Editing User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand

{{BopCSS}}<!--
-->
I ([[User:Reversedragon|R.D.]]) am a bit obsessive about numbers. I had a problem with the idea of Items having small numbers that at the same time were arbitrary. What would be number 10?? What would be number 1??<br />
I considered making all the entries in this wiki take their IDs from the timestamp they were created at, but when Wikibase had no clear way of doing that and it was already installed, I decided it would be easier to do this instead: map out the first 3000-9000 Item entries to the best numbers I can think of, and then stop worrying. A little later, I'd go a step further and scrap Wikibase to make editing individual Items and downloading them as text files particularly easy in all browsers, and allow for Item identifiers to be as pronounceable as possible thanks to the ability to add commas or redirects inside the same namespace.

This is the first prototype of every Item in order. After this, I began to create specific [[Philosophical Research:Ontology namespace|"Ontology" Categories]] for particular fields and media series, and to create [[Help:Hue lists|hue list templates]] to more consistently display the same proposed Item across pages. This page will not use any of the later html-saving templates in order to preserve a more basic and manual version of the [[Help:Hue lists|hue list]] markup. However, some especially verbose sections of chapters, episodes, short stories, etc. have been moved to Ontology pages to make the list easier to navigate.

You should be warned that <strong>there may be a lot of particular <em>opinions</em> on this page</strong>. Whenever I wrote any idea down I poured out the first thoughts that came to my mind on it. I had no intention that any of these first-thoughts would be a permanent part of any of the Item pages that would not change. Some of them were meant as loose guidelines for further examining each thing and collecting research or analyses of them on their pages in a general way, but only really as a starting place. I've always had the rule that [[redlink|"angry" does not belong on Item pages]], thus I sometimes absolutely went off here to avoid it going there. Also, you are encouraged to create alternate prototype pages scrawled on Category pages or [[:User Spaces for Special Research|in connection with other thesis portals]] — the only major rules are that all prototype notes should be archived on an early revision of their corresponding Item page (whether they are deleted or superseded in later revisions, which is fully expected), and that when somebody actually establishes a block of useful concepts within the Ontology namespace you must build off what is already there while moving existing Items only when there is some relatively important reason another Item should be using that number. If an Item is on a prototype page and has not been properly created, then it is not an issue to move things around, but you should try to keep related blocks together.

Item status: <b>Wikibase set to be removed / Property data must be recovered first, then Wikibase extensions will be disabled / Ontology pages are now canonical Item pages</b><br />
Once the items on this page have been created, it will be natural for the names and purposes of the items to evolve somewhat over time, and there is no need for anyone to worry about whether the current set of items is "following" this prototype page. Items will become [[:Category:Ontology portals|grouped into specific topic-based Ontology pages]] such that following the list is less unwieldy, or [[:Category:Ontology entries by number|paginated numeric lists]] including the actual Items by template.

== Unsorted Items ==
<!-- / Items without numbers -->

* Super Smash Bros. + mainstream Marxism-Leninism = meta-Marxism
* 水滴石穿 (shuǐ dī shí chuān, Dripping water wears through stone) - this seems more applicable to quantity into quality actually. some books use it in the context of tiny wounds to an empire being an offense to justice [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/水滴石穿]
* 狡兔三窟 (jiǎo tù sān kū, A Cunning Rabbit Has Three Burrows) [https://www.bluente.com/blog/chinese-workplace-idioms-thatll-take-you-far-in-your-career] - this one fits
* 半途而废 (bàn tú ér fèi, Giving Up Halfway) [https://www.bluente.com/blog/chinese-workplace-idioms-thatll-take-you-far-in-your-career]

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

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

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

</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 "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_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">RPGs as "violent videogames"  ->  it's hard to make this genuinely funny instead of just ironically funny, but Deltarune chapter 4 managed to pull it off. Kris is playing games in the Dark World and it's very clearly being framed like a person with a sword is {{book|GTA}} and this is a truly horrifying game. I think what makes it work especially well is that it's not meant to be taken literally, it's semi-literally a silly dream the characters are having that also got way too serious. when the characters go back to the normal world they know RPGs are fiction and they don't freak out about them; Rudy for one is fairly positive about them, although it might be a little in question whether Toriel is.

</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, 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_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">Media Representation on Sky News / hello Sky News, I'm so glad I got my colostomy bag [https://news.sky.com/story/i-would-rather-have-died-how-getting-a-stoma-bag-changed-my-life-and-broke-the-stigma-12080366]  ->  I just found an article on notorious Tory news outlet Sky News that was exactly in the shape of an Existentialist or Gramscian call for Media Representation. obviously there's nothing wrong with a visibility effort for stoma bags. a little unusual, but sure, getting unusual problems out there is the point isn't it. the one thing that baffles me is seeing this kind of thing on Sky News. I'm guessing it got there because it sounds like an old people problem?? it's often old people watching these things, so maybe they think any medical problem sounds enough like their own problems to not be upsetting to them. that isn't a joke; I just genuinely don't know what's a good guess.

</li><li class="field_mdem" 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 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_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S">collective farm
</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S">single large farm with government tractors
</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S">collection of small farms
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Joining small farms did not succeed / Stalin's government joining small farms into a corporate entity did not succeed  ->  I'm willing to accept that this might be true, but for utterly the wrong reasons. Existentialists really want to think that collective farms fail because Bolshevism is bad and joining things together is bad... but what if collective farms failed because small farms are bad and fundamentally will never be as good as big farms even when you connect them? that's a scary thought, because it means a whole lot of anarchist rhetoric that supposedly "helps" social-democracy has to be thrown out. but something being scary doesn't mean it isn't true.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Amazon is one big "collective farm" / Amazon is an entity joining many separate small entities to the same pitfalls as a collection of small farms  ->  I can't figure out, under capitalist logic, why collective farms are so "bad" we recreated the same thing on a gigantic scale. my best answer is that this structure is totally undesigned and arose by historical necessity when the structures people actually wanted didn't work.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Private equity is a modern form of collectivization (collectivisation; meta-Marxist claim)
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Private equity isn't the problem / Small businesses blame private equity for businesses failing and getting gutted but it's really small businesses' fault  ->  the trap of small businesses being supposedly innocent is so hard to see through it took me weeks to realize this was a possibility.

</li><li class="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_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S0">lambda-calculus determinism / lambda-calculus style determinism / mathematical function determinism  ->  for some weird reason people always assume that determinism equals Calvinism, where there is one set of conditions that lead to a single ending, rather than determinism itself being the path from a million initial conditions to a million associated endings. this is the intuitive definition of determinism if you've studied enough Newtonian mechanics: if a ball and a ramp start in one particular position they end up in one particular place but it always depends on what position they started in which is not necessarily controllable by an experimenter in the context of daily life. if you start with this definition of determinism you see it is no existential threat to a bunch of individuals floating around making decisions and having some set of processes they struggle to describe and label as Free Will; if determinism is discovered and people become "robots" then no aspect of human experience has been lost.

</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Feuerbach modeled an abstract Man rather than real people / Feuerbach modeled an abstract peasant rather than a real peasant {{YouTube|oUvtSOGhdmg}}
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Stalin modeled an abstract universalized Trotsky rather than the real Trotsky  ->  the leap between mainstream Marxism-Leninism and meta-Marxism.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">If nature had a legal code, it'd be {{TTS|html=abbr|tts=ex-mat|exmat|title=existential materialism}} / If nature had a legal code, it would be existential materialism  ->  the claim that "the most intuitive outcome" for a collection of individuals can only be described by the totality of possible interactions of those individuals. there is no intuitive outcome which represents "justice", as much as simply one outcome which is possible or probable based on individuals' and groups' biased personal experience. sometimes the possible outcomes contain a good or best outcome. intuition doesn't necessarily get us there.<br />
one way to describe human reasoning is that we all use Bayesian reasoning, but taking Bayesian reasoning and formalizing it on paper reveals the <em>inherent problems</em> in human reasoning rather than acting as any kind of method of doing it better.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-remark="belongs next to chaos magic" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Intuition is better at justice than logic / Intuition is better for understanding history than logic / The I Ching shows us that intuitiion is better for understanding conflicts in society than written law (Alan Watts)  ->  recorded from some kind of old TV program. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wp2vy7X7cpE] it's so weird and ironic that he uses China as his example because China is not really a very intuition-based country any more since about 1940. you could attribute that to central governments doing whatever they have to to encourage modernizing to compete with other countries, any number of "kingdoms" will do this. but what if you didn't. is natural law really a sensible way of looking at things when you could draw 100 Chinese people at random and there's a nonzero chance you'd only get people that say according to their intuition Communism makes the most sense? is that to say that people transitioning to a highly logical way of thinking is what's truly obvious?<br />
there was this one line in {{book|1984}}. "there were no laws, but there were crimes". you know, you know full well that if anybody in China today read justice according to intuition like those ancient imperial judges this is exactly what people in other countries would be thinking, and they might just clamor to force the government to read justice by exactly what's written simply so that spooky scary Communism doesn't behave unpredictably. if China were to not have a constitution people would be terrified, even though reading justice according to intuition is almost exactly why that would be the case.<br />
human beings want their own country to be as anarchic as possible but they want other countries to be perfectly and utterly regimented like robots so they aren't left guessing what other people will do. this seems to come down to a poor ability to take situations and [[E:duplexing|duplex]] them in order to understand what two people or structures doing the same thing will produce without one structure seeking to control the other and produce a single structure.

</li><li class="field_nations" 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_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_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">History is matter understanding itself (Marx)

</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_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" 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 transition.<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_geo" value="618" data-dimension="M3">Is the number five smaller than a breadbox?  ->  demonstrates the need for non-binary truth values. the answer isn't yes or no. it isn't even "40% true". the only good answer is "not applicable", "category error", "this is not a physical object" as totally distinct from false.

</li><li class="field_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_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The quantum scale must be smaller than spacetime  ->  sounds... broadly correct? like, why is it possible mathematically to split the movement of light and stop time. the mathematics could be faulty but overall they've been predictive.

</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 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 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 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_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">John Egbert is obviously White [https://www.reddit.com/r/homestuck/comments/pjc7n3/comment/hbvq1sk/]  ->  despite this topic seeming uninteresting it's actually really interesting because it feeds into the question of what does and doesn't count as Media Representation of some particular ethnic group. how much unlike a particular ethnic group can a character look and still be Media Representation? people go around trying to teach the concept of Media Representation with phrases like "brown kids on screen" but realistically a whole lot of actual instances of Media Representation will just be voice actors and things that people would recognize as representing particular histories but which may not seem inherently linked to a particular appearance. this is true for both positive and negative "representations".
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Goku is obviously Japanese / Goku is obviously an abstraction of the people of Japan based on the language of the show and the people animating it
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Goku is obviously Chinese / Goku is obviously an abstraction of the people of ancient China based on who wrote {{book|Journey to the West}} and the vague "everyman" positioning of its characters
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Goku is obviously Imperial-Japanese / Goku is obviously an abstraction of the people of Imperial Japan, specifically the people who supported it and in his case the one person who might have defected from it  ->  I think this is the most correct answer looking at the way characters are positioned relative to each other in the narrative.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Vegeta is obviously Imperial-Japanese
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Vegeta is a reactionary / Vegeta is obviously an abstraction of the concept of reactionaries in situations such as the Russian Empire or Imperial Japan

</li><li class="field_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_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">"Sometimes true" means false / Propositions that are sometimes true are false  ->  axiom used in the traditional practice of formal logic. I think this has done a lot to ruin logic and generally ruin language. if every proposition has to be precisely 1 or 0 and it can't be precisely anything between that, then propositons have to be ridiculously long in order to be evaluated as what the person who said them actually intended the proposition to mean and refer to. and that creates a complete and utter mess the instant you start talking about "democracy". formal logic works fine in a monarchy, but what if people do experience structural racism in Alabama and don't experience structural racism in California? there will be every temptation for all the voters and representatives who don't live in Alabama to say that the propositon "Black people experience structural racism" is false and there shouldn't be a national policy about something that's false. likewise, every time somebody makes a video essay and says any statement at all, such as "linguists fall into two categories", formal logic incentivizes everyone to instantly pick apart the statement exactly as it's written, and say things like "that statement is false! I know about another category of linguists!" rather than realizing that "fall into two categories" could inherently mean that two categories of linguists exist <em>and</em> other categories of linguists exist while none of them exclude the possibility of the others.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">"Sometimes true" means true / Propositions that are sometimes true are true  ->  this axiom is vastly more forgiving to any claim that real people make with the intention of educating other real people about real problems. when most people attempt to say a true statement they often don't mean to exclude other statements from also being true. "horizontal killings are bad" is not necessarily meant to exclude "defensive wars are not bad", but when you think in terms of formal logic you're often pushed to think "horizontal killings are bad" being true means "war is bad" becomes true. the rule of a statement having to be always true to be true does a lot to make statements that shouldn't be exclusive turn mutually exclusive and destroy discourse because truth values don't encourage people to compromise onto a shared set of true statements. working with sometimes-true statements being true can be a little challenging, but the way you do it is you basically separate large-scale philosophies or ideologies from small-scale ones and the ideologies of different regions from each other and treat them all as material objects, such that something could be true in one of them quite fairly and quite fairly not be true in another, without causing any problems, just because different civilizations have different physical structures and different physical arrangements of people. formal logic was really really badly designed for the existence of multiple countable cultures, and yet, you don't really need to invoke "culture" to fix it <i>per se</i>, you only need to invoke Social-Philosophical Systems of populational structure and the physical gaps between populations. if you separate California and Texas into different bodies of knowledge where the same thing isn't always true even if the population is functioning well, you've basically fixed it.

</li><li class="field_mdem" 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 pracice, 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:Frantz Fanon conjecture|they could all get 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 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 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 / The French Revolution 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". [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=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 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_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Empire can survive while it avoids extremes / Imperialism can survive as long as it isn't extreme  ->  so here's the thing about "[[E:a crumb of socialism|socialism]]". if you define it so modestly that it's any chunk of individuals taking care of other individuals, outright nationalist reactionaries can perform socialism without ever being progressive. it's super duper easy for Tories to do something for each other and then turn it into love-bombing and say you're a traitor if you don't support destroying Palestine, you're a non-person if you don't support shooting Black people to death before they go to prison. mutual aid isn't socialism and it isn't even love. it only really guarantees social cohesion, which is terribly easy to form around the imperative to survive at the expense of other populations. all Tories have to do to be able to do whatever they want is just be a little bit "not extreme" and appear to be nice to all the people immediately around them while being terrible to people somewhere else.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S0">claimed characteristic of Existentialism / claimed characteristic of Existentialist-Structuralist tradition  ->  I could start compiling a list of these just like the fascism diagnosis lists, only the thing being diagnosed is technically less harmful, and it's only being diagnosed because it can seem nebulous and hard to describe until you observe it really closely and start making lists like this. a while ago I had an entry about "kinds of Existentialism"; I think this is what that is better framed as or called.

</li><li class="field_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="S">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_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_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_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F">freedom for everybody with the only limit of equal freedom for others / a tent of freedom poles (motif)  ->  this is inherently contradictory. it's all too easy for somebody to be less free <em>purely because</em> someone else is free. anarchists really want to think this result is impossible but it isn't. say there are 30 Protestants, 20 Catholics, 10 Muslims, and 5 anarchists. the 5 anarchists talk to the 20 Catholics and the 10 Muslims. they don't manage to get them to give up religion, but they do manage to convince them to all agree with each other to become anarchists. the 20 Catholics and 10 Muslims all tolerate each other and agree that freedom for Catholics can only include freedom for Muslims. then the anarchists go talk to the 30 Protestants. 10 of the 30 Protestants are fine with anarchism and agree to coexist with the Catholics and Muslims, while 20 Protestants get upset and become convinced that if there are Catholics and Muslims determining things about the society they live in and making them Catholic or Muslim instead of Protestant in character the 20 Protestants are not free. the 20 Protestants try to make the Catholics and the Muslims leave. the other 10 Protestants don't quite know what to do. the 20 try to make them all concede that policies are tyrannical and having any unified policy on whether Catholic or Muslim traditions can be practiced or anyone can be made to tolerate them is unfair, and only a world where nobody can tell Protestants what to do at all is in anarchy. the Protestants insist that only a world where Protestants are free to be a totally freely-standing nation just as at the same time any other is is actually free, and anything else is a violation of the concept of "freedom for everybody limited by equal freedom for others", which is nearly worthy of a war for independence; they will stop short of killing any Protestants that don't concede or shipping them off to Catholicistan if the anarchists will only drop this entire thing. is anyone free at this point? the Catholics, Muslims, and defector Protestants are all going to be bound together by survival and basically [[Term:herd-of-cats effect|formed into a nation-state]] with [[E:not voting for the Democrats is not allowed|hard rules against leaving it]] because [[E:Vegeta's actions are not a social construct for the people of earth|reality forced them to]]. the Protestant bigots are all bound together around their concept of having to be Protestant-only or you're not free, forced to defend their border so that concept even exists. in a real way, any difference inside countable cultures has the power to create borders and States just because cultures will insist on not being ordered around by each other. and all of this is because the anarchists brought up "the limit of equal freedom for others", but it isn't really possible when the reality of almost all human cultures is to want to realize culture outward and "[[E:I believe that everybody statement|believe that everybody]]" should do some particular culture, not just yourself. sometimes this is much less harmful than other times, like when indigenous populations become mystified by industrial populations and "believe that everybody" should go effect degrowth although in reality they don't understand what causes the undesired patterns or how to stop them. but overall this is the same Lacanian {{censor|bullshit}} as capitalists getting to determine what is good behavior and what is being a real human and what people aren't free-standing producers enough to be real humans. this {{censor|bullshit}} is a component of capitalism.<br />
I have a deep urge to make this the first F1 Item. maybe I will. I think there should be very stringent criteria for what motifs can become F motifs. they should have to be so utterly logically incoherent it is nearly impossible to understand them at all. like, "God" could be an F motif because it's relatively easy to argue the concept doesn't even make sense. something like "unicorns" or "vampires" isn't an F motif because fantasy books can coherently define what they are. most wrong concepts are still just S motifs, not F motifs, because it's easy to tell the difference between a coherent imaginary world where they do exist and the real world where they don't. only a very select slice of motifs are F motifs, which are referred to in consistent language yet on the inside are utter [[Term:conceptual spaghetti|conceptual spaghetti]] that barely refers to anything at all. some parts of Lacanianism may get marked F1 and then have the decision reversed when it's discovered they actually make some kind of logical sense.

</li><li class="field_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 what theories are good theories, whether or not it's the actual order of history.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">The molding of the free person is the true equality of all [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281006148_Anarchism_the_State_and_the_Role_of_Education]  ->  it's not, because any capitalist-suck-up Lacanian could say this. also, like, just imagine, you're Stalin's government, and you start believing this. when [[E:Trotskists are the prototypical oppressed group|Trotsky]] is causing trouble for the people of the Soviet Union you tell him that the reason he doesn't understand mainstream Marxism-Leninism yet is he is not a complete free individual and he needs to be a person better, he's just terrible at being a free-standing person and he ought to go through a ton of training to be human exactly correctly before he is allowed to be human, while other people who are better at being individuals inevitably claim positions of authority and order people around. that's how Lacanians think, that's how capitalists think, that's almost what Lenin said however accidentally. the whole concept of "molding the free person" Leads To Hierarchies, precisely because not all people are equally good at Being Free People.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Anarchy isn't about taking things away / "Liberty is the mother of order" (Proudhon) [https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alex-prichard-freedom] / Anarchism is not simply a negative critique [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281006148_Anarchism_the_State_and_the_Role_of_Education]  ->  funny how in practice basically every anarchist you see just talks about smashing things and taking them away and most people never actually see any "anarchist communities". the [[Term:Social-Philosophical-System|SPSs]] are secret and the [[Term:Social-Philosophical-Material-System|SPMSs]] hardly come to pass for a period of longer than 3 years. but go on

</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_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Undertale mirrors U.S. antiwar movements / Undertale is the way it is because of the shape of United States antiwar movements  ->  so, I have a weird history with movements and being on the total fringes of them for most of my life when they would ripple out and hit me but I would only really get them secondhand. around 2014-2015 I got hit by the ripples of BLM. morality was everywhere. [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology|Existentialism]] was everywhere, and this concept that people will automatically flip over and change their minds if you only shout <i>individuals individuals human rights identities individuals that is an individual you are an individual identity identity people like each other because they are different</i> enough. in the beginning when I was literally a [[E:right-Liberalism|right-Libertarian]] that made some kind of sense to me, but as soon as I started actually not being a conservative all of it increasingly made less and less sense until I was like, where did any of this even come from and how does anyone even think it's correct? I read non-Marxist texts like I was supposed to and none of them made any sense, so I just kept digging and digging and digging on every single lead I could find anywhere to try to figure out where <em>any</em> of this philosophy coherently originated from whether people were creating it consciously or not. most of my research focused only on the past decade and how people could derive ideologies from scratch. but most recently, [[E:U.S. antiwar movements have always been Idealist|I realized]] that past United States antiwar movements had already been this. past large-scale movements in the United States had had the shape of anarchist Idealism, and not at all the shape of Marxism. finally, the outpouring of works like <cite>Undertale</cite> and <cite>Steven Universe</cite> started to make sense. the exact way they were portraying the notion of breaking up war was based on things like the Vietnam War period, in which despite the war being against Communism it wasn't actually Communists trying to stop it. and I'm not just saying the obvious fact of "a Marxist movement isn't mostly made of Marxists", what I'm saying is, "it's as if the whole entire movement was not Marxist and anarchists were forming the theorist layer and trying to form the party-nation". nobody will ever be able to do historical materialism again if we don't understand workers' movements as plural bodies of people with different colors of theorists on top that realize different kinds of countries. incidentally yeah I think Trotsky accidentally set the whole world back purely by claiming workers didn't belong to either plural countries or plural workers' states. come on, Trotsky, [[E:sea of free-floating entities|every object is plural]].

</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.

</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 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" 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:plurality|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_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;

</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  ->  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?"
</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 making the [[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_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S">"I wish comrades existed" / wishing comrades or solidarity existed in real life (motif) / "the love of humanity" is usually not reciprocated (motif)  ->  a thing you would mostly only hear in the United States or Australia, but trust me, it's a real problem. we really have this problem where movements form solely around being terrified of White people or men etc based on individualized traumatic experiences, and beating up on people who don't perform exactly the correct gestures to not look like an enemy, but where you don't get anything back, they don't form unions, they don't help people get housing, they don't help people join up with a hundred people to get more people to vote center-Liberal and keep the ballot boxes from going away, they just kinda periodically slug you and tell you you're bad and you need to be <span class="plainlinks">better [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harder,_Better,_Faster,_Stronger harder] faster stronger</span>. at a certain point it's like, what do you even do with this. all our movements to supposedly squash "Western individualism" are {{censor|fucking}} individualist. by the time I'm not completely distracted with hiding from reactionaries and not being able to work or tolerate workplaces, I've been through so much {{censor|shit}} and trauma and problem-solving I don't <em>need</em> these movements, I just already experienced everything the movements were attempting to prevent. and it's like, <em>thanks, guys</em>. thanks for absolutely nothing. thanks for all my experiences with you over the years making me want to move to another country and not even bother to do anything to defend or take back this one. if you think this is what a country is you can have this blasted country to yourselves. I'll get my grubby Communist hands off it and it will be all yours. so what will your excuse be in 30 years for Existentialism not being able to materially stop Toryism from erupting into fascism, and what is your plan for succeeding next time?

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

</li><li class="field_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">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">Most science is not done in reality / Most science is not done in the material world / Most science is not done in the field or in laboratories / criterion for identifying scientific revisionism, defining the failure to recognize correct models as revisionism  ->  sounds shocking at first but logically has to be true. textbooks and teachers present science to children like every scientific claim is always substantiated by testing it in the material world. but that leaves people with a really bad understanding of science by the time they have to actually go interpret complicated discusssions in string theory and quantum field theory which will take a long time to go to some kind of particle accelerator or highly indirect apparatus that was unusual in the early days of science and finally get tested. these days most claims in science actually get tested against highly accurate models of experiments instead of in actual experiments. that's what you actually do when you cross-check a new hypothesis against older equations and existing experiment teams — those equations and memories of experiments are models of experiments. and this is why I find non-Materialist interpretations of literature frustrating. the people saying that fiction is not internally consistent in a way where some claims (although not every claim) can be tested against coherent models of a fictional world's internal physics <em>may not actually understand real-world science</em>, because at the end of the day, taking your best coherent model of <cite>Dragon Ball</cite> and testing something against it and taking your best coherent model of current experiments to understand the universe and testing something against it are not actually all that different. unpopular opinion, building theories about fiction and trying to solve if everything is actually consistent shows you are building a good understanding of the real world. also, most science of historical processes and ideologies would not be done in the real world. if you understand how science truly works, then you'll understand how Marxism truly works and how meta-Marxism truly works. it's very possible I had to invent the category of meta-Marxism purely because people around the world don't understand that most Marxist "experiments" amount to thought experiments or peer review through the means of models of old experiments. I've always been confused why Marxism wasn't already meta-Marxism. why wouldn't Marxists test their models against each other for accuracy, and why would Marxists end up dividing into different competing versions of Marxism that become unfalsifiable?

</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? hope: that Trotskyists realize that not having impossible standards leads to harmony. application: 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_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S">comrade (mathematics)  ->  this is very close to becoming an actual term. like, the more I pick at graphs and Lattice models and [[E:Beast|Beast]]-based graphs, the more it becomes likely there will be a mathematical definition of what kinds of graph links stay and which ones break. it makes total sense in my head. but it's also hilarious. there would be a certain great comedy in titling an entire chapter of the <cite>MDem</cite> book "Comrade (mathematics)", like it walked straight out of a weird alternate Wikipedia from a different timeline.

</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_nations" value="618" data-dimension="S">a regular Arab, not an evil one  ->  I accidentally said a microaggression as a teenager. the gist of it went something like "a person from some Middle Eastern country, only they're just like us". this was my confused attempt to <em>not</em> be racist by invoking [[E:Spanish people can be anything|anti-essentialism]] and trying to explain in a world where my relatives were always saying terribly racist and essentialist-sounding things that other groups of people contained all the things that ours did. some progressive-raised kids from a progressive city took it super duper badly, and this left me really confused because I wasn't the kind of person that casually said all the racist things my parents did. every time my family members were making racist jokes I tended to try to comprehend other groups of people as people and explain things about them to my family members which would leave them really bored and uninterested. when I became an adult this vast and yet very lukewarm movement for what appeared to be postcolonial anarchism was kicking up everywhere. suddenly the root of all evil was language and it didn't matter what choices you made in your life or what you did to others as long as you Platformed Minorities and Made Media Representation and every day you said the right language. I got constantly kicked and kicked and kicked for not being born instantly knowing the right phrasings and framings of things, even though whenever I would say things correctly it wouldn't actually help anyone and it would just result in my family members and all the Tories getting super mad at me. everything about this movement or cluster of movements was about things you could only do if you were the bourgeoisie, while it was like if you were the proletariat you'd only get endlessly abused by absolutely everybody everywhere because you couldn't do the important capitalist things that would fix society. I felt really bad. I stopped trying to interact with people or make friends because the way people would get stuck to general-sense psychoanalysis and Vote Vote Vote and pounding everyone for the wrong language but had no ability to help each other survive or brave towns of Tories or not end up stuck deep in their houses unable to work or go out in public and it was all just "All Human Should Behave Correct Way With No Help Strong Squash Bad Guy" had me feeling sick. I felt so shit about being born and being in society and everything I stopped really caring if anyone would like me or forgive me for not being perfect. I retreated into my hole and read a lot of stuff just to try to figure out what had happened. I wasn't angry at anybody because to be honest I didn't feel like I deserved to be angry, LGBT+black&brown were out there being the bourgeoisie and being legal experts and [[E:hegemony politics|doing things]] but no matter how not-awful I was or how many thousands of hours I had spent creating and learning and trying to be productive I hadn't given anything back to the world. determined just to understand what had happened, I read and read and read things, trying to make [[E:countable ideology|everything]] everyone had ever said [[Term:meta-ontologically sound|go together and not be contradictory any more]]. and, well... long after all my emotions were dead and I could only experience empathy with anyone through proposition-based logic, my working conclusion is that the top way people teach each other not to be racist is essentially to say "other countries are like us rather than flat bad guys". it's literally just, the reason people tell each other to read fiction as education is that fiction keeps showing them over and over examples of people being normal in multiple countries, practically the same exact things over and over but different country now. do you see why I'm dead inside? it's like the only difference between "a regular Arab, not an evil one" and the generally accepted way people teach fiction to each other is not even what tone the thing is said in but whether a particular kind of postcolonial anarchist is analyzing and framing the teaching process. that's it. thanks to the difficulty of predicting individuals and the prevalence of false positives, the difference between microaggressions and non-microaggressions often hinges on the person diagnosing them rather than the actual subject of the diagnosis.

</li><li class="field_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_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Every incorrect progressive theory produces irony  ->  it's easy to notice this but not common to notice why it happens.

</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 of 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_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">this is incredibly silly  ->  <cite>Problem Sleuth</cite>.

</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_horror" value="618" data-dimension="Z">The Giver (graphic novel)
</li><li class="field_horror" value="618" data-dimension="S">S the first time I saw red  ->  it is so ironic that like this is a book about Trotsky banning the color red. say that out loud. ???

</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_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_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 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_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Within Liberal republics, Communists are treated with cultural assimilation and social darwinism  ->  this results in anarchism becoming prevalent because it survives selection pressures.

</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 want 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 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_nations" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Black lion or white lion, any republic is okay if it promotes a thriving White countable culture / Black lion or white lion, any republic is okay if it promotes a thriving Protestant-specific nation (England)  ->  the proposition that seems to define Toryism versus Liberal-republicanism. Tories do not require democracy as long as all the individuals in the population [[E:stale rat bread|somehow end up happy with it]]. Liberal-republicans require Liberal-republican democracy at the cost that somebody must rule over all the countable cultures of a national population and tell them how to be a countable culture. is this inherently colonial, and do we have to deal with the contradiction that fascism and anarchism are both postcolonial whether we like it or not? that remains to be seen.

</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.

</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  ->  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="S">I've been Frantz-Fanon'd  ->  violet because of the theme of all-directional chunk competition as opposed to class unity.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Individual institutions are individuals
</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 / <cite>Warriors</cite> 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="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">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 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

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S">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. 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">Cultures separate due to their internal content / Countable cultures separate due to their internal content  ->  A) FNaF comes out with various series of books, some people love them, some people hate them, people start forming separate circles. B) the internal content of Trotskyism is not the same as mainstream Marxism-Leninism, which ultimately led the Social-Philosophical-System of Trotskyism to fight against it and act like it was oppressed.

</li><li class="field_horror" value="618" data-dimension="S2"><cite>The Shuteyes</cite>  ->  my favorite World War II era metaphor which is the only anticommunist fable or "wartime fable" I like totally unironically. like basically no other book I have ever seen, this story didn't take an ideological side against Communism, and genuinely stood on the fence. the entire premise is that instead of there being buffer states that nazis and Communists are fighting over, some people get whisked away to a mysterious realm called Alert where nobody is ever allowed to sleep and arbitrary groups of people compete in team sports as The Reds and The Browns. the really genius thing about it is that as a kid I didn't even have any idea what these names were referring to. this book managed to have enough of a backbone that unlike most "dystopian fiction" I never figured out what it was talking about purely by virtue of its themes until after I was a lot older and knew a bunch more history.
</li><li class="field_horror" value="618" data-dimension="S">the world of Alert  ->  the motif of a world where people cannot rest because there are constant disruptions from some kind of larger outside civilization which behaves similarly to one of the great powers of World War II or the Cold War. the disruptor can be portrayed very metaphorically and poetically to where it appears to come from inside or doesn't look anything like its inspiration, as long as the story is clearly a metaphor for large civilizations fighting over buffer states. this motif may also be used to code real-world scenarios that closely mirror fictional "worlds of Alert".

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Tribes contain bureaucracy  ->  that slowfactory video was the weirdest thing. "we're better because we choose not to continue to be a corporation after our task." "we don't choose to continue to be a corporation because to stop colonialism we can't believe in bureaucracy". but older forms of society aren't inherently pure. in tribal populations for instance, there can be "bureaucratic" structures like a circle of elders. that was the entire premise of <cite>The Giver</cite>: that if you simplify society in the name of Communism that would (supposedly) cause it to revert to an earlier form and create an elder council that made all the decisions. humanity did not enter modernity because it created bureaucracy.
</li><li class="field_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 <em class="caps">is</em> colonialism to some extent — particularly if you want to say "colonialism" is largely defined as prejudice and populations hating each other. 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" ([[: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. although 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. the real crux here 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_exstruct" data-remark="Free Will" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Linear time prevents individuals from realizing fictions / Linear time prevents individuals from controlling the process of realizing fictions / Linear time takes power away from cybernetic assemblages or Group-Subject-organisms and keeps them from determning their own destiny  ->  no. honestly, if you steered this away from mysticism, it really could sound less silly than it does, but I still don't think it's true. like, say you try to de-mystify this using relativity. Isaac Newton didn't know there wasn't one big linear flow of spacetime, so he cursed science with "linear time". then Albert Einstein showed up and laid out a model where if anything has an approximately linear flow of time then there are billions of them going in parallel and none of them is "the real one". so, we start with relativity. for any particular Group Subject with so-called "cybernetic flows" inside, let's say it's a Trotskyist party to be funny, that Group Subject [[Term:reterminism|retermines]] stuff about itself using its internal elements and the things immediately surrounding it. if there is a big bad Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the way, the Trotskyist party will do what it can to plan around its environment and realize Trotskyism, its preferred so-called "fiction". this happens on a timetable specific to and emerging from the Trotskyist party, while the CPSU may have a different timeline of how it wants to realize its own plans. there is nothing particularly cosmic about this in a magic-ritual or sci-fi time travel sense. the CPSU doesn't actually distort spacetime and take causality away from the Trotskyist party. both of them still have a timeline on which they can act to the degree they are capable. but, even so, when the two groups interact with their surrounding reality and each other, some possibilities collapse into more disappointing ones as a product of all the directions of interaction. whatever "fiction" (sociophilosophy or ontology) you come up with, it will always be affected by the presence of other "fictions" busy realizing themselves in relativistic time. all the fictions are realizing at once, some of them succeeding and some of them not succeeding, and the ones that don't successfully realize only keep getting screwed over by the successful ones in a vicious cycle. so the deal with Newtonian linear time is that it's an effect of sociophilosophies defeating each other, not a cause. linear time is only an outward perception of the result of what happened, but because it's a result, you can't simply fight it to fix the inner causal process. man. if the chaos magicians had just stopped with the notion of realizing fictions and never ever said anything about time, I would have been more receptive to it.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Treating authors as gods is reductive to art  ->  if all art is is just waiting for authors to say things, then why would anyone pay for it? can't we all just imagine stories on our own, regardless of how good they are? when you realize that, you realize it's vitally important to treat art as an internally coherent system in order to get anyone to appreciate authors. when fan theories are framed as an alternate form of humanities study which is more scientifically-minded — this being an arbitrary flavor choice, not an objectively better way of doing things — they act as a form of art appreciation <em>because</em> they are predicting things and looking for sound structure and solid craftsmanship within the fictional world. it's something like the systematic "music theory" of narratives. sometimes people do it wrong and fail to correctly analyze departures from reality as legitimate rules within the system rather than "unrealistic". this doesn't mean that the entire analytic approach is bad, or doesn't understand what art is. I think there's at least some amount of an argument, maybe not rock-solid exactly, that it understands art on a higher level. the level where art has already succeeded and transported us to the new reality it has fabricated. shouldn't it be the highest praise of art having succeeded when people are actually living in that reality for a moment?

</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Fictional futures come from fictional individuals / Susie holds the path to a different ending because she is a different person, not because she wrote it / Twilight Sparkle creates the future because she and her friends are unique material objects  ->  I don't know if this is literally true of Deltarune, but this is the issue I have with Deltarune as a metaphor for real life. this is the claim that fictional individuals create their future, but not specifically through the process of Free Will, perhaps instead through the process of groups of individuals interacting together to produce favorable historical processes. Twilight succeeds because multiple Ponies actually cooperate together. Susie can only change the future if Kris and Ralsei want the same future as she does.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Fictional futures come from characters' free will / Fictional futures come from the free will of fictional individuals / Twilight Sparkle invents the future, and should Lauren Faust not outline that correctly she is wrong / Susie authors the future, independently of whether Toby Fox creates that correctly or incorrectly  ->  message more or less stated in <cite>Deltarune</cite> chapter 4, and which all its fans really run wildly with, but which I don't really like personally. the reasons are complex. I think this is slightly better the statement that authors design utterly everything and fiction contains no causality, but not entirely correct.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="F2">[[E:BecauseAuthorSaidSo|Fictional events only happen because the author said so]] / Details in fiction only exist because the author said so  ->  no. if this were true Media Representation would be impossible. say there's a fictional book meant to teach people about the United States Reconstruction era, or slaves escaping to the North. can somebody just go around saying that every single thing that happens in that book is the author's opinionated agenda peculiar to their own individual tastes and not inherently shared with any other person like them for reasons they did not choose? or are some of the things in that book in there because they are representational art of things that regularly happen in the real world or have happened? if historical fiction can be based on particular unique historical events, then events in books can also be based on general patterns seen in history. and they can be based on scientific models. and they can be based on any number of internally-coherent things which make sense in and of themselves without asking what the author's desires or agenda are. many well-written stories don't look intentionally designed, and you keep this in mind if you want to solve them.

</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_exstruct" value="10999" data-dimension="Z">North America
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="10999" data-dimension="Z">Mexico (2000s)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="10999" data-dimension="Z">Canada (2000s)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="10999" data-dimension="Z">United States (2000s)

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="10999" data-dimension="Z">Europe (2000s)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="10999" data-dimension="Z">Germany (2000s)
</li><li class="field_ML" value="10999" data-dimension="Z">East Germany (date?)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="10999" data-dimension="Z">West Germany (date?)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="10999" data-dimension="Z">Weimar Republic (date?)  ->  note: Nazi Germany already has entry Q14,88
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="10999" data-dimension="Z">United Kingdom (2000s)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="10999" data-dimension="Z">Ireland (2000s)  ->  there have been a few different transformations where Ireland was or wasn't part of the United Kingdom; it's not always been one way or the other.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="10999" data-dimension="Z">England (2000s)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="10999" data-dimension="Z">European Union (2000s)

</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. "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.

</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

</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, then there is a very uncomfortable conclusion waiting: the empire holds 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 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" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Human beings went from tribal populations directly to disconnected suburbs / In the year 400, White people were in tribes, in the year 2020 they were in suburbs, and absolutely nothing happened in between / history denial (motif of people acting like suburbs were suddenly made up yesterday rather than coming from particular cumulative sets of events over generations)  ->  you see this pop up fairly quickly as soon as you let people talk about "the modern period" or "Gen Z". {{YouTube|7ctYNWLx2uE}} for most people in the United States it didn't go that way. first there were tribal populations, then there was more than one population in plurality, then the populations smashed into each other and started fighting over borders and trying to clear people out of land areas. this is flat-out history denial. it ignores the centuries and centuries of history between the United States hypothetically being a tribal population and all the changes it went through until getting to the state where it starts fighting tribal populations. propositions like these show that a whole lot of people don't like thinking about history as mattering to the current day. it seems evidently harmful when people are claiming slavery is irrelevant and none of the populational transformations inside that period matter, but nobody stops to realize that forming an empire is also a historical process where the content of the process changed current conditions and needs to be understood.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Imperialists believe in a causal study of history / Imperialists believe in a material study of historical events  ->  the more you think about it, the more it becomes evident just from looking at people insisting we need to learn about the Roman Empire or we need to learn about the founding period of the United States, etc, that all the people saying this believe that studying these things actually aids in building particular kinds of historical processes and particular formations of people. they don't just talk about "Western Civilization" for the hell of it. whatever they say outwardly, they clearly believe this is a thing that can be actively recreated through particular material steps. to imperialists themselves, there is a set of steps for realizing imperialism as a social transition. yet somehow everyone else does not want to believe this and wants to believe that every human behavior is only connected to immediate individual choice and none of the steps of realizing empire actually created any permanent changes. anarchism, Western Marxism, and progressive Existentialism all equally seem to stem from the belief that imperialists do not have an active, cumulative cultural history in the same sense that "Germans" or "Spaniards" do. because imperialists are linked into one or more countable cultures that function as countable physical objects, trying to instantaneously dissolve imperialism is almost as ridiculous as asking everyone to spontaneously stop being Spanish and doing anything Spanish. it would be hard to do that because "Spanish" is a physical entity that keeps existing if you don't destroy all of it. have you ever stopped to think about why it would be the Roman Empire, Jewish legend, Christianity, and "Our Founding Fathers" are even taught together or grouped together when they come from separate places? these are the cumulative cultural history of imperialists. why is it it's okay for every kid to learn about Egypt as well as Greece? because the stationary empire shape of Egypt isn't seen as threatening; it fits into the existing "historical materialism" of imperialists. but at the same time, no book for kids would ever talk about the Soviet Union or Cuba in the same tone as ancient Egypt, simply going through "this is how people lived". it's worth thinking about why that is.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Human beings cannot predict history  ->  strictly untrue. everyone who says this defines history as any arbitrary series of events. people are obligated to predict small/medium scale series of events just to survive.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="DG" value="618" data-dimension="S">state apparatus signifying regime  ->  not necessarily phrased this way, but this is the implied whole phrase. the motif of a "deterritorializing power" marking up particular required ontologies of groups of people and sellable units of land; to be contrasted with "rhizome sign regime". I don't like the subtle implications in the uses of terms like this that "centralization" is anything in particular, which never lead to anything good.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Nothing is more important than free will / No standard can be more important than free will / Every other ethical value is subordinate to free will  ->  if we assume Rothenberg and Žižek's texts describe anarchism, then I swear this is what they're saying. no squashing The Subject. don't be afraid to act. so, what? you're going to ignore the entire process of Marxism building up a system for making the smallest number of unethical actions that's possible, all to regain the single ethical value of Freedom? what is it even worth at that point? it's even weirder when Rothenberg is like obsessed with voting blocs and the concept that countries can never be a whole and rejects the suggestion that an oppressive government could turn everybody beneath it democratic (which is exactly what happens), but then this whole anarchist secret operation thing is also okay for some reason. nothing about that makes sense. if you can just reason your way out of creating Bolshevism because it's "inherently" oppressive, why wouldn't you do the same thing with anarchist secret operations, or on the other hand, if you recognize that anarchist secret operations are necessary to create Freedom, why wouldn't you say the same thing for workers' states? why wouldn't you just interpret workers' states <em>through</em> your weird Heideggerian framework and say, ok, I don't believe that any of Marxism is correct but I still have to acknowledge that workers' states are legitimate because those groups of people formed them spontaneously out of necessity. I think anarchism is full of special pleading that anarchism is inherently better just because it's anarchism. and I think in a sense you really can't expect anything else, because this is how all ideologies actually work. anarchists cluster together, Communist allies cluster together, Tories cluster together, as if they were ethnicities or some other demographic, then they protect each other and determine their ideology as a group.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="DG" value="618" data-dimension="S2">[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" 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 may be the reality.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">[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">[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">[S] phase space 
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">[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="S">[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 different internal structure within the same populational unit or units.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">[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 characterstics 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">[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_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">[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_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">[S2] If it looks deterministic, it's scientism / If philosophy looks too deterministic, it's scientism  ->  found this one in an overview of schizoanalyst "geophilosophy". [https://www.protevi.com/john/SEDAAG.pdf] was just barely unsaid but could smell it all over the thing. why are people like this? why is determinism so scary to them? as I say I swear most people don't even know what determinism is. determinism is the mere ability to describe things as differential equations and manifolds, like Deleuze did. he used it to explain Hegel. if there isn't determinism you couldn't describe everything with math. I find almost nothing more baffling than the way psychoanalysts (and schizoanalysis) are absolutely obsessed with math almost more than scientists are and then they also get obsessed with the individual and how you supposedly have to resist anything that could threaten to predetermine The Subject. why does nobody see the terrible contradiction between these two things? I swear we should just abolish the term scientism and make a new term of math-ism when you're over-applying math. that would make Marxism challenging but still possible. it would kill psychoanalysis though

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">[S2] If a statement about art condones racism accidentally or intentionally, it is against the purpose of art as education  ->  derived Existentialist proposition. 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" data-tradition="DG" value="618" data-dimension="S2">[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_exstruct" data-tradition="DG" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Unities of opposites never separate / Plural subpopulations are never countable / There can be no totalising unity that contains unities of opposites (totalizing; about Deleuze) / Multiplicities do not have a shared pivot connecting them to the unity (Deleuze)  ->  no. I get where he's coming from to say that "multiplicities" always <em>start out</em> never fully possible to differentiate. but they can fully differentiate, even to the point they'll never go back. we wouldn't be talking about the implications of a Soviet Union existing versus there not being a Soviet Union, because they'd be the same republics of people either way. there would be no national independence movements if this claim were fully true. there'd still be a British empire. we'd all be arguing about how to represent everyone within the British empire without breaking it up, just because we all "know" civilizations never ever break up. god, like. Deleuze. have you ever been a Trotskyist. that's a silly question to pretty much everyone but genuinely, have you ever had to deal with groups of people breaking apart and not going back together? if you actually did you'd know that things really do differentiate. there's almost an entropy arrow for groups of people just like there is for chemistry, where when a group of people breaks apart there are specific "chemistry" changes that make that tearing apart hard to run backwards. this is part of the definition of history, I feel like. the entropy arrow that makes things like a national independence movement or an organization disintegrating hard to reverse and more of a permanent creation of new conditions, new characteristics for the involved entities.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Gramsci's statements equate to saying that countries containing a {{Term:Wasp Swarm}} 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 certainly 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_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, 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.
</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 (MDem) / 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 MDem 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 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 Liberalism 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  ->  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 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.

</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 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 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=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] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=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
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">A gay relationship isn't an individual, so it can't have rights [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=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 human interaction that produces something new. 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.

</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  ->  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 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. this is the thing. 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 anarchist population actually is at the time all the cats have slain the boars and the dust settles.

</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. 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 population-government stomping over the top of the other and trying to extract debts or treaties. given the crude definition 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  ->  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. this isn't really a big problem to me but for some reason it does matter to anarchists.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">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 population of soldiers 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">attack everything  ->  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 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="CL" data-dimension="Z">they suspended habeas corpus??? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=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_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2" submitter="vidak" data-remark="RD on 2019 essay">There is no such thing as the dominance of capitalist ideology [https://vidak.substack.com/p/hypermaterialism-ideology-under-late]  ->  cool thought, but I am gonna have to push back on that one. ideologies exist in the form of socially-linked groups of people configuring themselves a particular way (sociophilosophies). some of these ideologies benefit the reproduction of capitalism. some ideologies are neutral, like a socially-linked group of Trotskyists scrambling to try to stoke workers' movements but maybe not figuring it out. some ideologies are particularly bad, like Existentialism-Structuralism. almost everybody believes this ideology just because it's the easiest ideology to subscribe to aside from fascism. yet when people believe Existentialism they go off in every direction competing against each other, thinking that changing their own perceptions of what's possible and Freely Willing really hard can get them whatever they want, and continuing to believe that even when it leads different demographic identities to fight over economic structures and hate each other's identity politics movements. some fraction of them and some small fraction of that with rather specific goals will become territory owners. thus Existentialism generates the bourgeoisie, and it helps them, and it's everywhere, "dominating" the country, but the bourgeoisie don't actually design Existentialism specifically to suit their own interests, they just let it keep spreading around because it helped them get where they are and the lack of good ideologies aids them. there's no need for owners to deliberately promote their own bespoke ideologies to manufacture a particular kind of society, not when people's default stupidity literally achieves the same goal. right-Liberalism goes around every so often but only a select few people believe it. at the same time, "capitalists' favorite ideology" they would much rather see than Marxism can still <i>predominate</i>, and it can still predominate in a replacing, "let's put South Korea over the top of Korea" type way, exactly to the point it is acting in the sense of "bourgeois ideology" mentioned in older Marxist texts. "bourgeois ideology" means something, and Existentialism-Structuralism is basically serving that role.

</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2" submitter="vidak" data-remark="RD on 2019 essay">Upper classes create the only visible ideology
</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="F2" submitter="vidak" data-remark="RD on 2019 essay">Upper classes create the only ideology that exists [https://vidak.substack.com/p/hypermaterialism-ideology-under-late]  ->  yeah. in these two forms the point is fine. if the claim is that a proletarian SPS cannot be generated and some models are saying there is only one society with no plurality of countable ideologies at all, that is clearly not correct. you always see a few people trying to push for everyone that isn't owners and notably people who can't work physically or are arbitrarily pushed out of society like the Stonewall "illegal gay bars being funded by the mafia" incident. the weird thing about the "class consciousness" you actually see is that it is very often anarchist and really bad at recognizing ""artists"" as owners and some other kinds of small shops. the natural class consciousness people develop without being organized is bizarrely a lot more ideological than we want to admit, in the sense of developing into a very specific philosophy rather than just an understanding that the proletariat exists.

</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 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_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Calling reality true or false is a category error / Asking "if reality exists" is nonsensical; a statement in a proof exists, reality 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 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 <s class="censor">fucking</s> 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 is inherently good.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">chaos magic [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vccBZn0spjw] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-OeKeyvIdM] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-oEH_zHsbk] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=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  ->  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 .
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="618" data-dimension="S">leviathan cross / infinity patriarchal cross
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Unpredictability is the currency of power  ->  TJ Kirk. I am not sure what ideology this is. 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 <s class="censor">bullshit</s> — Jung? the word "shapeshifter" is suspicious — but I'm not sure what it actually is.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" 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 ->  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 screen-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 try to justify it", but... can you really do that with 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 made up 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  ->  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

</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_trotsky" value="4999" data-qid="4?88" data-dimension="S">I'm not anticommunist, but...
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4999" data-dimension="S">Zinovievize / Zinovievizing / 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  ->  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_mdem" 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_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Ella Enchanted</cite>
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Systems come from experiences growing up [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ax7YPEFIO1U] / Systems of consistent behavior come from Subject formation  ->  this is a form of psychohistory. that is what this is, whether it knows it or not. it's using a roughly Lacanian model that it's all about The Subject and early development in an individual and you can reduce all of society down to that. I can't help but feel like psychohistory is terribly reductive. in a world where it is super forbidden to ask why people have identities, psychohistory would probe the whole existence of culture in a mechanical way and ask why people are German. people should know by now that populational identity is a circular thing where being it is having membership in it. a big reason anyone is in religion any more in the United States is they perform the behaviors to have a group of people to be in. the same goes doubly true for Trump fans. they're all just performing those behaviors to form a group, which falls apart and leaves them isolated as soon as they stop; worse, if they fail to perform the set of arbitrary behaviors the Democrats want they'll be thrown out of that and left wholly confused.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">forced free choice / forcing someone to freely choose something / forcing consent  ->  this + misogyny = Ella Enchanted
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">If XYZ is freedom, then rape is love / If a forced free choice is freedom, then rape is consent  ->  generic proposition that a "free" free choice is equivalent to consent and a forced free choice is not consent
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The United States conquers countries by forcing them to Freely Choose things  ->  culturocracy + ??? = this.

</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="Z">Universal declaration of human rights

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

</li><li class="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 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 that even became "allowed" or "acceptable".

</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">[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">[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">[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">[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">[F2] Human beings deserve hormone treatment  ->  sub-case of: All human beings deserve appropriate medication.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="618" data-dimension="S2">[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">[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">[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">[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">[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">[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">[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">[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" 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">[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">[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">[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">[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">[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">[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">[S2] Societal progress is relative to a population's own goals  ->  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">[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">[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">[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">[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">[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">[S2] Computation space is largely interchangeable with computation time
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">[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="S2">[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">[S2] Bamboo is a weed
</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S2">[S2] Bamboo is an invasive species
</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S2">[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_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Distrusting scientists equals stereotyping humans  ->  hate this. facts aren't accurate or inaccurate <em>because</em> people like or don't like people.

</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_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">What Would Joel Do?  ->  the motif of a videogame story railroading the player into the thing the protagonist would do, as one particular definition of "roleplaying". Joel = The Last of Us.

</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">[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="S2">[S2] Susie being herself can change the Prophecy / Ralsei believes that Susie being herself can change the Prophecy (variation)  ->  there we go! straightforward Existentialist interpretation of Deltarune. I have to be neutral on this theory "as a model" because there's nothing inherently wrong with this inside the context of fiction. I like it far better than that one early-chapters schizoanalyst interpretation that is infamous in my mind for how bad the original real-life theories are [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz2sR0OWVAk] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UKQ_9y4bdw]

</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="Z">[Z] <cite>Color, Communism, and Common Sense</cite> (Johnson ??)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">[S2] Manning Johnson orchestrated a Communist plot to divide Black churches [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzP-UurjYEE] [https://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/manning-johnson-1958-the-communist-plot-to-exploit-blacks/] / Stalin planned to use Black people as expendables (sic; referring to a proposed vanguard)  ->  it appears the main error here is taking the phrase "general conflagration" and not realizing the key word is "general". looks like the substance of the plan is that <em>if</em> there is a rebellion in the United States <em>then</em> it will occur when Black people and all the other workers join together. but in reality, the Soviet Union has made an error because since about the US Civil War its subpopulations don't really spontaneously join together like that. it's always been movements for really specific identities only that on top of that take a really really long time or sometimes go backward. so yeah, "Stalin's" theory was wrong. look at people today and weirdly, the most effective and popular issues for joining people together are negative issues against things, especially a million people against a specific individual. people are very "anarchy-brained" and seem really incapable of comprehending actually creating policies versus exactly and precisely <em>[[redlink - Capitalism ends through many rounds of "Absolutely Not"|not having something bad]]</em> that's annoying or frightening them.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">[S] Highlander school of Communist troublemaking [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzP-UurjYEE]  ->  this phrase makes me laugh. it's really the cherry on top that it has the same cadence as "Hogwarts school of wizardry". it sounds so <em>official</em>.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="Z">[Z] <cite>Laziness Does Not Exist</cite> (Pryce 2021)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">[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">"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 into the same 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.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">South Africa's Black Economic Empowerment program failed / {{TTS|tts=Bee|BEE}} has failed ({{TTS|tts=Black Economic Empowerment; South Africa|South Africa}})  ->  I am not sure if this is true or false but the arguments for it sound very fishy. [https://irr.org.za/reports/the-irrs-blueprint-for-growth/the-irr-blueprint-for-growth-2024/3-the-irrs-blueprint-for-growth-breaking-the-bee-barrier-to-growth] the people making these arguments really want to crack some walnuts. but could it be true that this program amounts to corporate welfare that hasn't done much of anything? maybe. I'd need to look at it more closely.

</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
</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 that's 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_nations" value="618" data-dimension="S2">A republic exists for upper-rank people to fight over land  ->  the claim that Mexican political parties are primarily about allegiances to specific upper-rank people who arbitrarily choose opposing parties just because they have pre-existing rivalries with each other, after which they only pretend to believe what the parties believe. [https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/169vcq6/comment/jz52mbb/] I find this one pretty believable. it matches general patterns of party affiliation in other countries. look at the United States going through a phase of making its parties about who is Protestant or Catholic, or who is the most or least similar to particular "successful" White people. this is the proper response to the claim that conservative parties "stabilize" republics — do you really want people pretending to believe things just to legitimize socially-linked cults around specific wealthy individuals fighting for pure territory and power?

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Rule and Ruin: The Downfall of Moderation and the Destruction of the Republican Party, from Eisenhower to the Tea Party</cite> (Kabaservice 2012)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="Z"><cite>How Democracies Die</cite> (Levitsky & Ziblatt 2018)

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">There are four kinds of conservative parties  ->  the reactionary; the republican; the tycoon; the cult leader. [https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/republican-party-strange-death-american-conservatism-by-j-bradford-delong-2021-10] well, that's a claim. I think these categories are not very distinct from each other. also. what makes you think you can control any particular kind of conservative subpopulation and magically make it smarter? saying the United States can choose what kind of conservative parties it will have is just an empty "I believe that everybody" statement.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Constructing Democratic Governance: Latin America and the Carribean in the 1990s — Themes and Issues</cite> (1996)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Democracy is the act of convincing upper-rank people to vote instead of merely capturing the population  ->  claim about the causes of governments labeled as authoritarian in Latin America. very interesting, but sounds dubious. raises the question of, is a democratic republic even achieving anything whatsoever or is life exactly the same with or without it? seems like a glitch in the model that we should be asking that question.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="M3">Signifier Case / signifier case  ->  the motif of presenting a concept In Capital Letters to defamiliarize it as a commonly-accepted word within the same language and offset it as a strange ontological construct which needs to be investigated, or as a specialized academic usage within some particular philosophy. this concept may be considered identical to practices like quoting terms or putting them in italics, but is not the same thing as putting a term in title case simply because it is the title of a wiki article.

</li><li class="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 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_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_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">If repression is the problem, Trotsky only needs to tell Stalin his vision of Bolshevism is terrible  ->  Rothenberg seemed to be claiming (hey now, I literally recommended the book to someone else and neither of us were able to follow all the way through it, so I'm not just lazy) that repression is causing all our problems and that's why "conversations" can supposedly solve everything. but if you apply the Trotsky model that makes no sense. historically, if all the Trotskyites were perfectly honest everyone would laugh them out of the room because of the perception they don't know anything. best case scenario you've got two totally different would-be countries that want to do things totally differently leading one to marginalize the other because people just want to get on with their lives and don't want the other group of people building and living the wrong way over the top of them. worst case scenario one of the countries is [[redlink|many tiny countries]] of bourgeoisie and it's a blatant lie. on the other hand sometimes people are blatantly racist and think they have an impossible equation to find the superior ethnicity to produce on a given plot of land. you never know if people are doing that, from a different angle, to the Trotskyites.

</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">[S] green book

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

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">[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_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">[F2] Lived Experience is indisputable  ->  false on a technicality because it can and will be disputed constantly. this is the problem. the problem is that Lived Experience is already getting disputed, but if you propose Lived Experience to solve that problem, it will perpetually be unable to prove itself using itself because the problem <em>is</em> that people can't be forced to consider it proof.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">[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">[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="S2">[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" value="618" data-dimension="S">[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_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">[S2] Prejudices are not obviously bad / It is not inherently obvious to everybody in an equal way through an equal path that prejudices are bad  ->  the claim that it is difficult to realize prejudices are bad, even if they are bad. most prejudices that center-Liberals would consider "good" are not obvious as prejudices unless you look closely, but they sure do exist.
</li><li class="field_nations" value="618" data-dimension="S2">[S2] 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_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">[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">[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">[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">[S2] Trotskyism's internal structure differs from Stalin Thought  ->  add to other proposition?

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="Z">[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_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">[S2] fiction allows people to learn about each other and make them better people  ->  not always false, but a rather Existentialist model of fiction. for a counterpoint, see "Grimey the neckbeard"
</li><li class="field_horror" value="618" data-dimension="S">[S] Grimey the neckbeard [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PseqiM06JhQ]  ->  this anecdote is very interesting sociologically because it provides such a counterpoint to the "[[redlink - Deltarune|Susie]]" narrative that coming together around fiction will allow people to learn about each other and make them better people. in this story, letting Grimey into the tabletop group actually just brought out the worst in him and revealed that he was not meant to be friends with the people he was attempting to roleplay with. it did not help make him more empathetic toward the characters or the players through exposure to them, it just shocked all the other people when they were exposed to him and made them want to get rid of him. this is such an important concept. almost every "progressivism" in the United States tries to assume this will never happen to people, especially that it will never happen unpredictably. Grimey the neckbeard + <cite>Friendship is Magic</cite> = Mud Briar

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">[S2] humans perceive random behavior as malicious / inconsiderate
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">[S2] behaving compassionately requires cultural conditioning / education of specific facts about reality
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">[S2] smashing signs turns behavior random / smashing signs leads to random behavior / poststructuralism is a terrible idea
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">[S2] many acts of marketing perform education / consumerism is inseparable from media representation
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">[S2] god belief is a Cartesian system of reasoning

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">[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">[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="S2">[S2] If Marcuseanism was true, Trotskyism would be true / If subjectivity-Marxism actually worked, nobody would have dropped out of Trotskyism  ->  it suddenly occurred to me, only in the middle of 2025, that, Marcuse's whole concept of people Subjectively choosing not to be part of capitalism? how does that make sense with the observed fact that so many people drop out of Trotskyism and go back to Liberalism? it's actually a very big thing in Trotskyism to go around trying to educate everyone on Marxism and get them to choose not to be members of capitalism any more. so if that hasn't really worked for Trotskyism, why would it work for Marcuseanism?

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="M3">[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">[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">[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">[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_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">[S2] A nation of ideas is definitionally an empire  ->  takes a bit to explain. a nation must be made of structure; the subpopulations inside a nation must be connected somehow to actually produce a combined population instead of literally producing two or more populations. a person eats and occupies space. any particular chunk of socially-connected people eats and occupies space. conflicts over the ability to eat and occupy space result in violence. The State mediates conflicts over the ability of social chunks to eat and occupy space. when Liberal-republican "democracy" is created the representatives of different chunks all contribute to creating The State, although the representatives do not equal The People. what this means practically is chunks of people compete for the right to submit the set of ideas that will rule everyone. but even if representatives were perfect reflections, The People don't really choose what sets of ideas they believe as individuals, they determine them as whole groups that already enforce group ideas on all their individuals. there is something like a tiny undemocratic "republic" inside groups of people before there is any government at all, or even any capitalists — essentially, The Spanishness Office. (the big mistake people make is less thinking it exists at all than thinking it's controllable.) as a result, the Spaniards Machine sputters along spitting out both what people are going to believe and who people's representatives will be, designing and placing people to obey it while oppressing them at the same time; there isn't even really any "manufacturing consent" step in the middle where people choose to be oppressed, the reason people support bad things is they're literally already part of them from the beginning, before they're educated, before anything. ISAs <em>are</em> the societies while The State is their apparatus. anyway. chunks of people which already contain Spaniards Machines generate representatives that represent the Spaniards Machine, the Social-Philosophical System. this leads to Social-Philosophical Systems themselves pushing each other back and forth fighting over parliament (hegemony politics), and fighting over the country. each Spaniards Machine <em>is</em> a tiny nation of ideas already, even if it may also have racist ideas that it is a superior cluster of White people, or whatever. this means when they fight each other over a republic, and inevitably play hegemony politics of "this is a rust country now", "this is a sky country now and all the rust people have to obey sky rules continuously spat out every day by the sky-colored Spaniards Machine", all they can practically achieve is creating a population-to-population hierarchy of one Spaniards Machine directly ruling the other.

</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">[S2] Not all proletarian class interests are revolutionary [https://invidious.nerdvpn.de/watch?v=oLSzgij5uuk]
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="618" data-dimension="S2">[S2] Bordigism is an SPS [https://invidious.nerdvpn.de/watch?v=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">[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">[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">[S] approval voting

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">[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_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">[S2] In any particular anticommunist fable, Liberal countries exist  ->  the generic fan theory that if a story like "1984" continued on it would be ~10 external Liberal countries that show up to destroy the anomalous civilization, just like in real life
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">[S2] In any particular anticommunist fable, other socialisms exist  ->  the generic fan theory that every anticommunist fable is technically meta-transitional literature and if it went on other kinds of civilizations with particular named ideologies would happen. appears to be the case for <cite>The Giver</cite>, where people are blatantly constructing Anarchisms.
</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">[S2] The Soviet Union exists in the <cite>Fantastic Beasts</cite> films  ->  if realistic footage of World War II exists this is technically true.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="HAS" value="618" data-dimension="Z"><cite>A Tale of Two Cities</cite>  ->  this book is about the French Revolution. I somehow did not know that until today.

</li><li class="field_horror" value="618" data-dimension="S">[S] rebuilding civilization after apocalyptic war  ->  this can be used in combinations to get Posadism, Adventure Time, one or more SCP stories, etc.
</li><li class="field_horror" value="618" data-dimension="S2">[S2] Little Einsteins are rebuilding the world in Europe's image after mutually-assured destruction  ->  amusing theory. example of how every work of fiction will get read in relationship to what the motivations of a particular thing might be if it existed in real life

</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S">[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">[S] popular-level science text
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">[S] popular-level history text
</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S">[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">[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">[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">[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">[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">[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">[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">[S2] ordinary people don't care about democracy  ->  descriptive statement.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">[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_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="M3">why do US people say "inside thoughts" in public  ->  there are multiple causes
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">privacy is the separation of individuals from society
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">private is a smaller scale than public
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">town squares are public spaces
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">social platforms are public spaces
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="M3">why are social platforms regarded like houses when they are public spaces?
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">social platforms are capitalists parcelling up the smallest scales of society
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">social platforms operate on Filamentism  ->  the very smallest competing unit is two connected people, not one. either one creator and one commenter/viewer, or a team of creators

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">pacifist route of otherwise violent narrative  ->  CUT Tree + pacifist route = Sudowoodo
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">violence route of otherwise peaceful narrative

</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_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="M3">How is it that while being perceived as shallow video games are the most likely to make people study other countries? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-5lBec9lO4]
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Brandish</cite>
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">knight of justice / archetypical high-fantasy knight / 勇者 (ゆうしゃ)  ->  it's arguable there is not a big separation between the high-fantasy knight and the unironic mountain sage. in a series like <cite>Dragon Ball</cite> or <cite>Street Fighter</cite> those two just turn into the same thing. sure, a sword character in <cite>Street Fighter</cite> would be surprising and funny, but look at <cite>Tekken</cite> where there's a bear or <cite>Pokkén</cite> [https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Pokk%C3%A9n_Tournament] where there's a metal bug, and you'd see that there aren't any hard rules on what appears in a fighting game. knight of justice + crisis = hero's journey. knight of justice + postmodernism = conflicted knight of justice.
</li><li class="field_horror" value="618" data-dimension="S">king of injustice / prince of darkness / lord of darkness / 魔王 (まおう)  ->  king of injustice + ??? = Vegeta
</li><li class="field_horror" value="618" data-dimension="S">conflicted knight of justice  ->  when a knight of justice or hero's journey type character is stuck in the middle of an unclear narrative which isn't easily solved by "fighting for good". very common and intuitive, almost the second most obvious place to go after knight of justice itself. <cite>Live a Live</cite> gives one of the most basic examples
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">knight of justice versus Mao  ->  the concept of archetypical heroes fighting to prevent Communism, with the connotation of the heroes <em>maybe</em> being fantastical or medieval. this has gotta be a trope somewhere. the only thing I can think of is like, MLP's Starlight Glimmer episode where Twilight is totally just defending a feudal order and being the Russian Empire to Starlight's Peter Kropotkin.

</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.

</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_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 out-of-touch grapnda 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_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
</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_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">If everyone wanted someone to choose them, no one would achieve anything  ->  nah. this isn't inspiring. when there's capitalism a great many people's life stories are about searching all over to get chosen by someone and how inspirational it is to hear about someone getting chosen. what is going to a university and getting hired for an exclusive "opportunity" as one of the brightest experts if it isn't being a chosen one? our fantasy books reflect our societies and class structures.<br />
edit: gosh. this is false. this is actually false, because if you duplex it, capitalists are waiting for employees to choose them and employees are waiting for capitalists to choose them. everyone is. it's more like if nobody wanted somebody to pick them out as the chosen one <em>nobody</em> would achieve anything.
</li><li class="field_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="M3">Does anti-essentialism apply to Trotskyists?  ->  subset of: Trotskyism jamming proposition.
</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_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">People created monarchies because they believe in predetermination  ->  whoa whoa whoa. this isn't simply the truth, this is an Existentialist statement. many versions of Christianity see the Christian god as a Subject that actually responds to the overall state of earth, so no, even the divine right of kings isn't equal to predetermination. it only equals doing the thing the smartest or most capable person ever to exist would do in people's opinion. you can begin to see where all the anti-science propositions come from: that anyone trying to exert control over anyone else OR trying to claim more expertise than anyone else is preaching predetermination. this is a dangerous proposition, because it's exactly what gets science defunded by reactionaries, and climate change scenarios rejected, and disabled people stuck in their houses when people wouldn't get COVID vaccines. all of that ties directly back to Existentialism and how the notions of choices and freedom are absorbed by reactionaries.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Choices are identical with character development (fiction) / Choices are identical with Subject formation (real-life psychology)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Individuals express themselves through the people around them  ->  one of the sharpest things I heard in an Existentialist video. you really have to pick this apart and look at it though. at first glance it looks like an acknowledgement of relaterminism: people don't choose everything about themselves, so finding good friends that fill in the gaps in you is important. then you look at it closer and you realize there are much worse interpretations of it. one is that our main character is determining the presence of the other characters and vice versa and they are all <em>choosing</em> to be together. that's a bit disgusting. it allows people to come together and express themselves through their connection and then be prejudiced against other groups of people because being prejudiced is their authentic self. if you think that can't be someone's authentic self at least at one particular moment in time then you have never actually met a reactionary. just like a Goth kid, they will insist that even if it's a phase bigotry is exactly who they are.
</li><li class="field_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_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">early-existentialism is the opposite of predetermination  ->  some people distinctly seem to treat (early-)existentialism as a single proposition rather than a field of philosophers. the funny thing is that everyone explains the contents of the proposition a little differently. thus making the single proposition back into a field of philosophy containing many propositions. in an act of pettiness, I'll label this statement false in the strict binary logic sense, purely because it can be demonstrated to be a category error.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">making a choice is the opposite of predetermination  ->  this one is fairer. it seems probably untrue — you've got relaterminism going on in your head retermining your actions — but is more difficult to decide as clearly true or false.

</li><li class="field_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_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Those who control the correct mathematics control the future  ->  the <em>only way</em> "nonviolence" successfully solves anything in and of itself. say we want Stalin and Trotsky to coexist nonviolently. there is going to be a correct way for this to happen, and many incorrect ways which won't result in it happening. if Stalin solves the correct method for Stalin and Trotsky to coexist as part of one structure, he holds the power. there's nothing Trotsky can say. if Stalin arranges all the Trotskyites into the correct structures and all of them are content with those structures, then whenever the two or so that aren't commit violence, all the former Trotskyites which are already coexisting nonviolently will stop them and squash their rebellion. the future is retermined. people don't choose what the future is; it's calculated from the multivariable function of people that surround each other put together. the sheer power of retermination is why Existentialism has worked the way it does and been so effective at stopping anything else from coming into being.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">the cause of Property is people seeking to control relationships

</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">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_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_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Inside a proletarian civilization, further transitions are about graph arrangements / After creating the dictatorship of the proletariat, all subsequent transitions are about structure more than class  ->  currently controversial but really shouldn't be. a proletarian society has to actually have policies to build itself. and what are those policies going to be? if everyone's the proletariat, you can't make all your policies based on who is the proletariat or who is the owners, because there aren't any owners to pick on, there are only the factors that make your workers or experts able to do their best work. now, if you're a Trotskyist and you also somehow have a brain, you could argue that all the owners are in other countries so the next step is to overcome other countries, shatter their borders, and join the people of various populations together into a single civilization. fortunately or unfortunately, the Trotskyist perspective has more or less been defeated in favor of every single ideology on the planet considering countries fundamentally separate, some arguing that they are actually separate for "cultural" reasons and others simply realizing that populations have to have autonomy for anything else to happen at finer-grained levels. the other major argument you can make is that the division between workers and experts is a problem to be solved, and if you said that you'd be right. the only issue is nobody truly knows how to solve it because it's connected to chunk competition across the spatial slot hierarchy, networkism, and Social-Philosophical Systems, and up to now nobody understands any of those. defeating Napoleon's Pigs is no easy feat.
</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. [https://youtu.be/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. 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">Destroying signs is no triumph because anyone can do it / Destroying signs means nothing because anyone can do it / Anyone can destroy a sign / 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 maintaining "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" data-tradition="ES/MDem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Terms gain meaning from relationships to other terms / Signifiers gain meaning from their relationship to other signifiers  ->  Saussure. solid hit, home run. should be part of Marxism. what people don't realize is this is because language comes from physics. physics has relationships between things first and then language has them because it is trying to model and mirror and explain physics — or whatever material process it is trying to explain. networks of objects come first, then language and perception come second. this is Hyper-Materialism.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="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 <s class="censor">shit</s> 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_exstruct" data-remark="memoir fiction" value="618" data-dimension="S">non-magical magic creatures  ->  somehow Fionna and Cake and Deltarune are like the exact same genre of thing. Fionna and Cake is exactly the Deltarune of Adventure Time
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">memoir fiction / literary fiction (fiction which is not categorized into a particular genre yet almost invariably becomes a boring slice-of-life story)  ->  the specific kind of fiction that appears uncategorized yet starts with boring accounts of individual lives. overlaps with or contains slice-of-life fiction.
</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_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">"Is", "can", and "should" are different things  ->  a three-way is-ought distinction. first is everything that is exactly as it is, second is what can and will be, the alternate normals at various levels of functional and dysfunctional, third is what you want to happen but may have no existing mechanism of happening. practically nobody these days understands the difference between the latter two. and there's a good reason: everybody tries to define Can and Should through specific ideologies that amount to specific Social-Philosophical-Material Systems. and when two people belong to different sociophilosophies they don't predict each other correctly because they each use their own. they each toss out "I believe that everybody" statements that just plain aren't happening, because they think that Should equals Can.

</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_horror" value="618" data-dimension="S">the impending horror of history  ->  important thought relating to Ironblood series concept, but seen in many existing works. "Come along with me" is a great example.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="Aa" value="618" data-dimension="S">stopping wars with psychoanalysis  ->  I do not like how this is similar to real actual psychoanalytic theories. it's like. sometimes I sit back and ask myself, am I imagining this whole Existentialist-Structuralist tradition thing? could it be that Lacanianism isn't actually the same thing as early-existentialism? and then I see this garbage. and I'm like. oh god.... Lacanianism says we cause trouble for each other because we individually have fake ideas about reality that need to be cut off. symbolic castration / discipline. schizoanalysis basically says that democulture is the mechanism that cuts off fake ideas and is the rationale for Liberal republics. postcolonial theories say everything is due to prejudices. Lacanianism is talking about prejudices too. it's saying all our fake ideas about reality and refusals to compromise are prejudices. that's what it's really doing. and I hate it. because it diminishes the reality of beliefs and philosophies as actual matters of identity and experience that people truly live their lives by, kinda treating people as mere instruments in a way, mere instruments of building an empire of people who miraculously guess the correct way to behave for people to get along, and haven't even thought it through to figure it out, who have all just been beaten into place like cattle. all the individuals or countable Cultures or ideologies are the instruments and the Liberal republic experts just own them all, like a capitalist owns a group of workers and makes them behave a certain way for their place of work to exist. if the Existentialist-Structuralist tradition <em>were true</em> then Liberalism would be a scam, and <em>it</em> would be a scam. it's a lot better for everyone in it if it's not true, because then nobody can come label them an evil conspiracy to turn countries into oligarchy. when you think about it, there's a fine line between scams and incorrect theories of society. if people don't know they can be forgiven, but if they do know they're labeled conspirators, con men, or any number of uglier names. (adventure time season 10 episode 13-16)

</li><li class="field_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_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The four elements lived in harmony until the fire nation attacked  ->  <cite>Avatar: The Last Airbender</cite>, <cite>Adventure Time</cite>, <cite>Pokémon</cite>, <cite>Wings of Fire</cite>
</li><li class="field_mdem"    value="618" data-dimension="S2">The four elements were never in harmony  ->  one of those lines from 4.3 that I really liked but didn't think was profound, until. until I realized that fantasy stories almost always use elements to argue this really medieval way of thinking that empire can be stopped with metaphysics, and kingdoms will never conquer each other if they just try really hard to Exist In Moderation. that is not a thing. the opposite of it is not a thing either. it's one of those stupid instances of making up a slider and trying to find the made-up middle.

</li><li class="field_horror" value="618" data-dimension="S2">"sit tight like a windowpane, and you'll be back to normal" (Adventure Time s9 e2)  ->  dystopian setting where there is no particular kind of oppression, everything is simply <i>off</i> and everyone acts like it's normal. this is one of the only kinds of civilizational horror stories I actually like. because it never actually brings in any kind of underlying assertion of the way things should be that you have to tease out to figure out how to interpret it, and which can take a long time to interpret properly. instead it's just like, everyone is much too cool with this and we have absolutely no idea what to do. there is a certain kind of created awe within it which by itself makes it compelling, akin to a good fae story, cosmic horror, etc. Adventure Time s9 e2, <cite>The Shuteyes</cite>
</li><li class="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">[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="S2">it's possible to have political positions without it being a team sport - no. it's not. chunk competition / CCASH and Social-Philosophical Systems / SPS prohibit that. center-Liberal rationalists are so stupid. you know what the worst thing is? this was used to justify Trotsky in the same sentence. Trotsky violently attacked a republic due to his extreme views. I mean, what else do you term an assassination? anybody who doesn't realize hegemony politics currently exists (even if it's not a good thing) and treat it as if it exists is just, hanging out feeling like they owe nothing to a population continuing to exist and it's okay to let every other individual die except maybe a couple friendly businesses they buy things from if current policies benefit their own business. when you refuse to play "team sports" whole nationalities and ethnicities of people cease to be because all the people in them scatter to different capitalist cities. only a few things are more prejudiced than that. every population is based on a molecularized yet competitive process of people building populational structures through free association that at times harm each other and exist in mutual exclusion. you can't just "criticize" these without understanding their physical interaction and the fact that some of them have to be treated as correct and some as incorrect. correct structures bring down regulations on incorrect structures. this is the basis of Liberal democracy. SPS-based democulture. if one person standing by and writing a bunch of Zinovievism could change the world just because they had "good ideas" there would be no need for elections.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">It's possible to be anticommunist without being racist / It's possible to be anticommunist without being xenophobic against Third World countries  ->  implicit statement in like, every anticommunist thing ever. no, it's not.
</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Prejudice is the most obviously-bad thing there is / Not doing prejudice is the most obvious thing there is / Prejudice is the most obvious sin / Prejudice is the ultimate sin (claim about obviousness or senselessness)  ->  I have always been confused why people think prejudice and microaggressions are the most obvious thing ever to never have done when the literal reason people do them is <em>because it's not obvious</em>. some people admit this, when they admit that prejudice is due to "ignorance". but ignorance is the lack of information about what is right and wrong, making it not obvious that it is better to not have prejudices. I think you can also go a step further and say that merely labeling something "inexcusable" is in practice the same as labeling it "obvious".
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">adventure vs daily life - in AT, weirdly. s8 e27

</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_horror" value="618" data-dimension="S2">"It's your responsibility to help these misguided Hiders" (Adventure Time season 8 episode 24 "Hide and Seek")  ->  in just 11 minutes, this episode has so many accidental things to say about dystopian literature and anticommunist fables. one, anomalous societies are bad because they don't allow arbitrary individuals to split off and form another Culture. there is a notion created here of Culture-monopoly. two, some anomalous societies are formed as a matter of group cohesion to make sure everyone survives. this.... is one of the most accurate things a dystopian narrative has ever said, because it's the only anticommunist accusation that's actually just a true fact said in the wrong tone. yes, it is true that North Korea, early China, the Soviet Union, and kinda most workers' states really, formed to make sure people survived, and captured people into party-nations for that purpose. that's actually true. you usually have to read a bunch of Marxist texts to find that out, because most accounts of Third World countries are so <em>stupid</em> they don't even mention that. three. there is such a strange notion in fiction of populational creationism where populations really are made out of culture and they just culture culture culture every day to produce people, rather than people producing culture. thus, the anomalous society made out of one big blob of culture with a bunch of people skewered on top has to capture people back into culture. it's like a parasite, it's gotta get its hosts back. which leads to.... four. if culture shouldn't be capturing people, then Rhizome has inherent potential for oppression. you can't tell me Rhizome is a model of movements and it models this special movement thing people do for a moment and then stop doing. people are physical things and if Rhizome is actually going to change their minds then there's a form of Rhizome when it's expanding and flipping people over and another resting form when it's done. that resting form is the Social-Philosophical System, the loosely-linked network of people that in their daily lives all support anti-racism or whatever the movement is. that's what has to form for people to actually go vote and get other people to vote. but according to this Adventure Time episode resting Rhizome is bad, because all humans have times where they want to break out of an SPS even if its ideas are correct. this episode seems to think that all populations are Cultures and all populations can be bad anomalous Cultures from somebody's point of view leading them to break out of the population and call it dystopian. we'd better think about that kind of thing when we're trying to ask what creates Tories.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="M3">"In what way isn't a crab a robot? ... I don't understand why BMO's not a crab"  ->  finally, we get to the real meat of a philosophy encyclopedia: the totally useless questions that still might somehow teach you something. (Adventure Time season 8 episode 22)

</li><li class="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" 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</em>. 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 <cite>Petscop</cite>. 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_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Empathy is an act of science  ->  empathy is an act of deliberately understanding something from the outside in when it was not previously understood because that knowledge was not had. in contrast to the notion that empathy is this, like, faster-than-light telepathic process where people instantly know the inaccessible facts of another person's existence just because they are both The Subject, and you're practically not allowed to ask any questions about how people are the way they are because it would undermine the power of the fact They Just Are and have the power to out-exist you out of reality if you make them mad

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-remark="chunk competition" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Whenever somebody belongs to a marginalized or imperialized group their current position compounds on any effort to get out of it / Frantz Fanon conjecture  ->  this guy has been used to argue "prejudices" and the notion that colonialism is in our heads, but if you look at what he's actually describing it would seem it's true. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpRGOAXSMj8] I think it isn't too hard to formalize this into a mathematical theory of Populationism or Everybodyism

</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">built on the ashes of fae bones  ->  Wings of Fire Pantala arc; SCP-001 The Queen's Gambit; "pignite" tale. I have a lot of scattered thoughts about this but it isn't productive to put them here. I have dumped them on the "4.4/sundew" entry.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">(put bootleg names on db characters)
</li><li class="field_horror" value="618" data-dimension="S">D-class benjamin whatsisname [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKPFr4ka3Pk]: runs narratively parallel to - Kris Dreemur - reason - possessed by player in occult ritual
</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_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="Z">SCP-8000 - example of: careerism in fiction; references the 001 proposal with the mallet guy. features signifier: Ghost of Individualities Future
</li><li class="field_horror" value="618" data-dimension="S">physically slaying one's inner child  ->  Giggleland ep 2, Fatum Betula. I think there's something to be said about the vague analogy between cartoon furries slaying their inner child in Giggleland and the myth of the lion turning against the lamb in Pitch haven / other works like Kimba, Beastars, and Zootopia

</li><li 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><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Beyond Good and Evil</cite> (Nietzsche 1886/1913)

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="Aa" value="618" data-dimension="Z"><cite>The Capitalist Unconscious</cite> (Tomšič 2015) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4OMoXWtVT8]  ->  part of a certain localized underground effort to attempt to explain away all Marxism and Liberalism through molecularized or atomized Lacanianism. I cannot stand this <s class="censor">bullcrap</s>. I have so much other stuff to read that's actually good in some way and you throw this <s class="censor">shit</s> at me. <s>deliberate Existentialism gets more swearwords out of me than almost anything because there are almost no words in human language for how stupid this is, there is basically nothing else to say.</s> anyway. this is not really a conspiracy or anything, it's just a very very stupid trend that has been slowly hatching itself as everything in First World countries resembling Marxism has squashed and degraded into these bizarre attempts to construe everything through themes of "free will" and "prejudice". like, when I say everything I mean <em>everything</em>. I don't mean people saying "racism is more prominent than capitalist abuse". I mean "resistance to questioning capitalism is literally a prejudice", "resistance to Menshevism is literally a prejudice against empathy for the poor", and Lacanians in particular trying to conceptualize every case of somebody not taking an action and not supporting a progressive movement as a prejudice, like every single thing wrong in the world ever is a prejudice. I cannot stand this. things have to be physical at some point. there has to be some physical object we are or process we are doing that we aren't conscious of the workings of, and some other process whose workings we could replicate instead, or else we'll never become conscious we're doing things wrong. if every wrong thing in the world is a prejudice including capitalism and imperialism, then none of us have human rights just because we're The Subject, because anything about our existence and identity and expression could contain prejudices that have to be smashed away, and thus existence doesn't equal freedom, existence equals inherent un-freedom and mutual exclusion between some identities and localized "cultures". Lacanians can't even agree with themselves, because some of them seem to believe in intersubjectivity / the Shenlong effect and some of them believe Subjects are uncontrollable, which would mean that calling things prejudices or using psychoanalysis on them is useless because the separation or joining between people or groups controls everything and history is all about populational structure. which ironically is almost getting back to historical materialism. so, I've come to halfway like the uncontrollable Subject model because if you're not a Lacanian it does seem fixable.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Profit is basically Muten Rōshi  ->  I gotta admit I don't fully understand Lacanianism, thanks to all the absolute spaghetti every book or talk on it hits you with and makes you decode, but what <em>is this</em>. they make such strange models of things. we're beginning with symbolic castration or Lacanian discipline, where people in incomplete stages of growth form incorrect ideas about being an adult / Father and when people interact with others the incorrect ideas have to be cut off. also known as "desire", also known as "a". then we are throwing in <i>jouissance</i> or climax. the point of that is that to cross people's boundaries you have to do it the right way, and if people try to get there without going the right way, without seeking to know and understand the workings of the person, they get in trouble, and people forcefully teach them the rules of engagement with either that person or society. many kinds of addictions can be taken as crossing boundaries in a different sense, trying to skip to satisfaction without going through the material route that actually produces it. but the Lacanians say that profit is some kind of improper crossing of boundaries or something. whose boundaries? the boundaries of perfectly-shaped "degrowth" growth? the worker's boundaries? the figurative boundary between doing "real" things that are satisfying and becoming obsessed with profit?

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Addiction results when we misplace the journey and skip to the end / Addiction results when we skip over discovering the correct path through something and skip to the end  ->  this is probably what the speedrunning guy actually meant. but it was still a really stupid way to apply it. the speedrunning guy seems to believe that only chunk competition and slaughtering other groups of people is the natural way of life that can make us happy, and walking away from that imperative makes us addicted. this is why I don't like Freudian models. because whatever theory of society you have in terms of a Social-Philosophical Bauplan, you're likely to believe your ideology is the only correct way and having any other heretical ideology results in maladaptive escapism or addiction. even Communists fall into this fallacy and don't realize they need to think harder than this. if Trotsky can go around saying Stalin is ignoring the truth just because Stalin's government made his people unhappy, we need to think harder about how anybody actually looks outside any particular Marxism and actually discovers what's true.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Historical materialism is the opposite of addiction / If addiction results from skipping over boundaries to get to the end, then historical materialism is the opposite of addiction  ->  the perfect corollary to "surplus jouissance" that no Lacanian would ever think of. if we make ourselves unhappy by convincing ourselves it's easy to be happy by skipping to the reward and not considering the proper way to get there... is it not also true that the proper way to get anywhere is dictated by physics and the repeated behaviors of the world, and we can only do things the correct way by understanding the way the world works? if we don't understand how the world really works, then <em>we'll never actually know</em> the correct way to get through boundaries or go through a journey and not merely skip to the end. if we never actually learn the correct way, then getting stuck in addicting patterns or escapism isn't actually anyone's fault, it's just the inevitable outcome. we can't exert our will to do something we don't even know. yet Existentialism also wants to tell us the road ahead is impossible to know. if that's true most of us are slated to be addicts. the great majority of all the content on social platforms about "how society keeps us lazy or distracted" is totally and utterly wrong.


</li></ol>

<!-- == 100 ==
-->{{User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/100}}

<!-- == 900 ==
-->{{User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/900}}

<!-- == 3000 ==
-->{{User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/3000}}

<!-- == 4000 ==
-->{{User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/4000}}

<!-- == 5000 ==
-->{{User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/5000}}

<!-- == 6000 ==
-->{{User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/6000}}

<!-- == 8777 ==
-->{{User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/9000}}

<!-- == 10200 ==
-->{{User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/12000}}

== MDem SSR: 19000 - 20000 ==

An area for managing MDem draft entries. This is now being managed on its [[:Category:MDem SSR|Category page]].

<ol class="hue clean">
<li class="field_mdem" value="19000" data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q19000|<cite>Molecular Democracy</cite>]]
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="19521" data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q19521|5021 fountains]] / [[Philosophical Research:MDem/4.3r/5021 fountains|entry]]
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="19999">(... [[:Category:MDem SSR|MDem SSR entries]])
</li></ol>

== Property ==

These can now be found at [[Philosophical Research:Properties/Numeric]].

== Example item ==

'''S9003'''<br />
Saiyan empire

{| class="wikitable"
    ! characteristic !! value
    |-
    | appears in work || <cite>Dragon Ball</cite>
    |-
    | refers to or visualizes model || planetary nation
    |-
    | || imperialism (Marxism-Leninism)
    |-
    | adapted from signifier || monkey kingdom (Journey to the West)
    |-
    | derived from model, phenomenon, or event || Imperial Japan
    |-
    | incidentally resembles model, phenomenon, or event || United States
    |}

== First version ==

Although I tried not to change the formatting of this page much, it has gone through a few formatting versions.

* Late into the creation of this page, the text got too long to properly submit through the form. The pre-division version is [[Special:PermanentLink/6785|here]].

== Lexeme ==

Lexemes tie together unique sets of inflections or conjugations, and sets of definitions. See [[User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/inflections|here]] for a chart of inflected forms for each of these terms<br />
In practice, many of these will end up comically resembling some sort of "Devil's dictionary" with shocking contrasts between everyday usages and specific usages.

=== 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_exstruct" value="34" data-dimension="L">idealism / Idealism
</li><li class="field_ML"   value="35" data-dimension="L">materialism / Materialism
</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_ML"   value="39" data-dimension="L">historical materialism
</li><li class="field_ML"   value="40" data-dimension="L">dialectical materialism
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="41" data-dimension="L">existential materialism / exmat
</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="124" data-dimension="L">creator
</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
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="127" data-dimension="L">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="140" data-dimension="L">anarchism / Anarchism
</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="160" data-dimension="L">microaggression
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="161" data-dimension="L">microinvalidation  ->  when these are real terms people use, you can see where exactly I got started on eventually creating new monstrosities like "demosuccession", "Everybodyism", and "PeopleWhoMadePeopleRunAwayism". the bright side is that I think that silly words are just as useful as words that aren't silly; my models have room for microaggressions if they have room for Everybodyism
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="162" data-dimension="L">microinsult
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="163" data-dimension="L">microassault
</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.

</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

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="180" data-dimension="L">system / systemic / structural  ->  almost every time I read a work by "The US Left" I have no idea what this is actually supposed to refer to. it sounds like it makes sense at first, and you think you understand it, but <em>what really is a system</em>? could anybody explain it materially in terms of what parts or ongoing processes distinguish a "system" of oppression from something that is not a system?
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="181" data-dimension="L">monosexism  ->  the counterpart to biphobia. I do prefer these to the individual-action terms on the level that they are attempting to describe the actions of groups of people, although I honestly really doubt that the actions of groups of people can be neatly described as ideas versus literal material objects. my beef with "colonialism" is that colonialism is not an idea, an oppressive colony is a material object
</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="190" data-dimension="L">speciation
</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_geo" value="242" data-dimension="L">nature / natural

</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="301" data-dimension="L">existentialism / early existentialism
</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="370" data-dimension="L">alchemy
</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 value="666" ... data-dimension="L">Satan / Satanism / Lucifer ... -->

</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="500" data-dimension="L">tag  ->  common definition; HTML tag; xml tag; mediawiki pseudo HTML tag; mediawiki edit label; etc
</li><li class="field_geo" value="599" data-dimension="L">(... [[:Category:HTML tags ontology|HTML tags]])

</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 class="number_empty" value="663" data-dimension="L">??
</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="777" data-dimension="L">signifier mad libs  ->  when an audience fails to ask what a fiction or non-fiction work is actually trying to communicate and begins carelessly filling in all the nouns, verbs, and adjectives with their own meanings
</li><li class="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="1088" class="field_nations" data-dimension="L">88 as Nazi symbolism / 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="1350" class="field_nations" data-dimension="L">1350 as racist conspiracy theory / 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>

=== L2000 - L2200 "nimi toki pona" ===

The first two hundred or so Lexemes past L2000 are set aside for [[Ontology:Lexemes 2000 to 3000|the full set of toki pona words in common use]].<br />
There is no particular plan to include toki ma, but if there is ever a day somebody is entering Item labels in toki ma there could be a range set aside for it then.

<ol start="2001" class="hue clean">
</li><li value="2003" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="L"><span lang="tok" aria-label="pona">[[Ontology:L2003|👍 / pona]]</span>
</li><li value="2004" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="L"><span lang="tok" aria-label="ale">[[Ontology:L2004|♾️ / ale]]</span>
</li><li value="2100" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="L">(... "nimi")
</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:MDem SSR]] [[Category:Text pages containing proposed Items]]