li><li value="58" data-remark="local 58" class="field_horror" data-dimension="L">anomaly  ->  unrelated to "fairness" and "vote". normal definition; Star Trek; SCP definition with its full connotations

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="59" data-dimension="L">should / ought to / must  ->  words like this get me every time somebody says a moral statement and it's practically unenforceable. "should" sometimes means "absolutely will not, but I will be utterly furious at everyone else when my model doesn't work"
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="60" data-dimension="L">morality
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="61" data-dimension="L">ethics
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="62" data-dimension="L">good / Good
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="63" data-dimension="L">evil / Evil
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="64" data-dimension="L">right / Right
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="65" data-dimension="L">wrong / Wrong

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="66" data-dimension="L">enemy
 <ol><li>common definition
 </li><li>(Toryism) -> evil and criminal nationality purportedly intending to destroy one's country - "the United States' enemies"
 </li><li>(Christianity) -> people in separation from God
 </li><li>(Buddhism) -> arbitrary separation between individuals which results in violence
 </li><li>(Maoism) -> class subpopulations who actively oppose Communist revolution - see <cite>The Communist Necessity</cite>
 </li></ol>
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="67" data-dimension="L">opponent
 <ol><li>common definition
 </li><li>(meta-Marxism, MDem) separate free-floating group or individual with which one exists in open plurality and for which re-unifying the plural groups is not trivial
 </li><li>(center-Liberalism, right-Liberalism)  ->  prescriptive connotation that ideologies are not separate and they inherently want to respect each other and regard themselves as part of the same group
 </li></ol>
</li><li class="field_nations" value="68" data-dimension="L">territory / territorial / territorialize / deterritorialize
 <ol><li>a bounded area associated with a particular use or occupant
 </li><li>(ecology) the bounded area occupied by an individual animal or animal social unit
 </li><li>a particular bounded domain recently added to the borders of a global empire: Northwest Territory, Oregon Territory
 </li><li>a particular bounded area permanently occupied and administered by a global empire: United States territories
 </li><li>(arts) the mutually-exclusive division between concepts believed to be separate and non-overlapping
 </li><li>(schizoanalysis) whatever (de)territorialization means
 </li></ol>

</li><li value="69" class="field_horror" data-remark="meme culture; detachment from the horrifying" data-dimension="L">irony / ironic / unironic
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="70" data-dimension="L">individual / individual / individuality / individuation
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="71" data-dimension="L">authenticity / authentic / inauthentic  ->  Existentialism, Zinovievism
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="72" data-dimension="L">will / individual will / free will
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="73" data-dimension="L">free will / Free Will / libertarian free will / compatibilist free will  ->  entry for "Free Will" specifically
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="74" data-dimension="L">volition / volitional
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="75" data-dimension="L">voluntary
 <ol><li>common definition
 </li><li>(right-Liberalism) of an agreement or relationship, being determined purely by the two parties involved. despite the word <i>voluntary</i> generally having to do with concepts of will or freedom, a "voluntary" agreement is characterized not by whether somebody wants to agree to it but whether the agreement is currently active or not. an agreement two parties are currently in is voluntary, and it becomes involuntary specifically when one of the parties involved Escapes.
 </li></ol>
</li><li value="76" data-remark="United States" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="L">freedom / free  ->  almost as fraught as "economics", easily 15 definitions
 <ol><li>common definition
 </li><li>... various definitions
 </li><li>Free Software definition
 </li><li>Free Culture definition
 </li><li>(physics, chemistry) available for the purposes of particular physical processes: free energy equation
 </li><li>(physics) the ability to produce more outcomes in the sense of a Cartesian dimension of outcomes: degrees of freedom
 </li><li>(early-existentialism) the prisoner parable or Jevil definition where supposedly nobody is not free if they merely will otherwise, the definition where physical freedom does not matter to the definition of freedom
 </li><li>(pejorative) freedom units: tools used by an enclosed cultural region which does not want to change itself
 </li></ol>
</li><li class="" value="77" data-dimension="L">power -> at least 3-4 specific usages
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="78" data-dimension="L">[[Term:anarchy|anarchy]] -> needs to link several Signifier items for different theories of what Archons are
</li><li class="field_nations" value="79" data-dimension="L">anektiry / ektirion
</li><li class="field_nations" value="80" data-dimension="L">anektirism / ektirionism
</li><li class="field_nations" value="81" data-dimension="L">thoughtcrime
</li><li class="field_nations" value="82" data-dimension="L">doublethink
</li><li class="field_nations" value="83" data-dimension="L">newspeak
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="84" data-dimension="L">censorship
</li><li class="field_nations" value="85" data-dimension="L">Objective / Objectivism  ->  separate from objectivity/objectivism because it has its own complex array of definitions
</li><li class="field_nations" value="86" data-dimension="L">Tory / Tories / Toryism

</li><li class="field_nations" value="87" data-dimension="L">stochastic terrorism
 <ol><li>(center-Liberalism) -> common definition
 </li><li>(MDem) -> violent horizontal attack, has alternate mathematical definition
 </li></ol>

</li><li class="field_nations" value="88" data-dimension="L">fascism / fascist
 <ol><li>(historians) a militant nationalist movement of the 1940s World War II period associated with re-making national culture and imperial conquest over other countries.
 </li><li>internal definition
 </li><li>those ~3 lists of characteristics
 </li><li>(Trotskyism) a nationalist movement begun by the <u>petty bourgeoisie</u>  ->  retrieve work where Trotsky claimed this
 </li><li>(Gramscianism) -> requires nationalists to fill up all available slots as a graph
 </li><li>(center-Liberalism) literally any ideology which is not orthodox center-Liberalism; anti-center-Liberal heresy. -> "Radical intellectuals and the subversion of politics"
 </li><li>(Toryism) -> absolutely not Toryism even when you can't tell their values apart
 </li></ol>
</li><li class="field_nations" value="89" data-dimension="L">mathematical fascism
 <ol><li>(MDem) when millions of individuals who agree on nothing all agree to team up and commit imperialism for the separate benefit of each individual. logical result of: chunk competition; incidentally resembles: Saiyan kingdom
 </li></ol>

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="90" data-dimension="L">politics
 <ol><li>common definition
 </li><li>(historians) the process of operating any government, state, regime, class society, or warring states periods; sometimes near-synonymous with material-history
 </li><li>(center-Liberalism) the process of operating Liberalism
 </li><li>(Toryism) bringing up opinions that are not consistent with Toryism; anti-Tory heresy; see: "politically correct" "artists with politics" "don't talk politics"
 </li></ol>
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="91" data-dimension="L">end of history  ->  has more precise meanings than you'd think

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="92" data-dimension="L">molecular democracy
 <ol><li>molecularized democratic regime / molecularized democratic theory
 </li><li>Marxist Molecular Democracy / Molecular Marxism
 </li><li>(unattested) Existentialism as purported molecularized democratic regime
 </li></ol>

</li><li class="field_geo" value="93" data-dimension="L">signifier -> remember the ontological senses
</li><li class="field_geo" value="94" data-dimension="L">ontology  -> companion to signifier
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="95" data-dimension="L">excess
 <ol><li>common definition
 </li><li>relativistic definition thanks to Heidegger where there can be excessive rainclouds
 </li><li>(Lacanianism) unreachable information inside each Subject; alleged to be a good thing
 </li><li>(existential materialism, MDem) unreachable information inside Subjects or objects which may or may not be a huge problem; see Vegeta effect
 </li></ol>
</li><li class="field_geo" value="96" data-dimension="L">[[User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/inflections|quantum]] -> literal, mathematical, figurative-math definitions
</li><li value="97" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="L">subjectivity / Subjectivity
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="98" data-dimension="L">culture / cultural / countable culture / Culture -> possibly 20 definitions
 <ol></li><li>... various definitions
 </li><li>(Toryism) the purported only correct way of doing things such that if somebody does not follow it, it will result in the ruin and destruction of the overall population - see "stupid idiot garbage trash"
 </li></ol>
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="99" data-dimension="L">hegemony -> man I hate this one. guess it's going in here

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="100" data-dimension="L">[[User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/inflections|economics]] -> very controversial term with like 10-15 definitions. this wiki is about unraveling the word economics into every hyper-specific sense. screw economics
</li><li value="101" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="L">market
 <ol><li>common definition
 </li><li>(right-Liberalism) -> the neoliberal nonsense definition
 </li><li>(MDem) -> Market Society, Filamentism, primitive Existentialism
 </li></ol>
</li><li class="field_geo" value="102" data-dimension="L">microeconomics
</li><li class="field_geo" value="103" data-dimension="L">macroeconomics

</li><li class="field_nations" value="104" data-dimension="L">[[User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/inflections|empire / imperialism]] / anti-imperialism
</li><li class="field_nations" value="105" data-dimension="L">hierarchy / anhierarchy
 <ol><li>common definition
 </li><li>accurate medieval definition; spatial hierarchy
 </li><li>anhierarchy: the crude absence of spatial hierarchy and "territorialization" for utterly any reason they are absent including the area being uninhabited or contested
 </li></ol>

</li><li class="field_geo" value="106" data-dimension="L">feudalism / feudal / feudal order  ->  I temporarily deleted warring states period, reassign that later
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="107" data-dimension="L">[[User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/inflections|capitalism]] / capitalist adj. / capitalist agent-noun

</li><li class="field_nations" value="108" data-dimension="L">crime / criminal / criminal
 <ol><li>(center-Liberalism) requires definition in legal code
 </li><li>can refer to any action that "should" be illegal: criminally underrated
 </li><li>(Toryism) -> thug, gangster, mafioso, bandit, barbarian, Sea Peoples
 </li></ol>
</li><li class="field_nations" value="109" data-dimension="L">terrorism / terrorist
 <ol><li>(center-Liberalism) -> common definition
 </li><li>(Toryism) -> international mafioso who attacks countries out of malice
 </li></ol>
</li><li class="field_trotsky"  value="110" data-dimension="L">wrecker
</li><li class="field_nations"  value="111" data-dimension="L">counterrevolutionary
</li><li class="field_nations" value="112" data-dimension="L">reactionary
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="113" data-dimension="L">deviant -> Lacanianism
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="114" data-dimension="L">perversion -> Lacanianism
</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-remark="rebellion" value="115" data-dimension="L">body without organs / Body Without Organs / BWO

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="116" data-dimension="L">patchification / patchify  ->  when a country population is divided into tiny populations of "a million countries per 300 million people", either ideologically or more literally into tiny ethnic patches scattered wildly
</li><li class="field_nations" value="117" data-dimension="L">choppification / choppify  ->  pejorative term for concepts of "decentralizing" or "de-monopolizing" societal structures over and over, sometimes to such extreme extents that structures don't even exist and society has truly been atomized into just a bunch of individuals. the word "competition" might be thrown around to justify how choppifying things and making them less coordinated will inherently improve them. the need to choppify things ultimately originates from Blobonomics and Escape models of society, which always slowly create large <em>centralized</em> blobs as smaller ones die or people simply begin to think large ones are better because they're more consistent.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="118" data-dimension="L">anarculture  ->  the stance that culture should be smashed to take away its power over people. democulture is the notion that chunks of people exert the authority of the Spanishness Office to punish people for not performing their part in culture perfectly, and anarculture is the notion that everyone sort of just, attempts to not have culture. usually for really specific reasons that a specific empire has power over people by filling their minds with the wrong signs of "Whiteness" etc. to be clear the problem is not that the process of alterity isn't real, the problem is that people try to remove the notion of physical populations and historical events from the model and reduce it purely down to ideas as if ideas and signs mechanically, near-deterministically cause all human behavior. I had a hard time naming this thing because for the longest time it didn't even make sense. "so anarchism has been turning into... an-... a-culture-ism? what even is this?" I still don't know what the agent-noun form is. but to be fair, I don't know what that is for <i>democulture</i> either. democulturalist? not sure.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="119" data-dimension="L">zeroth world problems  ->  problems so divorced from the basic layer of local individual survival in the First World that they are uniquely bourgeois problems. problems that employed Careerists complain about but which can feel completely irrelevant to the lives of unemployed people like they should not matter whatsoever. for some reason, zeroth world problems are the primary kind of problem complained about on most of YouTube, as people continuously do things like "review media" by discussing the best way for distant owners of specific business territories to order workers and subsidiaries inside corporations in order to generate products they would be satisfied with.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="120" data-dimension="L">copyright
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="121" data-dimension="L">copyright violation / copyright infringement
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="122" data-dimension="L">copyleft
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="123" data-dimension="L">artist  ->  has a great many connotations nobody notices that require documenting
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="125" data-dimension="L">indie / independent
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="126" data-dimension="L">centralize / centralized / centralization; decentralize / decentralized / decentralization
</li><li class="field_geo" value="128" data-dimension="L">algorithm / The Algorithm  ->  method of calculation; machine learning algorithm; recommendations algorithm; reciprocal effect of a consumer base on creators which creators have difficulty distinguishing from the recommendations algorithm

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="129" data-dimension="L">[[Ontology:L129|democulture]]  ->  the hypothetical or theoretical concept that culture is a government in a similar sense to how a monarchy is, and a particular corrupt individual or locus of corrupt culture can be overrun by the masses and turned into a new form. I find the idea really stupid to be honest, but almost every single theory within "The US Left" since the 1990s seems to invent this concept as one of its core principles. Existentialism is in general a group of theories that ignores democracy <i>per se</i> and by going on and on about Free Will and The Subject tries to find the best way to invent democulture. queer theory is <em>infamous</em> in Tory settlements for constantly attributing the "institutional power" of homophobia and transphobia to the absence of democulture in "institutions".
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="130" data-dimension="L">Demos / Demotes / demo-  ->  a group of people which really does function as an unbroken "we" which can describe its shared process of government as "our". the whole United States is not one of these, and the United States consists of at least two Demotes.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="131" data-dimension="L">democracy / our democracy  ->  tons of connotations. I am coming to really hate this one English word for how much hidden complexity it conceals that nobody notices. however... we can fix that
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="132" data-dimension="L">demofederation  ->  a structure composed of multiple linked Demotes. what the United States _actually_ is.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="133" data-dimension="L">democompetition  ->  etym: Demos + competition; mutually-exclusive competition of populations over a demoinstitution, in place of "dem<em>ocracy</em>". the process of two separate Social-Philosophical Systems or Demotes competing to exclusively control the process of demorevision.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="134" data-dimension="L">demoinstitution  ->  etym: Demos + institution; the basic building block of republicanism, in which multiple people take the place of one person. a demoinstitution is almost or exactly the same thing as an ektirion depending on the context; the definition of demoinstitution subsets the definition of ektirion.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="135" data-dimension="L">demorevision  ->  etym: Demos + revise; the process of changing the country's current layout of demoinstitutions.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="136" data-dimension="L">demoadministration  ->  etym: Demos + administer; the process of running demoinstitutions in a particular consistent way with no current possibility of change.
</li><li value="137" class="field_geo" data-dimension="L">constant  ->  has nothing to do with demoinstitutions but is a very important number
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="138" data-dimension="L">demosuccession  ->  the process by which one defined Demos overtakes another defined Demos and comes to decide but not fully control the process of demorevision. if there is not democolonialism there may be many demosuccessions. however, the outcome of a demosuccession is separate from and above the outcome of a demorevision, which is something that issues from inside each particular Demos, i.e., contains the things individuals actually vote on. democompetition is the larger account of a daily process of many smaller demosuccessions.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="139" data-dimension="L">democolonialism  ->  the process by which one plural Demos completely secures control of the process of demorevision and effectively takes ownership of the territory and population within which another Demos lives, allowing it no part in determining demoinstitutions or culture. named by analogy to neocolonialism and the associated process of stripping autonomy from Third-World countries by overwriting everyone who manages their external relations with allies or puppets of a particular global empire

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="141" data-dimension="L">archon / Archon  ->  not typically used, but very important to discuss as part of the definition of Anarchism; historical definition; definition in religion

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="142" data-dimension="L">RDem / relativistic democracy  ->  a category of molecularized theories of society which properly enter the era of unifying survival, economics, sociality, culture, politics, and government, but which choose to do this by reifying plurality and focusing on unbridgeable gaps between free-floating plural entities as making them fundamentally uncontrollable. "relativistic" in the sense of the universe having no center and all events having to travel at or below the speed of light in space and time to hit other objects; an object in motion not affected by another object keeps independently flying along "relativistically". RDem theories seem like trouble because they seem to bake in war and authoritarian attacks over the top of other populations after leaving no physical method to preemptively influence decisions and prevent bad decisions. Gramscianism, Existentialism, Liberalism, and some Anarchisms tend toward creating RDem. Deng Xiaoping Thought <em>may</em> tend toward RDem as well. Stalin Thought and Trotskyism each tend toward MDem whether they do it well or badly.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="143" data-dimension="L">multitude / The Multitude  ->  an Anarchist concept that at first sounds like nonsense (see "spaghetti".) but then later you suddenly realize is in a bunch of other theories including alterity theories, Liberalism, and Trotskyism. the origin of the Multitude concept is in people thinking that material boundaries between populations aren't present when in reality they are - Trotskyism thinking the whole entire world is one big unbroken population of workers is the same error as Anarchists talking about The Multitude, it's just a matter of what scale the error is made at

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="145" data-dimension="L">multiculturalism  ->  one of those words which is no problem as far as its surface value but whose overall context for being and connotations baffle the hell out of me. who could be against multiculturalism? and yet, why do we need this word, and what's with everyone talking about it
</li><li value="146" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="L">language  ->  prescriptivist definition; descriptivist definition; plural languages versus post-language; language registers; etc
</li><li value="147" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="L">sign

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="149" data-dimension="L">[[Ontology:L149|significary]]  ->  the equivalent of a dictionary or thesaurus which covers all possible connotative definitions of a particular written sign, within reason, up through every meaning which is relatively common or notable though not necessarily the most obscure ones

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="150" data-dimension="L">prejudice
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="151" data-dimension="L">racism
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="152" data-dimension="L">sexism
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="153" data-dimension="L">homophobia / homomisia
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="154" data-dimension="L">transphobia / transmisia

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="169" data-dimension="L">microdisaster / microDeoxysMeteor (obscure)  ->  an instance of an individual behaving in a problem manner according to a lack of information they could not possibly have known thanks to the limitations of communicating through material physics — a mindless meteor in motion tends to stay in motion.<br />
[ok to keep on 9k; don't add as Term]

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="170" data-dimension="L">-phobia / [https://diversitypride.org/misiapledge.html -misia]
</li><li class="field_nations" value="171" data-dimension="L">PeopleWhoMadePeopleRunAwayism  ->  a generic category of corrupt ideologies or philosophies that end up making people run away, such as fundamentalist religious sects (the primary thing the term was created to explore). theoretically includes "Stalinism" if such a thing were to actually exist, given the fact some number of people and Trotsky fled the Soviet Union. does not refer to a narrow prejudice such as "homophobia", but specifically to a larger ideology which <em>generates</em> a narrow prejudice such as homophobia. perhaps we are talking about a "metaprejudice"? I don't quite like that term yet but maybe I'll find reasonable justification for it and realize it does have to be added.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="172" data-dimension="L">PeopleWhoMadePeopleRunAwayphobia / PeopleWhoMadePeopleRunAwaymisia
</li><li class="field_nations" value="173" data-dimension="L">PeopleWhoRanAwayphobia / PeopleWhoRanAwaymisia  ->  a generic category of processes of demographic identities being pushed away from the area of some particular PeopleWhoMadePeopleRunAwayism. coined to explore the difference between targeting particular PeopleWhoMadePeopleRunAwayisms and particular PeopleWhoRanAwayphobias as well as whether either effort is physically possible in a universe full of Vegeta effects.
</li><li class="field_nations" value="174" data-dimension="L">TheseAreTheDefinitionsEveryoneHasToUseionary  ->  a dictionary that operates according to linguistic prescriptivism or one that only accommodates definitions of words within a single ontology or narrow range of ontologies instead of the full range of possible ontological assignments used in practice<br />
[these should be motifs, absolutely not terms]

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="181" data-dimension="L">monosexism
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="182" data-dimension="L">cissexism  ->  the naturalization of cisgender behavior and "biology"
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="183" data-dimension="L">heterosexism  ->  similar

</li><li class="field_geo" value="181" data-dimension="L">unique  ->  specific identifiable entity within a sea of free-floating entities; Heidegger had a sillier term for this I do not remember
</li><li class="field_geo" value="182" data-dimension="L">non-unique  ->  the policy is becoming that grammatical negations use the same Lexeme, but given the unique/non-unique distinction is so absolutely central to Materialist ontology, this will be one exception

</li><li class="field_geo" value="191" data-dimension="L">evolution
 <ol><li>common definition
 </li><li>(sciences) progression of any particular physical process through different points in time: stellar evolution (stellar life cycle), evolution of quantum-mechanical systems (development of wave functions and entanglement over time)
 </li><li>(sciences) speciation by way of natural selection; progression of speciation across geologic eons, eras, or periods
 </li><li>(sciences, obscure) emission
 </li><li>(fiction) progression from one growth stage of a virtual pet or fictional Subject-style being to another; similar usage to "stellar evolution", see sense S2
 </li></ol>
</li><li class="field_geo" value="192" data-dimension="L"><span lang="ja">進化（しんか）</span> -> evolution as it is used in the Japanese language
</li><li value="193" class="field_geo" data-dimension="L">species / sp. / spec. / spp. (plural)
</li><li value="194" class="field_geo" data-dimension="L">subspecies / ssp. / subsp. / sspp. (plural) / subspp. (plural)
</li><li value="195" class="field_geo" data-dimension="L">variety / var.
</li><li value="196" class="field_geo" data-dimension="L">forma / form / f.
</li><li value="197" class="field_geo" data-dimension="L">kind  ->  has been used to describe Pokémon stages; has also been used to confusedly describe creationism
</li><li value="198" class="field_geo" data-dimension="L">clade

</li><li class="field_geo" value="200" data-dimension="L">class  ->  so many right and wrong definitions
</li><li class="field_ML" value="201" data-dimension="L">worker  ->  cover different definitions of "working class" in mainstream Marxism-Leninism vs Maoism, etc
</li><li class="field_ML" value="202" data-dimension="L">proletariat / proletarian  ->  cover "big proletariat" model versus smaller-proletariat models
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="203" data-dimension="L">entrepreneur / undertaker  ->  super often misused to mean investor/capitalist, when it best means director/founder
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="204" data-dimension="L">bourgeoisie / bourgeois
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="205" data-dimension="L">petty bourgeoisie / petty-bourgeois  ->  in my opinion a confused and outdated term that has conflated two different classes: Artisans and Careerists
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="206" data-dimension="L">Artisan / Artisan type / Artisanal / Artisanize  ->  a tiny business so small it has absolutely no room for employees
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="207" data-dimension="L">Careerist / Careerist / Careerism  ->  the class of people who survive by seeking out higher-quality Job Slots and insisting "social mobility" is normal
</li><li class="field_nations" value="208" data-dimension="L">Refuse / Refuse class / refusariat (obsolete form)  ->  the class of people who are persistently never integrated into capitalism/Careerism because there aren't enough Job Slots or aren't the correct ones. becoming less relevant in recent MDem drafts as Careerism has been turning into the main focus
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="209" data-dimension="L">Filament / Filamentism  ->  micro-sized local subpopulation / nameless tiny subpopulation; process of large-scale populational Bauplan stochastically forming through Filaments swapping in and out on an open graph connection

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="210" data-remark="you might think it would be 331" data-dimension="L">structural racism / systemic racism  ->  specific Sense-term combining L180 systemic + L151 racism. I had this in the S Items but I now think it's better to just when reasonable have Items reference Lexeme Entities
</li><li class="field_nations" value="211" data-dimension="L">chunk competition / chunk-compete
</li><li class="field_nations" value="212" data-dimension="L">spatial slot hierarchy  ->  very specific mathematically-defined process of individuals claiming slotted resources or spatial positions; can occur in simpler forms with animals in nature
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="213" data-dimension="L">Blobonomics
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="214" data-dimension="L">Everybodyism  ->  nameless prejudice against all other individuals as all individuals participate in Careerist competition to shove others out of social slots
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="215" data-dimension="L">Populationism  ->  nameless prejudice against all other populations

</li><li class="field_ML" value="217" data-dimension="L">construct / constructive  ->  this had a very specific use in earlier MDem versions, where it was used to describe social graphs combining together instead of shoving each other out of things. "molecular" was also sometimes used for this, until I decided that was more obvious to use to refer to everything that happens at small scales instead of specifically things fitting together. as time went on I realized that even if it wasn't wrong that description was a bit too simplistic, and Particle Theory analysis was more critical

</li><li class="field_geo" value="219" data-dimension="L">rank / ranking / pecking order  ->  common definition; numerical list position; spatial position in spatial slot hierarchy; taxonomic level; military title; others. some people confuse "class" for "rank", such as in terms like "middle class" (middle rank). it is still possible to do Marxism about rank, but the key is you can't confuse the two things. Saiyans have ranks. they have no real social structure except number 1, 2, 3, 100. earth people in <cite>Dragon Ball</cite> have classes, like capitalists and peasants. rank is all about plurality and relativity, and to overcome rank you have to actually build structure where there wasn't structure.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="220" data-dimension="L">networkism / networkist / networkize  ->  the notion of modeling capitalism as a stability process of capitalist owners having to solve the physical stability of industrial structures, and stock markets being a process of groups of investors attempting to predict and make money on social stability — unless they are day traders trying to make money on social breakages.
 <ol><li>networkism: the system of workers ultimately gaining their pay from the presence of a surrounding Audience, Careerists striving to manufacture more Audience as Directors, and capitalists owning the activity of congregating people into an arbitrarily-created culture-group they will exploit the existence of to earn money
 </li><li>networkize: to tightly connect into the Audience of a particular Director
 </li><li>microcolonialism: old synonym for networkism, used to emphasize the framing of profiting off people being a certain culture that also must be the culture of the old established population that first solidly conquered that slot a while ago. "networkism" and "Careerism" can still have this connotation; those terms are just favored over "microcolonialism".
 </li></ol>
</li><li class="field_geo" value="221" data-dimension="L">Audience / Audiencize  ->  because this isn't the standard use of the word, don't put the regular word "audience" here. link to regular word in first definition only
</li><li class="field_geo" value="222" data-dimension="L">Director / Director type / Directorize / Directorization
 <ol><li>link to regular word
 </li><li>Director: a skilled expert with the unique ability to create assets that might successfully become capital or attract a large Audience of customers
 </li><li>Directorization: conversion of an owner, Artisan type, or Careerist into a permanent resident expert without the right to pack up the company or take the capital elsewhere
 </li></ol>
</li><li class="field_geo" value="223" data-dimension="L">Serializer
</li><li class="field_geo" value="224" data-dimension="L">Metaserializer / Franchiser
</li><li class="field_geo" value="225" data-dimension="L">Metafranchiser

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="230" data-dimension="L">identity  ->  process of Being; mathematical graph definition of things being linked together into the same object; mathematical equality comparison between different data objects; operation that does not change a data object (identity transformation); arbitrary list of characteristics that an individual Being has picked up; synonym for demographic; identity politics - "identity and hypocrisy!"
</li><li class="field_geo" value="231" data-dimension="L">graph
 <ol><li>common definition
 </li><li>(graph theory) an arrangement of connected points
 </li><li>(graphemics) smallest functional piece of a given writing system, or one of the variations of such units; informal variant for grapheme, glyph
 </li></ol>
</li><li class="field_geo" value="231" data-dimension="L">relative / relativism  ->  common definition; family relation; cultural relativism as the study of free floating populational Beings that develop over time - "Sonic is not Shadow", potential building block of historical materialism; pejorative misunderstandings of cultural relativism; various uses of things being relative; definition of words being relative to other words; "Marxism is spatially relative" (relativity); link to relativity

</li><li class="field_nations" value="241" data-dimension="L">ecological fascism  ->  ecofascism definitions; purported encroachment of "Green Faceism" (gotta retrieve what that even was again)

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="250" data-dimension="L">empiricism  ->  it is such a pain point for me that like, philosophy terms will name things like the world is made of alchemy, and as if everything is made of Fire or Water or Light or Darkness, act like it's possible for ways of doing things to be entirely made of "rationalism" or "empiricism" just so they can act powerful over people by pulling this fake gotcha of "wow I told you everything had to be separated into abstract Platonic categories and then I caught you red-handed using a fake category that can't be universally applied Way Too Much in violation of The Alchemical Principle of Moderation!!" and it's so stupid
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="251" data-dimension="L">verificationism  ->  god why are there so many terms... I hate most of what people call traditional philosophy, I really do. on a different note: I am not a logical positivist because verificationism doesn't have room for predictive theoretical models, and in my mind that makes it not science. if you believe this thing you'll get dreadfully stumped by black holes, yet unfortunately black holes are real.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="252" data-dimension="L">logical positivism  ->  I hear this thrown around so much and each time I increasingly feel like logical positivism and verificationism are fake categories that nobody truly practices and the terms are only tossed out as strawmen when people are confronted with hypotheses or possibilities they don't want to hear. I will get opinionated on this one initial prototype page, yes I will.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="270" data-dimension="L">ego / egoism  ->  individualist concept of a self; id, ego, and superego; a few definitions
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="271" data-dimension="L">individualism  ->  people say this like it means something but it's like six different philosophies. I accidentally <s class="censor">piss</s>ed someone off when I was a young adult by not knowing there were six different things called individualism and guessing they were talking about a different one than they were. I thought "individualism" referred to the Existentialist celebration of individuals in things like identity politics movements, efforts against prejudice toward things like the arts and humanities, and "Wackytown" style be-yourself fables. years later after reading a whole bunch of things about different demographics and philosophies I still don't really know what "Western individualism" actually meant or what its opposite might be.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="281" data-dimension="L">dieconomics  ->  hypothetical study of managing the links between pairs of things (two "houses") as opposed to one thing at a time. di- as in two things, but also by analogy to "dialectic", "dialectical materialism"
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="282" data-dimension="L">dipsychology  ->  hypothetical study of human psychology as primarily driven by relationships between two or more people rather than the development of either of the individual Subjects. this is one of the major reasons Lacanianism believes it has become profound. in reality, the goal is good but the methods are bad. saying Lacanianism is good because it attempts dipsychology is like saying Trotskyism is the correct Leninism because it attempts dieconomics by merely proposing the possibility of a global civilization instead of workers' states fighting each other.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="283" data-dimension="L">diphilosophy  ->  hypothetical study of doing philosophy in a world where people have multiple philosophies they will always misconstrue any philosophical statement through. approximately the same thing as meta-philosophy, but since being obsessed with "meta-" versions of fields is meta-Marxism's thing, a decent way to hide that you are actually talking about meta-Marxism.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="300" data-dimension="L">Existentialism / Existentialist-Structuralist tradition  ->  put all of like 20 senses of Existentialism on here because why not
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="302" data-dimension="L">phenomenology  ->  Husserl's definition (which is the bane of me); scientific definition of reality that rarely uses the word but is the same thing (which I'm fine with)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="303" data-dimension="L">psychoanalysis / psychoanalyst / psychoanalyze / Freudian psychology / Freudian / <s>Jungian</s> / Lacanian  ->  I think Jung is weirdly discarded these days, which is fair enough but odd when the stuff Lacan says is still so strange
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="309" data-dimension="L">schizoanalysis / schizoanalyst

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="310" data-dimension="L">primitive Existentialism  ->  see "[[ES-strands]]"
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="311" data-dimension="L">entropy Existentialism  ->  see "[[ES-strands]]"
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="313" data-dimension="L">morality Existentialism  ->  see "[[ES-strands]]". seems like it's been shown to be synonymous with <i>democulture</i>.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="314" data-dimension="L">free-choice Existentialism  ->  see "[[ES-strands]]"
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="315" data-dimension="L">hyper-Liberalism / fractal Liberalism  ->  see "[[ES-strands]]"
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="316" data-dimension="L">Difference Existentialism  ->  see "[[ES-strands]]". near-synonymous with <i>intersubjectivity</i>. the more accurate name for this might be "intersubjectivity theories".
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="318" data-dimension="L">Prejudice Existentialism  ->  a seemingly distinct category from Difference Existentialism. Prejudice Existentialism is purely focused on the act of constantly smashing signs in the hope that depriving people of any notion of facts or truth will lead to everyone perceiving reality correctly, although paradoxically Prejudice Existentialists typically claim that it is impossible to see reality through anything but signs and ontological models, which should make their task literally impossible to achieve for even a second. a rather intellectually dishonest field of philosophy in my opinion. if it were true that it is potentially a prejudice to call basically anything a fact, it would also be true that reality is nothing more than a bloody chunk war where whoever wins is automatically correct for the rest of history. Prejudice Existentialists have no way to actually disprove that claim, so they just resort to saying that acknowledging it to be true is Evil and equivocating everything else to be equally true is Good. I really hate the notion that morality is the only thing that's true. because first of all, how do you even know if morality is correct or real if nothing else is, how can you use it as your grounding? the problem they always run into in real life is that people all over the real world reject morality, and then when they point out prejudice as the fundamental sin that is the most obvious thing that makes any statement wrong nobody actually listens or cares. how do they know that thinking anybody cares about the concept of "prejudice" isn't a prejudice that makes their own theory obsolete?
</li><li class="number_empty" value="319" data-dimension="L">right-Existentialism  ->  the manifestation of various common themes of Existentialism within Toryism, right-Liberalism, and other such ideologies, seemingly forming the scaffolding of "conservative" ideologies the same way regular center-Existentialism forms the inner structure of center-Liberalism and progressive ideologies. it's really all the same Existentialism, but this is the same thing being used to serve questionable ends.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="320" data-dimension="L">filter / filtrate / filtration  ->  literal grating; censorship process in linguistic communication; meta-Marxism definition of process that orders people into movement Bauplan
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="321" data-dimension="L">Washington's filter  ->  the process by which a Liberal republic builds up certain consensuses and various layers of experts or constitution-partisans who are allowed to administer the consensuses, supposedly all in order to determine what's true with regard to living in a republic, but filters out people who don't understand how the Liberal republic works
</li><li class="field_ML" value="322" data-dimension="L">Lenin's filter  ->  as soon as I noticed this thing in [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm one of Lenin's writings] I immediately had to throw a name onto it just because it was so unusual compared to any non-Marxist writing about movements. Lenin's filter is the process of taking a coarse movement of people and building up correct answers, procedures, strategies, and movement shapes such that the movement improves itself and becomes a party-nation. according to some Maoists, the process of operating Lenin's filter is synonymous with the party itself, and I'd say that is broadly correct but I still prefer to label a filter as the process that creates the party and the Bauplan as the shape of the party-nation
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="323" data-dimension="L">rhizome / the rhizome / Rhizome  ->  I've taken to always calling this thing like a proper name just because schizoanalysts insist it's totally uncountable — okay then, people don't form "a" rhizome, people form Rhizome. this thing may technically be schizoanalysis' filter, as well as the filter of a number of other Existentialist periods. as a filter, Rhizome is the process that magnetically pulls together anybody who is suffering into one big slime mold that then crushes everything in its path. I find this harder to dispute than some other models but I don't quite like it because of how mystical it is.
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="324" data-dimension="L">Trotsky's filter  ->  theoretically exists inasmuch as Trotsky has a different movement-building strategy from Stalin. at one time I heard a Trotskyist group very much try to explain it, so I presume that it exists

</li><li class="field_nations" value="327" data-dimension="L">Village filter  ->  this is approximately the same thing as networkism, but not exactly the same, because its context is meant to be social instead of economic. it's when people sort away from each other into separate non-interacting groups or "villages" of people.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="328" data-dimension="L">Goku's filter / Potter's filter  ->  one of the most crude filters there is. this is the filter where Good people are defined as humans who are part of the population and Bad people are punished, and all the Good people come together to punish all the Bad people. I don't like this filter. it makes it very hard to distinguish the mathematical shape of progressive movements from the shape of racism, xenophobia, Colonial Exploitation, bigoted monotheisms, or the anti-mental-illness processes described by Deleuze and Guattari or Foucault. this filter is the thing that makes me outright dislike the concept of morality and feel like we need to use other methods to avoid morality ever turning into a justification for atrocities
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="329" data-dimension="L">Lattice model / The Lattice  ->  this is either MDem's filter or at least another mathematical transform very adjacent to filters. it's the process of taking isolated islands and linking them, going through a "search for quantum lions and avoid quantum leopards" process until people aren't isolated and are safe from being surrounded by threats. this concept can apply to many different scales from very small ones to very large ones, such it could be used to diagram going from isolated individuals all the way up to a Communist International. why is it a lattice? because it's a graph of nodes, and before meta-Marxism the idea of using graph theory to describe movements wasn't heard of as far as I know. final note: the Lattice model is different from Rhizome in that it explicitly acknowledges the possibility of many tiny plural "rhizomes" and that as separate objects they may not inherently want to come together. it's also different in that it recognizes that every tiny "rhizome" can be a different Social-Philosophical System, only deciding where to go based on what it actually believes and in no way magnetically pulled toward anything without deliberately following the Lattice model as a guide.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="330" data-dimension="L">Bauplan  ->  building structural plan; animal body shape; in meta-Marxist usage, the physical shape of a movement or society
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="331" data-dimension="L">Particle Theory / particle theory (old) / molecular theory (old)  ->  Lexeme for meta-Marxist usage, in case this is also a "normal" phrase. a mathematically-describable arrangement of people arranged into a graph, as it applies to society models or movements. sometimes a synonym for Bauplan when it describes the whole picture of something. in a few cases, <i>Particle Theory</i> connotatively suggests the local graph structures inside a larger Bauplan.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="360" data-dimension="L">degree  ->  mathematical measurement; extent or extreme; certificate of academic expertise
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="361" data-dimension="L">moderation / moderate (v.) / moderate (adj.)
 <ol><li>common definition
 </li><li>the process of regulating the position of something after it has been ranked on an artificial abstract-quality based scale
 </li><li>forum oversight or censorship  ->  isn't it telling that people would use "moderate" for this? it really does show how Existentialism is Liberalism is Platonism is alchemy
 </li></ol>

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="368" data-dimension="L">absolute / Absolute / absolutism / absolutist
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="369" data-dimension="L">[[Ontology:L369|extreme / extremist]]  ->  absolute weasel word. the strangest thing is I can't think of the exact antonym: it isn't center, moderate, middle-ground, normal, reasonable, equatorial. I think in an Existentialist perspective the antonym may actually be "tolerant". "extreme" conceals the concept of <i>totalization</i> and the contrast to a morality-based view of individual tolerance of absolutely anything and everything from other individuals or groups unless it is absolutely hazardous. (previously I had this at L58, but it belongs much more nicely next to degree)

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="371" data-dimension="L">quality / qualify / qualifier  ->  it's remarkable how Platonism is not necessarily distinguishable from alchemy. or how the way normal people talk about ideologies and philosophies seems indistinguishable from this Platonism-alchemy.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="372" data-dimension="L">idea / Idea
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="373" data-dimension="L">[[Ontology:L373|'pataphysics]]  ->  I'm pretty sure the SCP wiki uses it slightly wrong. pataphysics seems to be the use of creativity and nonsense-jamming to uncover problems in ontologies including things easily recognized as metaphysics. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWZhbJXFzQ8] it also seems like certain chapters of MDem are basically doing the same thing as pataphysics in the way they start with strange associations and throw in total curve balls to get everyone off their established scripts and get them to actually think. Alfred Jarry called it 'pataphysics, I just call it "meta-ontology". in a sense, it's like the SCP wiki has to use a wrong definition because the Foundation is all about containing things and keeping things normal, but 'pataphysics is actually about using such insane strategies to solve things it would go against the Foundation's typical protocols. "Admonition" was a missed opportunity to define 'pataphysics utterly correctly yet make it this bizarre anomalous almost-scary thing that's not just philosophy and is nearly forbidden most of the time
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="374" data-dimension="L">metaphysics

</li><li class="field_geo" data-remark="spatial reactions" value="380" data-dimension="L">chemistry
 <ol><li>common definition
 </li><li>chemistry of relationships
 </li><li>metaphor for history and movements being material objects with structure
 </li></ol>
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="381" data-dimension="L">threshold
 <ol><li>sill-sized doorstep
 </li><li>mathematical / ecological definitions
 </li></ol>

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="390" data-dimension="L">religion  ->  favor every serious definition before getting into joke definitions — although if they are popular or firmly historically-established for even a small group of people, joke definitions become okay. joke definition example: religion - a system of rituals designed to prevent people from investigating and thinking about material reality and all its deeper horrors beyond their current comprehension - see "opium of the masses", <cite>The German Ideology</cite>
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="391" data-dimension="L">cult  ->  a localized religion for a specific local god or religious ontology; corrupt local religion - see "body without organs" / "Escape"
</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-remark="yeah" value="392" data-dimension="L">sect / sectarian / sectarianism  ->  category: concrete association process, noun-based
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="393" data-dimension="L">sacred  ->  religious status; figurative sense of something which is taken for granted as a core assumption grounding people to their current ontology of reality. ("my god!" implies God is the standard for what is unsurprising to be real; <cite>Wings of Fire</cite>'s "by the trees!" is one of the few things that genuinely captures the same purpose)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="394" data-dimension="L">worship / idol worship / idolatry  ->  religious ritual; figurative sense of "idolatry" toward some particular cause
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="395" data-dimension="L">eschatology  ->  I am so <s class="censor">damn</s> tired of Lacanians and Western-Marxists and <s class="censor">shit</s> trying to say Marxism fills the role of eschatology. if you understand the fundamental role of religion and most theories of morality as justifying why one group is better than another you would know that if Marxism really were eschatology it would be doomed.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="396" data-dimension="L">invisible pink unicorn
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="397" data-dimension="L">garage dragon / dragon in my garage / invisible garage dragon
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="398" data-dimension="L">flying spaghetti monster / FSM
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="399" data-dimension="L">god / God  ->  I hated allocating Items for religion until I thought of instead making them Lexemes. now I am laughing about the probably 200 Senses God is going to have. most likely more than any other single Lexeme. unless "we/our" ended up containing a definition of "we" for every single Social-Philosophical System of people believing a philosophy and assuming everyone else has the capacity to believe it.

</li><li class="field_ML" value="400" data-dimension="L">Leninism / Marxism-Leninism
 <ol><li>any and all sects of Leninism
 </li><li>(Trotskyism) Trotskyism; see "Trotskyism" for further claimed definitions of Leninism
 </li><li>(mainstream Marxism-Leninism) Stalin Thought to the exclusion of Trotskyism - as used in the form "Marxism-Leninism"
 </li></ol>
</li><li class="field_ML" value="401" data-dimension="L">Bolshevism
</li><li class="field_ML" value="402" data-dimension="L">Marxism
</li><li value="404" class="field_trotsky" data-dimension="L">[[Ontology:L404|Trotskyism]] -> every variation of Trotskyism, so I don't have to put it on Leninism

</li><li class="field_ML" value="405" data-dimension="L">communism / Communism / Communist
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="406" data-dimension="L">socialism / Socialism / socialist

</li><li class="field_geo" value="600" data-dimension="L">relativity / relativistic  ->  special relativity; general relativity; earlier relativity models; separate term from "relative/relativism", but ok to link the two
</li><li class="field_geo" value="601" data-dimension="L">predict / prediction / predictive
</li><li class="field_geo" value="602" data-dimension="L">stochastic / stochastic process
</li><li class="field_geo" value="603" data-dimension="L">unistochastic
</li><li class="field_geo" value="604" data-dimension="L">orthostochastic  ->  I have no idea what this even is yet
</li><li class="field_geo" value="605" data-dimension="L">observable  -> noun
</li><li class="field_geo" value="606" data-dimension="L">beable  ->  yeah, I started out using Lexemes to try to group equivocated concepts but there's a point where I just started recording fine-grained slang/jargon forms the way Lexemes are "supposed" to work
</li><li class="field_geo" value="607" data-dimension="L">emergeable
</li><li class="field_geo" value="608" data-dimension="L">indivisible  ->  has a special definition regarding non-Markovian stochastic processes
</li><li class="field_geo" value="609" data-dimension="L">unitary
</li><li class="field_geo" value="610" data-dimension="L">field  ->  data parameter; area of study; mathematical object in physics. on most but not all pages on this wiki it's the second
</li><li class="field_geo" value="611" data-dimension="L">symmetry
</li><li class="field_geo" value="612" data-dimension="L">invariance
</li><li class="field_geo" value="613" data-dimension="L">gauge  ->  gauge transformation; gauge boson; gauge potential
</li><li class="field_geo" value="614" data-dimension="L">quaternion
</li><li class="field_geo" value="615" data-dimension="L">vector  ->  mathematical object; disease carrier
</li><li class="field_geo" value="616" data-dimension="L">tensor
</li><li class="number_empty" value="617" data-dimension="L">placeholder  ->  to be used for testing Lexemes, but also literally the concept of placeholders
</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="L">matrix / matrices / The Matrix  ->  mathematical object; false reality

</li><li class="field_geo" value="620" data-dimension="L">emergence / weak emergence / strong emergence
</li><li class="field_geo" value="621" data-dimension="L">ergodicity  ->  I may or may not have used this slightly wrong in various v4 MDem scraps, saying ergodicity when I meant emergence. in my defense, when you see the world really literally and tend to conceptualize everything through a kind of non-well-founded set theory where a group of things that quacks like a duck is a duck, it can be hard to understand how things arranging into a particular consistent shape <em>doesn't</em> also "inevitably" lead to emergence. it does lead to emergence sometimes, just not in every single case.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="622" data-dimension="L">pattern / repeated pattern  ->  I say "repeated pattern" a ton, and I always mean it relatively literally. normal people might call the same notion of repeated patterns ten different things. they would look at mathematical objects consistently forming the same data structure and say "proper class". etc
</li><li class="field_geo" value="623" data-dimension="L">superposition  ->  general mathematical object of multiple possibilities considered at once; quantum superposition

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="660" data-dimension="L">metagame / The Meta / metagame (V) / metagaming  ->  real-world surrounding staging-ground of how different people play a competitive game; figurative use of finding the best ways to play a game, similar to <i>minmaxing</i> but arguably includes the broader concepts of creativity and finding ways to solve many different goals - like if we have a [https://dragonball.fandom.com/wiki/Category:Fighting_games Dragon Ball simulation] you could find the most optimized way to play Gogeta, <em>or</em> you could find the best possible way to succeed with Tarble. in my mind both of those are "metagaming".
</li><li value="661" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="L">role-playing (N,A) / roleplay (V) / roleplaying / experience taking ([https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-psychology-fiction/201208/entering-anothers-experience] [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22448888/]) / live-action roleplaying / LARPing  ->  several connotations. dungeons & dragons as terrible gnostic alternate reality leading people away from the one true God; reasonable thought experiment activity of understanding different possiblities; what you arguably do when you read any book, by reconstructing the characters' inner experiences; thinking that putting on an identity equals action when it doesn't
</li><li value="662" class="field_trotsky" data-remark="heresy" data-dimension="L">Gnosticism / Gnostic / gnosticism  ->  make this a different term from "agnostic"/"gnostic", because this has its own conflicting connotations. to some people it's just a rival religion, to others it's basically the devil

</li><li value="664" class="field_geo" data-dimension="L">speedrun / speedrunning
</li><li value="665" class="field_trotsky" data-remark="heresy" data-dimension="L">lateral thinking / thinking with portals  ->  I think it's so stupid how every guide to jobs and business is like, lateral thinking! lateral thinking! but if you really truly have lateral thinking you turn the entire thing sideways and realize the inherent contradictions and paradoxes of capitalism that make it eat itself, and once you've thought so laterally you turn against capitalism they really don't like that. then they're like, no, don't you go thinking laterally, there's only one way to do things. this seems to be the heart of that one reactionary video I saw where the guy I can't remember was really mad about the concept of speedrunning. he was like, I hate that people are spending their time speedrunning, it's definitely a synonym of a crumbling civilization when people are going around the real way to do things and looking for shortcuts. and I thought it was unbelievably stupid, because the point of speedruns is basically to learn about the physics of the particular game engine and do science experiments to see if there are different ways those artificial physics could be applied technologically. speedrunning is basically a fictional process of research and development. you're shooting your civilization in the foot by getting rid of all the scientists and inventors. and why would you do it? because you think pure numerical ranking and graph placement produces stuff rather than labor and creativity. you're King Vegeta. but he can't build a <s class="censor">fucking</s> scouter and has to buy it from another country. all because he doesn't like speedrunning, but speedrunning is lateral thinking.

</li><li value="666" class="field_trotsky" data-remark="enemy/rebel" data-dimension="L">Satan / Satanism / Lucifer
 <ol><li>bible definition - literally described as the opposer of God
 </li><li>(Toryism) Satanic: anybody or any thing theorized to secretly be plotting Evil conspiracies to prevent everybody from joining the one correct human social circle and knowing the narrow set of behaviors and cultural associations which are Good. a wrecker who prevents realizing the Material System of world Christianity.
 </li><li>Satanism: a code of morality and moral Right designed around social connection to Satan, taken as entirely figurative and poetic
 </li><li>(Dragon Ball usage) Satan: someone who tells a lot of lies and is very popular - see book of Revelation
 </li></ol>

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="696" data-dimension="L">post-language  ->  don't know if other theories have other definitions of this word. in MDem entries post-language refers to a kind of communication which eradicates all mental associations and has a hard requirement to be equally understandable to any individual who reads it anywhere regardless of what that particular individual believes words to mean. in some cases this can lead to wordy, absurdly-precise descriptions which put readers to sleep and are equally <em>unintelligible</em> to everybody. art is almost always written in language and hardly ever in post-language. any nonfiction statement posted to the internet almost invariably ends up having to be expressed in post-language. "logical fallacy" and "cognitive bias" guidelines very frequently force perfectly understandable language into stilted and unnatural post-language: somebody says "there are two options" not intending to rule out others, and a pedant comes along forcing a correction to "there are at least two options", "there are two major options", or "there are two options but I was not saying those were the only ones" (these explicit disclaimer clauses seem to be one of the most common forms of post-language). the "[[Philosophical_Research:Molecular_Democracy/5.2/1019_ours-democracies|ours groups]]" chapter is very deliberately and satirically written in post-language.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="697" data-dimension="L">nonsense  ->  oddly enough, has several jargon definitions. nonsense mutation; non-sense (Lacanianism); others?
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="698" data-dimension="L">bull  ->  I'm hesitant to quite put "bullshit" in the first 2000 Lexemes, although I don't see any reason it shouldn't be added <em>after</em> that; we've gotta contain our swearwords somewhere before we ban them, and what better place than here? oh well, now this term can also contain senses of "bullcrap".
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="699" data-dimension="L">spaghetti / spaghetti code / ontological spaghetti  ->  literal food; difficult to understand code; completely meaningless-sounding plate of unfamiliar philosophy words that never seems to get easier to understand (meta-Marxist term first used to mock Lacanianism). similar to "word salad", but with the difference that it strongly appears to actually mean something due to its proper lexical structure of signs and statements until the points at which all the self-referentiality and insular forms of meaning render it impossible to actually comprehend or explain to anybody. ontological spaghetti is twisted and woven into a neat yet unexplainable structure just like spaghetti noodles.

</li><li class="field_fantasy"  value="700" data-dimension="L">narrative  ->  history; legend; fantasy book; of or relating to dramatization techniques; slanted sociophilosophy; fascist rhetoric; single official record of history everybody is fighting over; etc. this word is an adventure in itself
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="701" data-dimension="L">alien  ->  how many different rhetorical meanings are there in science fiction, there are a lot. also: foreigner
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="702" data-dimension="L">unicorn  ->  first I think of the usage of something that nearly never appears, then of the notion that unicorns are 'wonderful', then the notion that they are overrated
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="703" data-dimension="L">dragon  ->  like lions these creatures have multiple readings as monsters or as strong beings of courage. monster; courage; Satanic anathema; word reused for arbitrary new creatures; plurality, diversity, outright used in scheme of Media Representation (<cite>Dragon Masters</cite>)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="704" data-dimension="L">greed
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="705" data-dimension="L">corporate greed  ->  I hate this phrase because it is in nearly every critique of capitalism indicating in the space of one two-word phrase that the critique is b<s class="censor">ullshit</s>
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="706" data-dimension="L">hero  ->  has fairly common pejorative usage dismissing its possibility; also, the concept that reactionaries can have heroes and they certainly aren't other people's heroes
</li><li class="field_horror" value="707" data-dimension="L">villain  ->  driving arts experts crazy by including descriptivist accounts of fans downgrading villains to antagonists and explaining the hell out of them. I love it because as much as some people are total beginners at writing, it does show they're thinking about things and questioning the assumptions of real or fictional societies
</li><li class="field_horror" value="708" data-dimension="L">immortality  ->  why is this word 2/3 of the time a backdoor to sneak Buddhism and its model of the individual into Christian or progressive-philosophical discourse. the moment before we discuss fiction people have ordinary comprehensible definitions of what life and death are. the moment we start talking about "immortality" suddenly everyone on earth believes in Buddhism and thinks life and death are each totally different things from what they usually are.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="709" data-dimension="L">immortal  ->  separate Lexeme which contains the concept in Buddhism sloppily called this when it's something different

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="710" data-dimension="L">verisimilitude / verisimilitudinous / verisimilar  ->  very relevant when analyzing fiction. why are Marxist analyses of fiction possible when in theory it should be that fiction can be anything at all and a great number of authors do not know anything about Marxism? because of verisimilitude. people create fictional ontologies by superficially copying real-life ontologies, which can amusingly result in fiction containing ontologies that are specifically realistic enough they provide for the possibility of Bolshevism.
</li><li value="717" data-remark="gaster or something. Undertale-Deltarune" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="L">diegetic
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="718" data-dimension="L">metanarrative  ->  in my scrap about Vegeta and Asriel I realized there were multiple possible definitions of metanarrative. so here we go.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="776" data-dimension="L">bookman's bluff  ->  when an author tries to claim that the story goes together and makes sense on some level even though it doesn't. [https://www.reddit.com/r/tipofmytongue/comments/gi29qv/tomt_whats_the_name_of_the_term_when_an_author/] can turn into Calvinball if done really well to continuously expand mistakes into believable lore; can turn into a scottcon if done badly.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="778" data-remark="no good rationale for where I moved this one." data-dimension="L">Calvinball  ->  game created by Calvin & Hobbes; metaphor for serialized writing
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="779" data-remark="retcons go backwards. did it unintentionally, but pretty good joke" data-dimension="L">retcon
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="780" data-dimension="L">lore
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="781" data-dimension="L">continuity
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="782" data-dimension="L">canon / canonical
</li><li value="783" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="L">scottcon  ->  when Scott Cawthon writes a story beginning with one underlying narrative or none and leaves a bunch of unclear clues as to what it is but then comes back and "solves the mystery" by assigning all the surface manifestations of things to new meanings. basically a form of bookman's bluff that occurs specifically in the case of serialized or ongoing stories. the only reason this isn't the same thing as Calvinball is Calvinball implies the author is carefully following rules and creating consistency rather than strictly making rules up as they go along.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="784" data-dimension="L">Wings of Fire book 1  - qww
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="785" data-dimension="L">Wings of Fire book 2  - qww
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="786" data-dimension="L">Wings of Fire book 3  - qww
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="787" data-dimension="L">Wings of Fire book 4  - qww
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="788" data-dimension="L">Wings of Fire book 6  - qww
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="789" data-dimension="L">Wings of Fire book 5  - qww
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="790" data-dimension="L">Wings of Fire book 6  - qww
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="791" data-dimension="L">Wings of Fire book 7  - qww
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="792" data-dimension="L">Wings of Fire book 8  - qww
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="793" data-dimension="L">Wings of Fire book 9  - qww
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="794" data-dimension="L">Wings of Fire book 10 - qww
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="795" data-dimension="L">Wings of Fire book 11 - qww
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="796" data-dimension="L">Wings of Fire book 12 - qww
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="797" data-dimension="L">Wings of Fire book 13 - qww
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="798" data-dimension="L">Wings of Fire book 14 - qww
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="799" data-dimension="L">wild west  ->  it is so bizarrely common to use this phrase to specifically describe a time before things were well ordered and when they flowed around chaotically without thinking about the fact this ends with the creation of territories and the crystallization of particular internal ontologies that begin to function like laws of physics. Sonic the Hedgehog adaptatons were the wild west! but that was because the arrangement of characters, objects, and processes in the Sonic universe had not become consistent, or simply because the arrangement of real-life corporations producing the Sonic series and arrangement of people and teams inside them had not become consistent.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="800" data-dimension="L">timeline
 <ol><li>common definition
 </li><li>different scifi definitions
 </li><li>many-worlds model
 </li><li>material-history
 </li><li>colloquial usage: observed series of real-life events on the news, which is usually stated to be "the worst timeline", or occasionally "the best timeline"
 </li></ol>
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="801" data-dimension="L">past  ->  recorded material-history; hypothesized origins, as with folk etymology; memories of a different social structure taken as a time period, as with nostalgia; partisan outright-fabricated version of reality said to exist a while ago - this ties into inflammatory definitions of "revisionist history"
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="802" data-dimension="L">present
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="803" data-dimension="L">future  ->  in fictional models where the future literally exists, it is effectively just a kind of (material-)history no different from the past; there are also reasonable hypotheses that the future might not exist except in the relativistic sense of areas of the universe going along faster or slower
</li><li class="number_empty" value="810" data-dimension="L">??
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="811" data-dimension="L">[[User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/inflections|Amalthean interpretation]] / Amalthean
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="812" data-dimension="L">[[User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/inflections|Beagelian interpretation]] / Beagelian / Beagelize

</li></ol>

=== L900 - L999 meaningful names ===

<ol start="900" class="hue clean start_nine-hundred">
<li class="field_mdem" value="900" data-dimension="L">we / our  ->  the real version of we/our, with every possible significance
 <ol><li>most basic and common definition
 </li><li>(Existentialism, center-Liberalism) every individual human being on earth in unison
 </li><li>each of every local set of connected members of particular separate groups in unison
 </li><li>every individual human being on earth in parallel but separately
 </li><li>each of every local set of connected members of particular separate groups in parallel but separately
 </li><li>the followers of any particular ideology to the exclusion of anybody outside that ideology, possibly presented as the only human beings who exist; may be synonymous with a particular localized Left's definition of "The Left" / "progressivism" as a national-scale phenomenon
 </li><li>(mainstream Marxism-Leninism) members of the proletariat and the greater subpopulation of Communist allies
 </li><li>(right-Liberalism, Toryism) used ironically to mock Bolshevism by suggesting all "I" statements have morphed into "we" statements said by the nation as a unified whole. see <cite>Anthem</cite> (if I remember right); see "socialicizing the people"; see r/AccidentalCommunism
 </li><li>(MDem) used ironically to mock Liberalism by suggesting that an accurate "we" statement within the conditions of Liberalism should be hyper-pluralized to reflect the real-world situation of "we" never belonging to a single unified group of humans and always belonging to separate localized groups. see "[[Philosophical_Research:Molecular_Democracy/5.2/1019_ours-democracies|ours groups]]" entry
 </li></ol>

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="901" data-dimension="L">we / ours  ->  the nightmare hyper-pluralized version of we/our depicted in "[[Philosophical_Research:Molecular_Democracy/5.2/1019_ours-democracies|ours groups]]", used to show "how" to inflect it in different situations if the Lexeme template can accommodate this. look over and adequately finish the inflections for all 900 previous Lexemes before attempting this one. that will probably provide clues of how to do this
</li><li class="" value="902" data-dimension="L">they (impersonal pronoun)
</li><li class="" value="903" data-dimension="L">they (personal pronoun)  ->  to be used for character Signifiers
</li><li class="" value="904" data-dimension="L">he   (personal pronoun)  ->  to be used for character Signifiers
</li><li class="" value="905" data-dimension="L">she  (personal pronoun)  ->  to be used for character Signifiers
</li><li class="field_geo" value="906" data-dimension="L">pronoun
 <ol><li>common definition - a part of speech which is substituted for another noun
 </li><li>any descriptive noun which takes the place of another common noun or name - impersonal pronoun
 </li><li>preferred pronoun
 </li><li>(Toryism) supposedly improper or unexpected attempt to prescribe language usage; see "politics", "heresy", "freedom (Existentialism)"
 </li></ol>
</li><li class="" value="907" data-dimension="L">it  ->  to be used for fictional object / character Signifiers
</li><li class="" value="908" data-dimension="L"><span lang="ja">私（わたし）（[https://manabitimes.jp/english/2484 代名詞]）</span> -> to be used for character Signifiers
</li><li class="" value="909" data-dimension="L"><span lang="ja">あたし（代名詞）</span>
</li><li class="" value="910" data-dimension="L"><span lang="ja">俺（オレ）（代名詞）</span> / <span lang="ja">オラ（代名詞）</span>
</li><li class="" value="911" data-dimension="L"><span lang="ja">僕（ぼく）（代名詞）</span> -> honestly I've always been confused why there are two male pronouns but not two female pronouns
</li><li class="" value="912" data-dimension="L"><span lang="ja">俺様（オレさま）（代名詞）</span> / I think there are equivalents
</li><li class="" value="913" data-dimension="L"><span lang="ja">わし（[https://kotonohaweb.net/first-person/ 代名詞]）</span> -> this is the old people pronoun isn't it? that's what I half remember
</li><li value="917" class="field_ML" data-dimension="L">comrade (impersonal pronoun)  ->  in practice, mainly used to refer to audiences of Marxist texts; still, this can technically go in the pronouns section for some Marxist theorists who fit the category or get addressed as "Comrade —"

</li><li class="" value="926" data-dimension="L">Joseph / José
 <ol><li>a general-use name
 </li><li>name used in the Christian bible
 </li><li>Joseph as Stalin-follower name
 </li></ol>
</li><li value="927" class="" data-dimension="L">Martin
 <ol><li>a general-use name
 </li><li>(unattested) Martin as phenomenologist name
 </li><li>Martin as schizophrenia-(schizoanalysis-term) -> Petscop, Tapers
 </li></ol>

</li><li class="" value="928" data-dimension="L">Felix
 <ol><li>a general-use name
 </li><li>Felix or Guattari as schizoanalyst name
 </li></ol>
</li><li class="" value="929" data-dimension="L">??
 <ol><li>a general-use name
 </li><li>Deleuze as schizoanalyst name
 </li></ol>
</li><li class="" value="930" data-dimension="L">Theodore / Theo
 <ol><li>a general-use name
 </li><li>Theodore as center-Liberal name
 </li></ol>
</li><li class="" value="931" data-dimension="L">Michael / Mike
 <ol><li>a general-use name
 </li><li>name used in the Christian bible
 </li><li>Mike as Bakuninist name
 </li></ol>
</li><li class="" value="932" data-dimension="L">Peter / Pete
 <ol><li>a general-use name
 </li><li>name used in the Christian bible
 </li><li>Peter as Kropotkinist name
 </li></ol>

</li><li class="field_ML" value="939" data-dimension="L">Karl / Carl as Marxist name
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="940" data-dimension="L">Leo / Lev as Trotskyist name
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="941" data-dimension="L">Rosa / Rose as Trotskyist name
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="942" data-dimension="L">Greg as Trotskyist name

</li><li class="field_geo" value="949" data-dimension="L">Newton / Newtonian  ->  classical physics
</li><li class="field_geo" value="950" data-dimension="L">Einstein / Einsteinian  ->  relativistic physics

</li><li class="field_geo" value="952" data-dimension="L">Everett / Everettian  ->  please just say many-worlds. this isn't one of those terms that makes me angry but, the opacity
</li><li class="field_geo" value="953" data-dimension="L">Lagrange / Lagrangian  ->  mathematical object or operation; aren't there also other Lagrange things named for the same guy. yes, there are Lagrangian multipliers, and Lagrangian several other things
</li><li class="field_geo" value="954" data-dimension="L">Hamilton / Hamiltonian  ->  mathematical object or operation; equivocates with Alexander Hamilton depending on the context

</li><li class="field_geo" value="960" data-dimension="L">Gramsci / Gramscian
</li><li class="field_geo" value="961" data-dimension="L">Marcuse / Marcusean
</li><li class="number_empty" value="965" data-dimension="L">maybe some theorist names which really need inflections? Gramsci/Gramscian/Gramscianism, Ted Grant/??/??, etc

</li><li value="966" data-remark="Ultraman" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="L"><span lang="ja">怪獣（かいじゅう）</span>  ->  "monster" as defined in the Japanese language. continue [[Philosophical_Research:Schizophrenic_point_of_view|SPoV]], but only with faction-meanings that would conceivably be sensical and recognizable to a native Japanese speaker: faction-meanings might include big kaiju in rubber-suit shows versus small kaiju in animation, etc.

</li><li value="976" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="L">[[User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/inflections|Vegeta (impersonal pronoun)]]  ->  half-jokingly, half-seriously, but rather extensively used in MDem 5.2 drafts
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="977" data-dimension="L"><span lang="ja">ドラゴンボール</span> / Dragon Ball  ->  category: work citation phrase; work citations dictionary (qww). I considered having two separate Lexemes but for citation-phrase entries there is just no good reason for that when the lemma field and Senses can both be localized into multiple "real" languages
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="978" data-dimension="L"><span lang="ja">ドラゴンボール超</span> / <span lang="ja">ドラゴンボールスーパー</span> / Dragon Ball Super  ->  work citations dictionary (qww)

</li><li value="983" class="" data-dimension="L">Clara / Klara  ->  this name is in like, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9TBsoiDTIU every] [http://www.secretvictorianist.com/2018/06/the-origins-of-coppelia.html story] about robot kids
 <ol><li>a general-use name
 </li><li>Clara as used in <cite>The Sandman</cite>
 </li><li>Clara as used in <cite>Five Nights at Freddy's</cite>
 </li><li>Klara as used in <cite>Klara and the Sun</cite>
 </li></ol>

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="983" data-remark="the original Leninism!" data-dimension="L">Trotsky / Trotskyist / Trotskyite  ->  for covering the difference between "Trotskyite conspiracy" and "Trotskyism"
</li><li class="field_ML" value="984" data-dimension="L">Stalin / Stalinist / Stalinism / Stalin follower / Stalin-follower  ->  for covering the difference between "Stalinism" and "Stalin Thought"
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="985" data-dimension="L">[[Ontology:L985|Zinoviev / Zinovievism]] / Zinovievist / Grigori Zinoviev levels of tired and done  ->  MDem term for Trotskyite-conspiracy ideologies; historically, also used to mean other things which would be worth recording here
</li><li value="989" class="field_geo" data-dimension="L">Urvogel  ->  Archaeopteryx's common name. separate lexeme because it could refer to different objects than <i>A. lithographica</i>.
</li><li value="990" class="field_geo" data-dimension="L">Archaeopteryx lithographica / A. lithographica / Archaeopteryx sp. / Archaeopteryx
</li><li value="991" class="field_geo" data-dimension="L">Tyrannosaurus rex / T. rex / Tyrannosaurus sp. / Tyrannosaurus / T-Rex / T-rex
</li><li value="992" class="field_geo" data-dimension="L">Litho<i>graph</i>ica  ->  link to Items for Sun Wukong, undirected graph, and <i>A. lithographica</i>. doesn't have contrasting definitions, but as it's a name for the project gets a special status that way
</li><li value="999" class="field_geo" data-dimension="L">Linnaeus / L.  ->  Lexeme for "L." citation placed after binomial names, as in <span class="address" style="display: inline;"><i>Pica pica</i> (Linnaeus, 1758)</span> or <span class="address" style="display: inline;"><i>Hyacinthoides italica</i> (L.)</span>

</li><li value="1000" data-remark="gotta keep up plurality having a big number" class="field_mdem" data-dimension="L">plurality / plural  ->  category: static process term (concrete-noun-based)
</li></ol>

=== L1001 - L2000 meaningful numbers ===

<ol start="1000" class="hue clean start_one-thousand">
</li><li value="1004" class="field_trotsky" data-dimension="L">four as Trotskyist number / etc
</li><li value="1007" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="L">seven as number of power or chaos / etc
</li><li value="1017" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="L">17 as secret debug mode number / etc
</li><li value="1027" class="field_geo" data-dimension="L">27 as designated number of the process of Being - see <cite>Being and Time</cite> (1927) / etc
</li><li value="1033" class="field_nations" data-dimension="L">33 as conspiracy-theory number / etc
</li><li value="1042" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="L">42 as number of cosmic significance / etc
</li><li value="1099" class="field_geo" data-dimension="L">99 as maximized number / etc
</li><li value="1101" data-dimension="L">101 as number of crash course / etc
</li><li value="1137" class="field_geo" data-dimension="L">137 as particle physics number / etc  ->  nobody knows what it really is but we do know it's in many equations
</li><li value="1146" class="field_geo" data-dimension="L">146 as number of Lexeme: namespace / etc
</li><li value="1147" class="field_geo" data-dimension="L">147 as number of Lexeme talk: namespace / etc
</li><li value="1280" class="field_horror" data-dimension="L">1280 (symbolic number)  ->  [https://freddy-fazbears-pizza.fandom.com/wiki/The_Man_in_Room_1280 hospital room] in which William Afton undergoes very bad NDE
</li><li value="1326" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="L">18326 as [https://items.jellyneo.net/item/18326/ asparagus] number / etc
</li><li value="1413" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="L">413 as coincidentally repeated birthday / etc
</li><li value="1488" class="field_nations" data-dimension="L">1488 as Nazi symbolism / etc
</li><li value="1532" data-dimension="L">1532 as birth of Machiavellianism / etc
</li><li value="1616" class="field_trotsky" data-dimension="L">616 as number of Evil / etc
</li><li value="1666" class="field_trotsky" data-dimension="L">666 as number of "the opposer" / 666 as number of Evil / etc
</li><li value="1845" class="field_ML" data-dimension="L">1845 as number of base-to-superstructure relationships, approximate date of <cite>The German Ideology</cite> / etc
</li><li value="1882" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="L">1882 as number of literary ambiguity / etc
</li><li value="1917" class="field_ML" data-dimension="L">[[Ontology:L1917|1917 as year of Russian Revolution / etc]]
</li><li value="1940" class="field_trotsky" data-dimension="L">1940 as sad but expected defeat / etc
</li><li value="1941" class="field_nations" data-dimension="L">1941 as official beginning of World War II / etc
</li><li value="1953" class="field_trotsky" data-dimension="L">1953 as beginning of the end / etc
</li><li value="1977" class="field_fantasy"  data-dimension="L">9000 as dub mandela effect / etc
</li><li value="1983" class="field_horror"   data-dimension="L">1983 as year of deadly bite / etc
</li><li value="1984" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="L">1984 as year of thought control / etc
</li><li value="1987" class="field_horror"   data-dimension="L">1987 as year of disfiguring bite / etc
</li><li value="1991" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="L">1991 as end of Soviet Union / etc
</li><li value="1992" class="field_mdem" data-dimension="L">1992 (symbolic number)  ->  year after 1991 used in a symbolic sense of "life goes on"/"undefeatable"
</li><li value="1997" class="field_geo" data-dimension="L">1997 as game release date / etc
</li></ol>

=== L2200 - L3000 works to be analyzed ===

<ol start="2279" class="hue clean">
<li value="2279" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="L"><cite>[[Ontology:L2279|Losing Earth: A Recent History]]</cite> (Rich 2019; citation)
</li></ol>

== Unsorted Lexemes ==

* egoism
* individualism
* meta-ontologically sound / meta-ontological soundness  ->  a statement is meta-ontologically sound when it would be recognized as true by anyone in any ideological faction or interest-having population of people which has a high school education and does not believe blatantly false statements. those are a little hard to find for Toryism, of course, but educated Tories do exist; they're a bit scary because they see all the evidence that progressives point to without being able to deny it, and then spin that factual information as bad to protect some pre-defined set of interests like "my family" or "my socially-linked several-state-sized reactionary subpopulation of White people". the good news is that a lot of statements by Tories fail to be meta-ontologically sound even if they're based on lists of true facts because there are reasons they blatantly cannot be recognized as true by other ideologies.
* slider-speak  ->  this didn't have its own term in MDem drafts until very very recently. for a while I called it generalized alchemy, or metaphysics, or mistaking the ability to create adjectives for reality. I still think those all fit fine. but we need to really stop and characterize this thing at length so we genuinely see how weird it is.
* stealth activism  ->  this is a totally stupid term for a reasonable thing. the definition I heard almost reduced it down to taking over structures and Each Individual In Parallel Culturing Better. which is... very Gramscian. it may be necessary and even effective but my one issue is I wish nobody would use the word activism for it. it's like. sure, you can do that. but there eventually comes a point where you're preserving particular oppressive countable Cultures for the hell of it and committing to take the steering wheel of the oppression bus and run it a little less bad, while — here is the real problem that overshadows any other concern — you're part of an overall national population which by its own existence justifies torching other people-groups in an act of self-defense murder just because the national population exists. self-defense genocide exists now. (even though it did exist in 1800, I know.) do you know what kind of atom-thick hair edge Gramscianism is operating on? do people even know that. one day you can be doing ""stealth activism"" and the next day the people you barely shifted over to win one issue could be torching you too, because two different swaths of stealth-activists for different issues ended up on different sides of the Torching Unamericans divide where only so many people fit in the core group of people truly allowed to live. as time goes on I increasingly feel like Gramscianism is an elite ideology and it's not really for the people who actually get hurt by Toryism or "fascism". why do you need Gramscianism if you already fit into institutions well enough to infiltrate them?
* cultural context  ->  this phrase kills me because I feel like it is used for ten different things and every time people say it they're using it to get out of distinguishing those things from each other. Foucault used it to describe a stage of development of class society, with actual structures and territory-owners. a Deltarune video I listened to used it to describe people living in one US state instead of another, literally just the geographical region people live in and the weather and climate they had experiences about. see why it's not actually a very clear thing? people are conditioned to think populations are made out of culture and culture can easily be used to distinguish populations but then when they describe what culture is they're often describing things that come almost strictly before culture per-se.
* military-cultural complex  ->  this is what has existed since the Cold War. this is what I have been trying to get at with descriptions of all socially-linked groups of people generating The State to protect the sheer existence of their socially-linked group of friends.
* Herculean task
* Sisyphean task
* Minosian task  ->  a task so bad you lock it away
* Promethean task  ->  "something you know is the right thing to do but you still get punished for it"
* Odyssean task  ->  task that "should have been simple but everything goes wrong in the worst ways making it insanely long"
* Orphean task  ->  when you are doomed to fail for the same reasons you are desperate to succeed
* solidarity  ->  the more I read about this word the more it sounds to me like it's a question rather than an answer. it began around the time of the French Revolution but every single person trying to create a new theory of how to build society defined it a bit differently. I really think solidarity is just a word more than it's a concept. to actually achieve proletarian solidarity you need to define new much more specific concepts like filtration
* recursion  ->  fractal process of some kind; programming usage; specific cybernetics use
* world party  ->  pros of Bordigism: actually talks about patterns of party operation which are oddly specific. cons of Bordigism: I don't have the slightest idea what any of these things are.
* essentialism
* anti-essentialism  ->  one of the better theories for understanding human individuals themselves rather than whole populations
* strategic essentialism  ->  a particular concept of benign nationalism used in context of national independence from global empire, as in India. I am trying so hard not to say the words "culture", "colonial", or "postcolonial" because I feel like that cluster of concepts has muddied up absolutely everything and made every single struggle people are trying to get through across the world harder. why did we all decide people were made of culture rather than [[redlink - Hyper-Materialism|being made of people and populations]]. why did we do that.
* strategic anti-essentialism  ->  George Lipsitz (b.1947). the act of resisting membership in a particular restrictive Social-Philosophical System of culture by expressing the practices of a different Social-Graph System of culture. see: Satanism and Gnosticism, wiccans and pagan revival, schizoanalysis, United States otaku.
* agent  ->  already used to describe the concept of Group Subjects in slightly obscure biology/ecology research
* solidarity  ->  original definition of Third World proletarian subpopulations standing together against all owning classes; vulgarized definition where it has been co-opted into the entirely different idea of Existentialist individuals throughout multiple First World countries standing together because they are The Subject. this word is like, the day that Marxism absolutely died because Marxists ceased being aware that the First World was weaponizing the notions of "empathy" and "community" to defend all scales of chunk competition and crush empathy, community, and solidarity alike.
* denial of coloniality  ->  way better phrasing than trying to turn every word for empire into a word for prejudices in people's heads
* The West  ->  it's always been really weird to me people say this. it always weirdly feels as if people passively acknowledge the existence of a British Empire after the British Empire.
* The East
* Filamentocracy  ->  add to "Filament"
** democulture is the class ideology of Filamentocracy. that's just it. that's why people believe in democulture and Goku's filter
* intersubjectivity
* Market Society  ->  this came up in MDem v4.3 and kind of fell off as a major topic although it very much stayed a term. near synonym for primitive Existentialism but focuses more on the notion of isolation. coined to mock the term "market economy" by pointing out what economies really are: society itself. socioeconomies.
* [S2] Kirby is a metaphor for humanity / Kirby is the quintessential Subject  ->  really funny copypasta [https://www.reddit.com/r/copypasta/comments/afr9xc/kirby_is_a_metaphor_for_humanity/] [https://www.reddit.com/r/tipofmytongue/comments/gi29qv/tomt_whats_the_name_of_the_term_when_an_author/] <s>somebody seems to have dreamed up while up into the morning unable to sleep, I mean that's my injection of my own experience but yeah.</s> from a Polygon video? I was just trying to find the definition of "bookman's bluff" and here we are
* free-floating  ->  add to "free"; very similar usage to an object being "knocked free" or "wrested free"
* constructive process  ->  related to "construct" as is also used as a verb
* destructive process
* nationogenesis  ->  the slow or quick assembly of individuals within an existing national population into a new nation and spatially-unique realized Bauplan. the reason this "needed" a new word is that it can happen with people of the same ethnic group and religion and who are overall seemingly the same group of people in every way, yet who spontaneously begin drifting into totally new groups of people thanks to the news station they listen to, their incomplete understanding of Leninism, or some other factor that would be unexpected to most people
* postification / post- / post-ify  ->  not used many times in v5.2 in favor of returning to plainer language, but the concept is always there in basically every chapter
* physics as equalling factical systems; physics as relativistic causality exchange
* thought / think  ->  logical process Lexeme
* modal realism: all hypothetically possible worlds are technically real. David Lewis.
* economy / socioeconomy
* socioeconomy, sociophilosophy, socioempire, sociocurrency
* rival / rivalrous  ->  I forget why I added this. it had something to do with Creative Commons and "non-rivalrous goods" and some killer analogy I'd gotten from that vaguely related to chunk competition or graph economics but I forget the exact connection I made. I think it was something like, when everyone lives in rivalrous houses, and has to pay for them with rivalrous jobs, and it's so easy to totally slip past anyone else's attention because people have to "spend" their attention on one thing or another, it's hard for anything to really actually be non-rivalrous. populations are rivalrous, countable Cultures are rivalrous, physical individuals are rivalrous. you have to overcome all of that just to create a non-rivalrous good

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