Editing User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/3000

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

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

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

</li><li class="field_internal" value="3020" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q3020|Z0 Concept]] / physical structure Item / natural structure Item / real-world physics model
</li><li class="field_internal" value="3021" data-dimension="S0">Z Item / Z1 Item / basic Item / elementary Item / non-fictional model / material thing / widely-attested thing / work to be analyzed / field of works to be analyzed / real-world unique group of people / real-world unique organization / real-world event / real-world civilization
</li><li class="field_internal" value="3022" data-dimension="S0">Z2 Statement / Z2 Item / basic Item stating claim about elementary basic Items which appears to be substantiated / physics model / physics theory / physical equation
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3023" data-dimension="S0">"Z3 Item"  ->  use for some kind of Item. for now Z3 Items do not exist.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3024" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3025" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3026" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3027" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3028" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3029" data-dimension="S0">??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3042" data-dimension="S">undialectical idealism, historical existentialism, & class non-analysis / undialectical idealism, historical non-materialism, and class non-analysis  ->  there is this particular constellation of things opposite to Marxism that you often see put deliberately and directly together. this motif is not a strict science, there may be a varying number of things in it, but the key part of it is that the author takes all the anti-Marxisms and deliberately connects them almost as if they inherently went together.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3043" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3044" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3045" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3046" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3047" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3048" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3049" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3050" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3051" data-dimension="S">??

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

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

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

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3065" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3066" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3067" data-dimension="S">??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3104">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3105">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3106">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3107">??

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

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

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

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3120">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3125">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3130">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3135">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3140">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3145">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3150">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3155">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3160">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3165">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3169">??

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

</li><li class="number_empty"  value="3173">??
</li><li class="number_empty"  value="3174">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3175" data-dimension="S">why didn't they just build bigger towns / town more than big enough for the two of us  ->  the fictional motif of some assortment of people in a pre-industrial historical period deciding that a space actually can be shared instead of having a shootout over it. appears in: <cite>Undertale</cite>, that one really controversial MLP episode with the bison where people took it as sheer historical revisionism largely because the Zecora episode was so bad. so yeah, this motif isn't always a good thing. I find it weird that non-Marxists would get upset about historical accuracy when the anarchist position of making everything utopian is actually more logically coherent, but it's very interesting to study how people come to that conclusion.
</li><li class="field_horror"  value="3176" data-dimension="S">town ain't big enough for the two of us  ->  the fictional motif of cowboys and outlaws or some other assortment of people in a pre-industrial historical period deciding a space cannot be shared and having some kind of shootout over it. note that this can exist in other settings than Westerns — FNaF infamously had a movie sequence modeled after Kurosawa movies which was this.
</li><li class="number_empty"  value="3177">??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3250" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li>[S] seasons as impending doom / winter is coming  ->  see: Animal Farm
</li><li class="entry_80X4">[S] seasons as warring states / seasons as kingdoms

</li><li class="number_empty">??
</li><li>[S] chunk competition / all-directional contradiction between individuals / chunk competition across the spatial slot hierarchy
</li><li>[S] spatial slot hierarchy
</li><li>[S] Filament / tiny local subpopulation / nameless tiny subpopulation
</li><li>[S] Filamentism
</li><li>[S] networkism
</li><li>[S] Blobonomics
</li><li>[S] Meshonomics
</li><li>[S] Market Society
</li><li>[S] behavior-control device / behavior-control machine  ->  business territory, Blobonomics
</li><li>[S] Blobonomist / society predictor
</li><li>[S] Everybodyism / nameless prejudice against all other individuals
</li><li>[S] Populationism / nameless prejudice against all other populations
</li><li class="number_empty">??

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

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

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3280" data-dimension="S0">(Communist leader) ruined my life / implied statement that specific Communist leader ruined individual's life / explicit or implied statement that miscellaneous ruler who is not clearly distinguished from Communist leaders within the framings of the text ruined individual's life
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3281" data-dimension="S">Lenin ruined my life
</li><li class="field_trotsky"  value="3282" data-dimension="S">Stalin ruined my life  ->  three kinds of people say this. Existentialist-Structuralist tradition members; Trotskyists; anarchists.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3283" data-dimension="S">Mao ruined my life
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3284" data-dimension="S">anticommunist memoir  ->  like an anticommunist fable, but historically realistic. despite the name of this entry, may be either a real anecdote or a fictional story that resembles one
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3285" data-dimension="S">Che Guevara ruined my life  ->  relatively rare versus the others, although there's no particular reason you'd expect it to be. "Mao —" is one of the most common for some reason.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3286" data-dimension="S">Ho Chi Minh ruined my life
</li><li class="field_ML"       value="3287" data-dimension="S">Trotsky ruined my life  ->  you practically never ever see this in anticommunist memoirs one can typically find in the United States. but anyone from the Third World or whose parents are is statistically a tiny bit more likely to say this than anyone born to First-World parents.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3288" data-dimension="S">Nazis ruined my life  ->  the motif of a story centering around horrible things Nazi Germany did in order to convince readers that Nazis are bad because <i>I the narrator am a human individual and nazis ruined my life</i>. not to say there is no value in these stories whatsoever, but the more I look at other books on different topics with this same form being used to push untrue conclusions, the more I feel like the specific way these are put to use to "educate" people is vaguely disingenuous.
</li><li class="field_nations"  value="3289" data-dimension="S">Gramsci ruined my life  ->  most likely to be said by Tories who, odds are, also incorrectly believe psychoanalysts and schizoanalysts are indistinguishable from Marcuse and Gramsci.
</li><li class="field_nations"  value="3290" data-dimension="S">Marcuse ruined my life  ->  here we go, the one I've more often seen.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3291" data-dimension="S2">Anticommunist memoirs are educational  ->  by age 30, I honestly doubt this is even true.
</li><li class="field_ML"       value="3292" data-dimension="S2">Communist texts are educational / Communist texts educate people about history and other countries  ->  I think reading texts about what Lenin and Mao were actually doing has taught me way more about anything than a book like <cite>The Giver</cite> ever did
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3293" data-dimension="S2">Anticommunist fables are educational
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3294">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3295">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3296">??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3315">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3316">??
</li><li class="field_ML" value="3317" data-dimension="S">culturally-defined Communist / cultural Communist (by analogy to "cultural Christian", etc) / subjectivity-defined Communist (Marcuse)  ->  this is one step up from "Soviet-Union otaku" — somebody who is actually a low- to medium-tier Marxist theorist or active movement member but was never really tied to the process of forming a national movement specifically by the need to work, unionize, or protest. in my opinion these should be treated like miracles that never should have happened and yet dropped down like gifts, when they are usually treated with a lot of disdain and almost discouraged from trying to help, like it would be better if they were reactionaries than if they tried to ally themselves with workers. of course, if any of them say totally wrong things you don't have to put up with that.
</li><li class="field_ML" value="3318" data-dimension="S">Bolshevik identity politics  ->  the motif of people hypothetically having identity politics movements for the identity of being Communists. basically every time I bring this up it's as a joke, but sometimes I use it to probe whether identity politics movements are truly effective and if real identity politics movements might run into exactly the same problems.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3319" data-dimension="S2">If Communist-ally is not an identity, East Germany wouldn't have existed / If Communist-ally is not an identity, there would be no North Korea  ->  the claim that creating East Germany required the formation of an East-German identity, in the strict mathematical sense of membership in a socially-linked graph of people calling themselves East Germans. no concept of "East-German culture", "East-German traditions", or "East-German ethnic history narratives" is required for this definition; this is strictly conceptualizing the notion of groups of people or identities as raw divisions of people into groups who are connected because they agree to be connected. with that established, the claim is that East Germany formed because a particular subpopulation of workers formed connected to a particular body of theorists and non-proletarian Communist allies, and it was the agreement of all these people to form a group separate from the rest of the country if the people of West Germany did not meet the conditions to be a proletarian ally that allowed it to act as a capable subpopulation that was able to assemble a new country after the Soviet Union (which could also be considered in the category of "Communist allies") removed itself from East Germany. this is the claim that solidarity throughout the capable subpopulation in the sense of firm dedication to not dissolving it is ultimately a more important thing than the proletariat itself even as the capable subpopulation will only develop if the proletariat has a very prominent role in it. you can now see why East Germany not being a win for Trotskyists would be so confusing. a small number of mainstream Marxist-Leninist allies being able to create East Germany should logically entail that a bunch of Trotskyists wanting to wall themselves off from Stalin should be able to do the same thing starting from a relatively tiny number of people. East Germany should actually have showed that Trotskyism is more feasible than people thought because it shows that every country in Europe could go Trotskyist if the requirement is they turn over independently of each other without Stalin's help. the fact Trotskyists did not see things this way is very telling.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-remark="individuality obsession" value="3340" data-dimension="S2" data-submitter="Valenoern">If two works are similar, one is the other's bootleg
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3341" data-dimension="S2" data-submitter="Valenoern">Digimon is a bootleg of Pokémon  ->  not true on several levels, at least on the surface. but the more you look into it, the more complicated it gets. can something be "a copy" just because people believe it to be undeserving of a greater rank? if so, this becomes much harder to evaluate. is Steven Universe the real Dragon Ball? if so, it's harder to say Pokémon isn't the real Digimon or vice versa.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3342" data-dimension="S2" data-submitter="Valenoern">Pokémon is a bootleg of Digimon  ->  you practically never see this, but it would probably be fun to argue. Pokémon evolutions?? how do those make any sense. Tamagotchi and Digimon put real thought into this stuff, but you're telling me a garbage bag becomes a bigger garbage bag just because?
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3343" data-dimension="S2" data-submitter="Valenoern">Pokémon is a bootleg of Ultraman ->  one of the statements that's truer that Pokémon being copied into Digimon. the show follows the same basic kaiju-of-the-week structure. Pokémon trainers are analogous to Ultraseven, using monster capsules. Ultra Series has the Plasma Spark and the Spacium ray, Necrozma is the sun-powers monster. every show has a new gimmick device. there's a pretty good argument that Pokémon is a copy of Ultra Series if you literally mean a bunch of things about it being copied. the only problem is that isn't what people actually mean.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3344" data-dimension="S2" data-submitter="Valenoern">Telefang is a bootleg of Pokémon  ->  false impression people got from Waixing making a bootleg of Telefang. somewhat ironic that people thought Telefang was a bootleg of Pokémon because Waixing <em>turned Pokémon into a bootleg of Telefang</em>.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3345" data-dimension="S2" data-submitter="Valenoern">Pokémon fan games are bootlegs / Pokémon fangames are identical with bootlegs  ->  what corporations tend to believe, or imply that they believe.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3346" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3347" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3348" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3349" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3350" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3351" data-dimension="S2" data-submitter="Valenoern">China having products is stealing / Third World countries making the same product as First World countries is stealing / Third World countries independently replicating products existing in the First World using resources in their own country is stealing  ->  this claim only gets worse and worse as a claim the more you spell it out.
</li><li class="field_ML" value="3352" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q3352|Communism, the trash I love anyway]]

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3353" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3354" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3355" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3356" data-dimension="S">??

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

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

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

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3364" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3365" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3366" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3367" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3368" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3369" data-dimension="S">??

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

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

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3373" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3374" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3375" data-dimension="S">??

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

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3377" data-dimension="S">??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3392" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3393" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3394" data-dimension="S">game show challenge / challenge on a game show which is not serialized across multiple episodes / challenge on a game show which is usually not sports
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3395" data-dimension="S">reality show challenge / game show challenge of an action or serialized-story-arc variety / game show challenge involving significant non-cooperation or drama  ->  funny enough, came up in the MDem revision about afterlives, because it's always funny to imagine the afterlife being a game show. or a reality show. it's kind of hard to distinguish between reality shows and game shows when talking about challenges that only take place in a single episode. my best guess is that reality show challenges are more intense
</li><li class="field_horror" data-remark="game show" value="3396" data-dimension="S">voted off the island  ->  very interesting because it gives you a different perspective on the concept of "voting"
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-remark="game show" value="3397" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Survivor</cite>

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

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3400" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3410" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3420" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3430" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3440" data-dimension="S">??

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

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3450" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3455" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3460" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3465" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3470" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3475" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3476" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3479" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_nations" value="3480" data-dimension="Z"><cite>The Peter Principle</cite>
</li><li class="field_nations" value="3481" data-dimension="S2">Greed is bad, therefore everyone getting more and more education and aiming for higher and higher positions is bad  ->  major proposition of {{book|The Peter Principle}}. this is the dark side of everyone claiming that the constant push to innovate and innovate and "innovate" is a product of greed. when ordinary people hear that, they'll just tell you that every single case of incompetence or incorrect behavior was a case of arrogant people being greedy when they shouldn't have been there and everyone would be better off if they'd kept their heads down and done nothing.<br />
I'll repeat it again and again: growth is a product of population growth and the desire for an overall population to have more. the process of Kimberlé Crenshaw doing a whole lot of research to build a progressive theory and the process of somebody pouring education and research into creating an AI are the same process. if you label that process "greed", the results will not be pretty. it takes a lot of [[E:dragon process|"greed"]] to practically elevate people out of literally having been slaves.
</li><li class="field_nations" value="3482" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_nations" value="3483" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_ML"      value="3484" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_nations" value="3485" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_nations" value="3486" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_nations" value="3487" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_nations" value="3488" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_nations" value="3489" data-dimension="S">??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3499" data-dimension="F2">All events that occur while a particular person exists occur within that person / All events that occur while a particular person exists are part of "life"  ->  a very subtle fallacy that most people alive today miss. if an event occurs "in your life" which is "out of your control", is it even meaningfully part of "life"? does this category of "life" actually even help in making sense of daily events?

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

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

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

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3505" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3500" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3510" data-dimension="S">the perfect law that gives freedom / people who don't create peace aren't Christians (motif)  ->  James 1:25. this is the kind of thing that makes me think that in its crudest forms Existentialism has been around for hundreds and hundreds of years before being renewed into Existentialism-Structuralism proper in the 1900s. the core of Existentialism is that it promises a way of <em>creating empire</em> without kings or nobility, simply by linking people together into one big group of friends that is ready to fight anyone outside it at the drop of a hat. I think this may be the crux of why Christianity adapted so well to Liberal-republicanism and became such a tool for bashing Bolshevism as well as genuinely oppressive republics. the values of Christianity happened to coincide with the physical structure of several Liberal republics banded together into an axis of First-World powers.
</li><li class="field_ML" value="3511" data-dimension="S2">Christianity would be the same if there was no afterlife  ->  mirror to Q35,03. the claim that most of Christianity could still continue on exactly as it was claiming to have benefits even if there was no god or afterlife.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3512" data-dimension="S2">Anarchism is just secular Christianity  ->  this is a funny statement but it's not really much of an insult at anarchists as much as a dry statement that <em>as secular theories of society</em> Christianity and anarchism run on the same principles. depending on the specific sect or variation, both of them are a bunch of statements that "[[E:IBE|people should]]" behave a certain way and join together with each other and that will fix everything. and both of them run into the problem that people always belong to countable populations instead of ever being a single uncountable humanity that behaves as a single rational "we" rather than separate material groups of people with separate conflicting values fighting over material space and stuff.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3520" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3530" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3540" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3550" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3560" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3570" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3580" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3585" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3586" data-dimension="S">??

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

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

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

</li><li class="field_mdem"  value="3592" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty"  value="3593" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty"  value="3594" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty"  value="3595" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty"  value="3596" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty"  value="3597" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty"  value="3598" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_gramsci" value="3599" data-dimension="S2">{{book|Warriors}} is programming Russians to be reactionaries / <cite>Warriors</cite> is programming Russian children to be reactionaries  ->  derived Gramscian proposition. everybody says "well the books have to be censored to sell to Russia", but nobody thinks about the implications of what effect "selling books to Russia" has on Russia.<br />
I think this is way funnier if you leave off "children" and just let it weirdly imply that adults believe whatever they read in a kids' book. the point of it isn't that children must be protected from bad literature anyway, it's that the upper crust of two countries getting together to determine what <em>both countries</em> will be reading is gross. although disappointing, it'd be far less disgusting to know that reactionary-sounding literature was being written by Russians than to know it came from the United States and people are making excuses for it because supposedly the retailers of Russia are the whole Free Will of Russia. if the bourgeoisie currently have so much power to determine what books the United States sells to Russia then why don't they get together to make Russia buy good books rather than censoring them? why doesn't anyone ever ask that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3614" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3615" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3616" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_ML"     value="3617" data-dimension="S">bedtime bible stories except with Lenin / easy-to-follow bible retellings, only with Lenin  ->  I'd love that to be a book so bad. just imagine this by no means being mandatory yet being a thing you could read. but not knowing who would write such a thing I might have to settle for writing a single B-side chapter to demonstrate the concept
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3618" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_ML"     value="3619" data-dimension="S">founder of darkness / pioneer or colonist of darkness / ancestor of darkness (artisan or expert type antagonist; wizard; creator of ancient science-fiction technology) / capitalist of darkness  ->  the capitalist counterpart to "[[E:king of darkness|king of darkness]]". to fit this motif the villain must be somebody who could plausibly be considered an indispensable part of a town or city once and that might even have been treated as an "ordinary", "understandable" protagonist once but that by now people are now afraid of. it has to be vaguely like, in book one Firestar is good and relatable, in book nine Firestar is talked about as the enemy of the new generation. in book one Harry Potter or Clay and Glory and Starflight are the nice likeable heroes, in book ten they're the enemies of the new generation who are appalled they made the decisions they did. in show one Spike and Rarity and Rarity's boyfriend are everyone's friends. in show two everyone is suffering because of the decisions they made and mad at them. although the early "book one" part of this large-scale generational arc doesn't literally have to be the main narrative, it can just be backstory that is suggested or described at some point. (these examples are also just analogies for what the trope looks like, not suggestions for how these narratives "should" have gone.) the theme of generational antagonisms is likely to come up though not strictly necessary — it's one of the simplest ways to portray the concept of somebody owning part of society and taking up decision-making power and making bad decisions without an author having to truly understand class analysis to have thought of it.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3620" data-dimension="S">just war  ->  the motif that a particular war is believed to be necessary or morally right. found in both Toryism and center-Liberalism. arguably also found in a totally different form in anarchism, Trotskyism, and mainstream Marxism-Leninism, in the sense of either secret operations or defensive wars. in one way or another almost everybody believes in just wars, but ideologies determine when that metaphysical category is applied.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3621" data-dimension="S2">If just wars exist, it's possible Che Guevara fought one / If there are just wars, it's possible Che Guevara was fighting one / If there's such a thing as a just war, then it's possible Che Guevara was fighting one  ->  my thought today when I remembered what I think was either PragerU or Fox News complaining that 'kids these days don't understand that there's any such thing as a just war'. I think it was PragerU. this is the comeback you hit them with. ok, so there's such a thing as a just war. what is the definition of a just war? do you really want to open that can of worms? if you simply decide to believe there is no such thing as a just war then you don't have to accept Che Guevara's war, but you also lose the ability to defend the Trotskyite conspiracy tearing apart Stalin's government to create its own. so choose wisely.
</li><li class="field_ML" value="3622" data-dimension="S2">A war to defend the proletariat is a just war  ->  the full-stop version. there are definitely texts containing this one.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3623" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="3624" data-dimension="F2">A war to clear away obstacles to Trotskyism is a just war / A violent action against a workers' state to clear the stage for realizing Trotskyism is justified  ->  it's fairly hard to successfully argue this one, mostly on account of how it destroys the best or only possible <em>allies to Trotskyism</em>.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3625" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3626" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3627" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3628" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3629" data-dimension="S">??

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

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

</li><li class="field_ML" value="3633" data-dimension="S2">North Korea does not have the colonizer attitude  ->  I think it's pretty easy to argue this. North Korea doesn't want to conquer anybody. all it does is defend itself. the same thing about halfway goes for China, although that half of the time is only when considered from the perspective of Maoism or Deng Xiaoping Thought. so why is there so much resistance to noticing this and thinking about it? why isn't North Korea the hero of Western Marxism and postcolonial theories? how is it they can go on and on about culture and attitudes and how supposedly we have to change every scrap of culture and attitude before we get anything but center-Liberalism, yet they don't think of this? I have my suspicions that people might secretly believe that North Korea <em>does</em> have The Colonizer Attitude somehow. it's the particular way nearly every single Existentialist talks about "generalized dictators" as if that means something. in the real world it generally seems that [[E:No dictator is an island|groups of people form, then leaders appear]], "dictatorial" or not. but Existentialists have this very conspiratorial way of thinking where they seem to think "generalized dictators" show up and then create the groups of people.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3634" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_nations" value="3635" data-remark="Hydreigon" data-dimension="S">criterion which declares people of lesser worth / criterion which declares people "not equals"  ->  this motif is meant to be the center-Liberal definition of prejudice. which, to be honest, the mechanics of this definition have never made any sense to me. how do you keep people from inevitably judging each other if you believe that making everyone the same class is a fool's errand? you must believe some people are better than others if you don't believe people can all coexist without any individual being the official occupant of a societal activity that gets to subjectively define who else links to that activity. and if so, in what way are people meaningfully "equals"? look at affirmative action: it achieves the wrong thing. it assumes that "hatred" is what's keeping people out of top positions rather than it actually being [[redlink - Frantz Fanon conjecture|really hard]] for anyone to achieve that level of skill over anyone else especially if a particular population of people for some reason begins with limited means. if you don't fix what's going on at the bottom scales of things (redlining, etc) the processes at the bottom will never hurl enough people upward that "removing hatred" and "offering training" to be the best actually matters.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3636" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3637" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3638" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_nations" value="3639" data-dimension="S">the colonizer attitude / colonial racism ({{TTS|Colonial Racism|sometimes capitalized}}; MDem)  ->  do not refer to this as "colonialism" within Item labels. reserve that word for the physical processes of global empire. you may refer to colonial prejudices with any number of terms such as "colonial racism" or "alterity" or "Manichaeanism"(?) if you think readers would understand them, and you may use "colonialism", "imperialism", and "global empire" interchangeably. the one thing you must not do is imply that The Colonizer Attitude and global empire are the same concept. it is critical to separate these things in order to discuss which one causes the other one.

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

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3650" data-dimension="S">generalized dictator / the totalitarian psychology (authoritarian; mentality, personality; Lacanianism, psychoanalysis, psychohistory; sic.)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="Aa" value="3651" data-dimension="S2">North Korea is psychoanalytically wrong  ->  a cluster of different claims, probably. one would be that opting to be a Marxist theorist or General Secretary is morally wrong under psychoanalysis and the non-traumatized Real Human Being opts not to do it.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3652" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3653" data-dimension="S2">Nazism and Bolshevism have the same cause / Nazism and Bolshevism are caused by the same thing / horseshoe theory (hypothesis that nazi ideologies and Communist ideologies are instances of the same prototypical thing)
</li><li class="field_ML" value="3654" data-dimension="S2">Nazism and Bolshevism come from class war / Nazism and Bolshevism have the same cause: class war / historical horseshoe theory / Horseshoe theory is right for entirely the wrong reasons / Horseshoe theory is backhandedly true  ->  components: horseshoe theory - case of - backhandedly correct statement. better horseshoe theory goes as follows: mark up the horseshoe as a timeline of events, with a straight arrow cutting from middle to ends. the middle of the horseshoe is a period of peace; because things are peaceful everyone remains moderate and similar. the next period of the horseshoe is a period of upheaval; as things become turbulent people separate into two groups and each becomes less moderate and more hostile. at the ends of the horseshoe, the separate groups may become violent, regimented, militaristic, and "similar". this has nothing to do with the specific ideologies of the groups, and everything to do with the fact they're divided and competing against each other and possibly literally at war. when you look at it this way, it's fair enough to say the horseshoe describes both the Nazi Germany period and the East Germany period. but what it really describes is the phenomenon of populations splitting because they can't stand each other and having to create borders and border police because they aren't one country. when you realize this you see that the horseshoe is a great oversimplification of the problem. the real problem is: is it worse to divide a country and live with the "extremes" of new borders, or is it worse to live in the same country with nazis and have to treat nazis as full citizens of your country as they're busy actively trying to act like they're the only true citizens and nobody else is? there's no option for "there are no nazis". center-Liberalism is, to some extent, the statement that given enough highly-educated experts siloed away from society nazis and non-nazis can be forced to live in harmony by a bunch of cops and courts despite how internally violent and hateful they may be every single day and despite how much the nazis may want to lock everybody else up as criminals for making them nervous.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3655" data-dimension="S2">Anarchism and Toryism come from Existentialism / Anarchism and Toryism have the same cause: Existentialism / Anarchism and Toryism have the same cause: capitalism / Communist horseshoe theory / Communist fishhook theory (statement that theories stuck in capitalism circle back to the center whether they go "right" or "left")  ->  the motif or claim that so-called "far-left" ideologies in the United States are similar to "far-right" ideologies in that they both believe in giant amounts of freedom, but no matter how hard they try to escape oppression with freedom they don't escape capitalism and keep perpetuating all the patterns and toxic principles of capitalism, or worse, they literally tear apart into [[E:multicapitalism|two countable areas of capitalism]] that become violently hostile without successfully forming borders, turning the [[E:assigned liberal at birth|false Idealist slider of "political positions within the same nation"]] into a down-facing horseshoe, center-wing capitalism on the left, center-wing capitalism on the right.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3656" data-dimension="S">??

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

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

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

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

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

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

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="3669" data-dimension="S2">Manipulative people manufacture emergencies in order to create desperate behaviors  / "manipulative people shift context to normalize extreme behavior" [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3AN2wY4qAM]  ->  Tories are doing my work for me. here again we see a focus on individual agents and malicious intentions: a "manipulative individual" is identified and treated as the key to preventing bad outcomes. but this person is using it to argue that any sufficiently large-scale social policy is a conspiracy by corrupt people inside the government, and in turn to argue that COVID measures and environmental regulations are conspiracies, and worst of all, that any mention of an "emergency" anywhere on earth is a ploy of manipulation to sway otherwise bias-free rationalists. Existentialism starts with the seemingly innocuous stuff like claiming every form of abuse is the denial of Freedom, or that intersubjectivity is the culmination of Freedom, and ends with this. cultural islands that claim any attempt to regulate them through democulture or <i>federal government at all</i> is a breach of Enlightenment values. the only bright side to this? it gives insight into why Trotsky is so "popular". this sounds just like the framings Trotskyite conspirators used. but you can see that the internal reasoning is different: it's solely about choppifying society because [[Ontology:Q4236|being part of a bigger society isn't fun]].

</li><li class="field_nations" value="3670" data-tradition="PT" data-dimension="F2">[[Ontology:Q3670|COVID measures were devised in order to create Bolshevism]]  ->  laughable claim when you take it very literally. of course, what the claim <em>says</em> is not what it typically means when people say it.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3671" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3672" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3673" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3674" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3675" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_nations" value="3676" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q3676|Freedom requires rejecting COVID measures]]
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3677" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3678" data-dimension="S2">??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

</li><li class="field_nations" value="3709" data-dimension="S">the freedom to not encounter Jews  ->  it is strange and bizarre how much some people can get offended by "BCE".
</li><li class="field_nations" value="3710" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q3710|the freedom to not encounter Black people]] / freedom to not encounter ethnic subpopulation  ->  the motif of people insisting that a few Black people cast in a movie or TV show is due to "a political agenda" — which is, of course, some mysterious secret agenda <em>beyond</em> people wanting to see more demographics represented on TV shows. I never had any idea what my parents were even grumbling about until I got to the age of 27 and I finally learned about the existence of Gramscianism and went "....oh". everybody had been lying to me, some lying that Media Representation was an evil conspiracy and others lying that there was no such thing as Gramscianism. the terrible thing is that when you finally find out what it is, the United States has utterly vulgarized Gramscianism to where it's like, everybody take over all the job slots before the White people notice you've done it <em>so the center-Liberals will get votes and there will never be Gramscianism</em>, but if they notice too fast you're trying to get a few Liberal-party votes for anti-racism they'll all get furious you're even doing that. that's this motif.
</li><li class="field_nations" value="3711" data-dimension="S">the freedom to not encounter LGBT+ people

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3711" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3712" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3713" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3714" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3715" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3716" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_ML" value="3717" data-dimension="S">freedom to not encounter social-democrats / the freedom to not encounter social-democrats  ->  somewhat rare to see, but several Marxist articles complain about it and tell Marxists not to shun people who could help build overall national movements. so this is a motif in what <em>some</em> people say
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="3718" data-dimension="S">freedom to not encounter Stalin-followers / the freedom to not encounter Stalin-followers (Stalinists, mainstream Marxist-Leninists; Trotskyism)  ->  basically every Trotskyist believes in this, whether they say it out loud or not. to me it's never made sense because it seems just as stupid as Q37,17.
</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="3719" data-dimension="S">freedom to not encounter White people / the freedom to not encounter White people  ->  when "freedom" goes on long enough you'll get small groups of Black people or LGBT+ people just absolutely and utterly tired of straight White people to the point they almost don't want to see them, most often in reference to fictional media and not necessarily in reference to its audience.<br />
[[E:Berdly|Berdly]]'s character feels like an instance of coding this in the middle of an abstract fictional world — in a way that is mostly inoffensive until perhaps the moment you spell it out like this.
</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="DX" value="3720" data-dimension="S">freedom to not encounter U.S. people / the freedom to not encounter the United States  ->  an idea which is nearly specific to China, or other Third World countries. definitely not as known in countries like the United Kingdom, Germany, or Australia.

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

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3725" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3730" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3735" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="right-Liberalism, LR" value="3739" data-dimension="F2">Pointing out demographics facing racism is racist / If Trotsky says people in Alabama are racist, Trotsky is racist / If Joe Biden says "if", some hypothetical, "then you ain't Black", Joe Biden is racist  ->  both of these anecdotes of people saying this are real, unfortunately.<br />
the second one is the absolute worst because somebody actually tried to use it to explain logical fallacies, and in the process I think that person showed formal logic to be one giant fallacy itself. Joe Biden saying "...then you ain't Black" is a "some occurrence" statement, neither entirely true nor entirely false. it's another version of the trap statement "Black people experience structural racism. true/false?" to which the answer is "some occurrence". no other answer creates a sound statement than "neither true nor false, some occurrence". just like the trap statement "Communism is oppressive. true/false?" where the truest it gets is "rare occurrence" and it never gets all the way to "true". it says a lot about people's general ability to reason when they take the two statements "Communism is oppressive: rare occurrence" and "Trotskyism will succeed: no occurrence" and a ton of people sided with Trotsky. what those statements say is that Trotsky literally has no power to prevent Communism from being "oppressive" even if it was, and supporting Stalin or supporting Trotsky would have the same result if you actually want to end neoliberalism. if you support Stalin then you don't get Trotskyism, and if you support Trotsky then you don't get Trotskyism. and yet even so you get your Noam Chomskys who would literally rather take [[E:the Trotsky delusion|the 0% chance that Trotskyism succeeds]].

</li><li class="field_ML" value="3739" data-dimension="S">primitive communism  ->  a motif in early Marxism which basically amounts to remarking on how tribal populations are not yet divided up into tiny competing populations of one person each due to property lines or otherwise, and instead tend to form a single cohesive unit. this entry represents the motif exactly as it would appear in Marxist texts. the propositions below take it and attempt to make it more materially precise or fit for an era of meta-Marxism where there is not only one ideology interpreting things and we have to lay out the anarchist hypotheses as well as the Marxist hypotheses.

</li><li class="field_ML" value="3740" data-dimension="S2">Tribal populations model something about current societies  ->  in general this has to be true because even under historical materialism all societies contain the same palette of structures and processes.
</li><li class="field_anarchy"  value="3741" data-dimension="S2">Tribal populations are a model for anarchy / primitive anarchism claim
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3742" data-dimension="S2">Tribal populations are a model for individuals taking care of other individuals  ->  pay attention to how quickly people leap in logic from this to it being materially possible to create government programs.
</li><li class="field_ML"  value="3743" data-dimension="S2">Tribal populations are a model for a classless society / primitive communism claim  ->  rather old now. somewhat doubtful for reasons nobody could have expected.
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="3744" data-dimension="F2">Tribal populations are a model for the whole world being one population  ->  because the Item number was 44, I tried to think of some reason that tribal populations could be a model for Trotskyism. the first thing I thought of didn't make sense whatsoever. then I realized that the total nonsense statement was more insightful than things people actually say specifically because it was clearly wrong. Trotsky is like when you tune your guitar and you adjust it way too low so you can tune it up and tell where it's actually going. I swear Trotskyism will save us all specifically because it's the only thing where its wrongness is obvious; it's the only actual baseline standard of wrongness. yeah, anyway. one of the most obvious things about tribal populations is that they're [[E:plurality|plural]]. they were never a single indivisible population, and they easily come into conflict at various times in history. it seems to be fundamentally hard for humans to understand this fact, just looking at the Christian Old Testament, and Buddhism, and Trotskyism, and general-sense psychoanalysis or all its counterparts of the bourgeoisie becoming convinced that chopping everyone into a bunch of tiny islands makes humanity one population instead of a billion humanities as it actually does. human beings around the world have a really hard time with the concept that countries are plural, whether they want to dominate others or want to cooperate with others but end up being bad at it because their failure to understand [[E:plurality|plurality]] makes it impossible.

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

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



</li><li class="number_empty" value="3750" data-dimension="S">??

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

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

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3769" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3770" data-dimension="S">Carl Sagan was lucky to land the best professors  ->  <cite>Demon Haunted World</cite>. I find it pretty funny I cite this book for Careerism more than for secular philosophy against religion
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3771" data-remark="people-gambling; 770" data-dimension="S">job doomscrolling  ->  I have never seen this term but I don't know why, as it's perfectly intuitive to me as a concept that follows from saying people-gambling on social platforms is bad. if so, is there a point where you can be "doomscrolling" jobs looking for good ones but really just being addicted to the concept they'll magically get better and you'll find the only good one?
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3772" data-dimension="S2">The reason petty bourgeoisie won't carry a revolution is precarity  ->  I won't mess around and try to tell you the bourgeoisie are the prime ingredient in a workers' movement; that would be ridiculous. the only reason I have to talk about such stupid things is the way literally all discourse in the United States is run by the bourgeoisie and has become [[E:Western Marxism|this weird game]] of "how do we rationally convince the bourgeoisie to not be {{censor|asshole}}s". all right, let's examine the Western Marxist question seriously. why <em>is it</em> the bourgeoisie are bad at committing to a workers' movement to break through capitalism? I'd say one of the top reasons is simply precarity. there are a far greater number of petty bourgeoisie than anyone wants to admit. and for them in particular, their career is always really precarious. they can't expect to remain in the same town. they can't expect to stay there and learn from all the workers. they have to attend to this fragile tiny business constantly and it takes away from their time to even go around and connect different groups of people. their ability to live is constantly threatening to shatter itself and they have nobody to turn around and protest about that. it only makes it worse that capitalism contains a natural shattering process where over time any particular business easily dies and when it dies everything the workers built up over their lives potentially dies and all the people become Artisanized a bit, pressured to make new businesses and start from scratch in their careers or have nowhere to work. when businesses are dying sometimes they guard against death by laying off a bunch of workers and keeping the non-dead part the best they can. a business which is greedily thriving is easy to strike against but a dying business may be harder because there's simply nothing to take back, it's just a case of the proletariat dissolving into nothing and if it fails, everyone being converted back into the bourgeoisie. now to be fair, in a Third World country [[E:TC8|people can have absolutely no hope of survival and build a workers' movement to gain that]]. in a First World country people chicken out of situations of great poverty and migrate to the first place they aren't precarious any more, and this has to do with the way that anyone who isn't suffering in First World countries joins into these [[E:Wasp Swarm|big nightmare Filaments]] where 2,000 people oppress one poor person before even 50 poor people can get together. in one sense the United States has always been colonial, aided by the "friendship" of people socially linking together just to build a farm and build a business and build the next generation and build the next generation, but dragged down by that same "friendship" when individual people fail to fit into countable cultures and suddenly 200 other people in the countable culture are all oppressing them at once. you see how a lot of the way, social problems are tied to not being able to predict the way populations reproduce and build and realize this structure and that structure from generation to generation. people being selected out of colonial cesspools in the United States and Soviet microdistricts failing people over generations are each ultimately kind of the same exact problem. that Marxism still sees human populations as static and doesn't model humanity as a thing that continuously reproduces and re-creates and realizes. as a material object that regenerates new instances of itself called "towns" or "suburbs" and can always suddenly regenerate the bourgeoisie just because it reproduced. if we knew the chemistry of this continuously reproducing thing and the different possible regeneration processes, we could fix it so that capitalism didn't realize again. it's in thinking that a single revolutionary event actually fixes the fundamental problem, rather than a science of actual continuing development, that we make our great mistake. back to this entry: having that particular science, you could <em>maybe</em> get some of the bourgeoisie into position so towns are more stable against business failure and they don't run away. no guarantees though.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3773" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3774" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3775" data-dimension="S">??

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

</li><li value="3777" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q3777|Democracy is government of the person by the people]] / Democracy is government of the person, by the people and for the people / culturocracy proposition / democulture proposition (one of them)

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-remark="anarculture" value="3778" data-dimension="S2">Democracy is government of the culture by the people / Democracy is the people overcoming the Spanishness Office / democulturocracy proposition / democulture proposition (more proper one) / anarculture proposition (one of them)  ->  culturocracy is a "real" meta-Marxist term, but "democulturocracy proposition" is to be taken as a proper name, not an actual term; even I think that word is too silly.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3775" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3779" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3780" data-dimension="S">rhizome mathematics  ->  [https://thedewdrop.org/2020/05/08/deleuze-and-guattari-rhizome/ terribly mathematical descriptions] offered by D&G themselves; "neither one nor multiple" yet still growing sideways in some kind of graph-theory terms
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3781" data-dimension="S">arborescent society / arborescence (schizoanalysis)  ->  <s>I have no idea what this even means. we're going to find out</s> edit: this fundamentally has to do with countability and the countability of subpopulations. Deleuze was trying to be all smart about the perfect principles that would supposedly keep a society from dividing, and basically ended up with the notion of a unity of opposites, which he decided to name "multiplicity". in the middle of this he seems to have obscured one of the most important distinctions in Materialism: the sheer division between material objects including populations.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3782" data-dimension="S">rhizome sign regime / rules by which rhizome contains uncountable(?) Philosophical System  ->  sounds impossible in real life but definitely very interesting
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3783" data-dimension="S">rhizome (schizoanalysis)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

</li><li value="3842" class="field_horror" data-dimension="Z"><cite>It's a Wonderful Life</cite>
</li><li value="3843" data-remark="publication" class="field_horror" data-dimension="Z"><cite>A Christmas Carol</cite>
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3844" data-dimension="S">superstructural world or cosmos  ->  superset of: superstructural fantasy world, superstructural boring world.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3845" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q3845|superstructural fantasy world]] / Superstructure, meet base / what happens out there affects us in here (check wording? FNaF World)
</li><li class="field_horror" value="3846" data-dimension="S">superstructural boring world  ->  rather special case. Deltarune, Fionna & Cake
</li><li class="field_horror" value="3847" data-dimension="S">non-magical magic creatures  ->  using the horror swatch rather lightly, but in a case like Fionna & Cake it can definitely be cast as mildly horrifying

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

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

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

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

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

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3863" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3864" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3865" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3866" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3867" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3868" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3869" data-dimension="S2">??

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

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

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3875" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3876" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3877" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3878" data-dimension="S">??

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

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3880">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3881">??
</li><li value="3882" data-remark="The Lady or the Tiger" class="field_mdem" data-dimension="S0">[S] [[Ontology:Q3882|dreadfully unclear word]] (meta-Marxism) / ambiguous word or phrase / term useless for communication / term with different interpretations in every philosophy, ideology, and belief system  ->  earlier today this started as a half-joke labeled "words RD hates", but the rules are that you're supposed to be able to cite some kind of work or in-draft manual, so I settled for this being some heading in a hypothetical meta-Marxist manual about word usage. ironically enough, this Item itself is <i>highly</i> useful for defining our policy on Lexemes. Lexeme - instance of - dreadfully unclear word
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3883">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3884">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3885">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3886">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3887">??

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

</li><li class="field_nations" value="3905" data-remark="approximate lesbian flag color" data-dimension="F2">[[Ontology:Q3905|Lesbian writers would never want to write about lesbians]] / Show writers including lesbian relationships is always fanservice / Show writers writing about lesbians are never lesbians  ->  encountered this in a video recently. video essayist seemed to believe writers would only ever write about lesbian relationships if some great Rhizome of people came down on them and forced them to. which is a really funny belief when their two examples, Adventure Time and Steven Universe, included actual LGBT+ people at least somewhere on the cast. you can't exert democulture on a lesbian to force plots about lesbians when the ideas are already there. that said, there is a deeper issue to look at. what do we term graph struggle between microcolonies? if people are mad that one microcolony for LGBT+ characters is enclosing people instead of another microcolony, is ignoring this some kind of lesser parallel to condoning inter-imperialist conflict? lesbians or progressive people taking over what amount to empires is only so much of a victory if the real complaint is people are tired of being herded into empires and told what to think, even if the things they're told to think are good things.

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

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

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

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

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

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3965" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3966" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3967" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3968" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3969" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3970" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3971" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3972" data-dimension="S2">??

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

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

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

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

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3981">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3982">??
</li><li value="3983" class="field_horror" data-dimension="S">cognitohazard / infohazard  ->  I think entirely too much about how this is similar to the concept of containing information about a government or society that would cause people to take a narrow view and behave the wrong way. I mean, when this concept is connected to crazy conspiracies about what the government is "really" covering up, of course it is... but SCP entries and modern 2010s horror stories in general have really taken the concept in a new direction by making the anomalies something people genuinely would not want to know and regret learning about.
</li><li value="3984" class="field_trotsky" data-dimension="S">secret room of forbidden books (<cite>The Giver</cite>, <cite>Girl from the other side</cite>) / decisions made in elder council (<cite>The Giver</cite>) / figurative priests (anarchism) / "hermetically-sealed compartments of knowledge" (<cite>Demon-haunted world</cite>)  ->  Sagan's quote is so good
</li><li value="3985" class="field_anarchy" data-dimension="S2">The Giver quartet is about wrecking Trotskyism  ->  this sounds random until you look at the books very closely to discover how they have clearly misinterpteted specific Trotskyist texts
</li><li value="3986" class="field_anarchy" data-dimension="S2">The Giver quartet is about building an Anarchism  ->  when I capitalize Anarchists, it's a placeholder for civilizational shape words like "Kropotkinism" or "Bookchinism". I don't have a lot of knowledge about specific "Anarchisms" but I do know a few different kinds of named "Anarchisms" clearly exist and it's worth distinguishing which ones to be able to evaluate whether they will be successful. also? if anarchists get mad when you try to <em>broadly</em> categorize different kinds of Anarchisms, it only further identifies that they do have specific beliefs that set them apart as a specific group of people. being an Existentialist and thinking that believing in utopia really hard or believing in the concept of non-ideology really hard will unite people together and build an Anarchism is also an ideology. you aren't free of ideology just because you believe in Existentialism.
</li><li value="3987" class="field_anarchy" data-dimension="S2">The Giver is about Anarchists wrecking Trotskyism / The Giver quartet is about Anarchists wrecking Trotskyism to create an Anarchism  ->  this is such an interesting concept to talk about because if true, the book is a sectarian quarrel or inescapable conflict between two different civilizational shapes (Bauplans) rather than a universal message for everybody. don't even try to twist that into an anti-Anarchist, pro-center-Liberal argument though. if the inescapable conflict between Social-Philosophical-Material Systems supports Liberalism, then it supports the constant oppression of different groups of people beneath each other such as center-Liberals under Tories because minus colonialism no group of human beings would ever be guaranteed to behave.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="3988">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3989">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="3990">??
</li><li value="3991" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S2">[[E:Q3991|Philosophers have tried to change the world; our job is to interpret it]] / Philosophers have only tried to change the world in various ways; our job is to interpret it  ->  my pet peeve and the absolute heart of most of the E-S tradition
</li><li value="3992" class="field_mdem" data-dimension="S0">named molecular Marxism  ->  a named molecular Marxism is simply a named Marxism which has been molecularized. when this entry was first added to the list I had some actual names of Marxisms below this but I decided those more appropriately go in the 4000s next to all the "things that are more materially possible than Trotskyism".
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3993" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3994" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3995" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3996" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3997" data-dimension="S0">??

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

</li></ol><noinclude>

[[Category:Current proposals]]</noinclude>