Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q36,67 - Revision history

Reversedragon: You can stop bad historical events from happening by doing absolutely nothing

2026-06-02T05:17:04Z

You can stop bad historical events from happening by doing absolutely nothing

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:17, 2 June 2026
Line 5:		Line 5:
	<li data-qid="36,67" value="3667" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q3667\|Nothing should be done unless everybody considers it wonderful]] / "they had such good reasons for doing what they did that the ends justify the means" -> I am so sick of this phrase and its use in analyzing both fiction and reality. there are so many wrong assumptions in it that are difficult to dig up at first, but whenever anyone uses this concept it always totally distorts their view of how reality really works. you get so many crazy propositions out of this like that it's absolutely not allowed to investigate how reality works without obeying metaphysics, etc.		<li data-qid="36,67" value="3667" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q3667\|Nothing should be done unless everybody considers it wonderful]] / "they had such good reasons for doing what they did that the ends justify the means" -> I am so sick of this phrase and its use in analyzing both fiction and reality. there are so many wrong assumptions in it that are difficult to dig up at first, but whenever anyone uses this concept it always totally distorts their view of how reality really works. you get so many crazy propositions out of this like that it's absolutely not allowed to investigate how reality works without obeying metaphysics, etc.

	</~~li><li data-qid~~="36,67~~" value~~="3667~~" class="field_anarchy" data-dimension="S2">~~Peter Singer should never donate unless tribal populations consider it wonderful / If Peter Singer believes that acting is better than not acting, it results in brutally assimilating tribal populations; telling people that nothing should be done unless everyone considers it wonderful will somehow cause Peter Singer never to do anything [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=od9HIsKHiLk&lc=UgwyBN_KvSCw8uZ5AVp4AaABAg] -> no no no no no. I mean, those historical events are real, but this is terrible reasoning to apply to explain them. the moment you start reasoning like this you empower millions of Tories to say that a single person making them use preferred pronouns or teach the history of racism is tyranny. you don't want to open that can of worms. before constructing a system of ethics please just admit that people don't actually have control over other people's minds and decisions.		{{li\|I=S2/A\|tradition=\|Q=36,67\|Q2=3667}}Peter Singer should never donate unless tribal populations consider it wonderful / If Peter Singer believes that acting is better than not acting, it results in brutally assimilating tribal populations; telling people that nothing should be done unless everyone considers it wonderful will somehow cause Peter Singer never to do anything

	{{li\|I=S2/MX/A\|tradition=\|Q=36,67\|Q2=3667}}Do not what unto others is not wonderful / Do not what unto others surprises / Do not what others would not experience / Do not unto others what they would not decide / Do not what others would not 'unto' themselves / Do not what others would not normally-see-happen-as-a-spontaneous-event-unto-them / Do not unto others what they would not decide you do / Do not treat others how they would not like to be treated, regardless of the existence of "you" / Do not what others would not "unto" / platinum inverse (generic) -> in the end this thing is a lot like a twisted version of the [[EC:9k/RD/Q50,98\|golden rule]].<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/MX/A\|tradition=\|Q=36,67\|Q2=3667}}Do not what unto others is not wonderful / Do not what unto others surprises / Do not what others would not experience / Do not unto others what they would not decide / Do not what others would not 'unto' themselves / Do not what others would not normally-see-happen-as-a-spontaneous-event-unto-them / Do not unto others what they would not decide you do / Do not treat others how they would not like to be treated, regardless of the existence of "you" / Do not what others would not "unto" / platinum inverse (generic) -> in the end this thing is a lot like a twisted version of the [[EC:9k/RD/Q50,98\|golden rule]].<br/>
Line 74:		Line 74:

	<li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="54,16" value="5416" data-dimension="S">the right step in the wrong direction -> Žižek's idea that anything that bursts out of repression must be some critical new form of progress in ways not yet understood. in my opinion this is mostly wrong. I'd be hypocritical not to acknowledge it {{em\|a little bit}}, given how I talk about "the theoretical point where Trotsky stops complaining" — certainly, every time people incorrectly label things as tyranny it traces back to {{em\|something}} real. but I think it's a deepity to act like literally all of that resistance and reaction is meaningful, instead of just a little bit of it. not everybody is reasonable or ethical, {{em\|at all}}. it isn't just "not everybody is rational", it's that people hate each other because blobs of human Animals have to eat and occupy space and join onto a shared morality and they literally run into material contradictions on those things that make those needs impossible and make them furious. they need their physical needs. they can't get their needs. other people are standing on them. they get mad at the other people for really actually blocking their real actual needs on purpose or often by accident. it's not "ideology" making us blame other groups of people for things, it's that in different ways than people are commonly led to think on Fox News etc, human individuals really are fighting each other over everything every day. businesses are limited. community itself is finite and limited. migration to open slots is hard and limited. repression happens daily as people adjust to the actions of all other people claiming territories and slots that often predict things badly and fill space badly and also come with a bunch of dumb rules and we all try to persuade ourselves that this is just normal while also getting increasingly mad at it to the point of being hateful and yet not wanting to change anything from the way it is so we just get angry twice over when anybody tries to fix it. that boiling cauldron of anger comes from people wanting to solve things crudely with "hard work" and psychoanalysis and migration and constitutions and "I believe that everybody" statements and pieces of paper about human rights.		<li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="54,16" value="5416" data-dimension="S">the right step in the wrong direction -> Žižek's idea that anything that bursts out of repression must be some critical new form of progress in ways not yet understood. in my opinion this is mostly wrong. I'd be hypocritical not to acknowledge it {{em\|a little bit}}, given how I talk about "the theoretical point where Trotsky stops complaining" — certainly, every time people incorrectly label things as tyranny it traces back to {{em\|something}} real. but I think it's a deepity to act like literally all of that resistance and reaction is meaningful, instead of just a little bit of it. not everybody is reasonable or ethical, {{em\|at all}}. it isn't just "not everybody is rational", it's that people hate each other because blobs of human Animals have to eat and occupy space and join onto a shared morality and they literally run into material contradictions on those things that make those needs impossible and make them furious. they need their physical needs. they can't get their needs. other people are standing on them. they get mad at the other people for really actually blocking their real actual needs on purpose or often by accident. it's not "ideology" making us blame other groups of people for things, it's that in different ways than people are commonly led to think on Fox News etc, human individuals really are fighting each other over everything every day. businesses are limited. community itself is finite and limited. migration to open slots is hard and limited. repression happens daily as people adjust to the actions of all other people claiming territories and slots that often predict things badly and fill space badly and also come with a bunch of dumb rules and we all try to persuade ourselves that this is just normal while also getting increasingly mad at it to the point of being hateful and yet not wanting to change anything from the way it is so we just get angry twice over when anybody tries to fix it. that boiling cauldron of anger comes from people wanting to solve things crudely with "hard work" and psychoanalysis and migration and constitutions and "I believe that everybody" statements and pieces of paper about human rights.

			</li></ol>

			== Shared ==
			<ol class="hue clean">

			{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/A\|tradition=\|Q=36,67\|Q2=3667}}Peter Singer should never donate unless tribal populations consider it wonderful / If Peter Singer believes that acting is better than not acting, it results in brutally assimilating tribal populations; telling people that nothing should be done unless everyone considers it wonderful will somehow cause Peter Singer never to do anything [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=od9HIsKHiLk&lc=UgwyBN_KvSCw8uZ5AVp4AaABAg] -><br/>
			no no no no no. I mean, those historical events are real, but this is terrible reasoning to apply to explain them. the moment you start reasoning like this you empower millions of Tories to say that a single person making them use preferred pronouns or teach the history of racism is tyranny. you don't want to open that can of worms. before constructing a system of ethics please just admit that people don't actually have control over other people's minds and decisions.

			{{li\|I=S2/A\|tradition=\|Q=36,67\|Q2=3667}}Peter Singer should never donate unless tribal populations consider it wonderful -> this is so complicated by the history of useless philanthropy in Africa where U.S. people invented and donated unwanted products. that's a much better example in the case of Peter Singer where everything is about donating.<br/>
			but.... this proposition still feels a little hollow, doesn't it? at a certain point, it would seem like billionaires could just start arguing that paying taxes is bad because there could be a butterfly effect and it could hurt someone, therefore it's much better to not compel them to put their money into anything. in their actual substance, capitalist donations are ineffective, and Liberal-republican government programs are ineffective at times, and you can say bad things about either of them if you wanted to. but the top tax brackets absolutely refusing to pay taxes doesn't bring either of those "disadvantages" because it doesn't have the goals of either of those efforts in the first place, making it a very attractive option for everyone to vote for because then nobody can complain. So this way of thinking might save Africa, but it will make everyone go crazy in the United States until Donald Trump tries to annex Greenland and maybe go start wars in Africa because who knows what Tory parties even want any more.

			{{li\|I=F2/A\|Q=618}}You can stop bad historical events from happening by doing absolutely nothing / Because intervening in other people's problems can lead to bad outcomes, making a choice to take action is inherently bad before it becomes good, and you can stop bad historical events from happening by doing absolutely nothing / Early United States homesteader [[EC:9k/RD/Q618-ElijahsBigFrontierDecision\|Elijah]] can save the Indians by sitting back and doing absolutely nothing -> if Nietzsche can't stop Nazism from happening by doing absolutely nothing, then neither can you.

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 79:		Line 92:
	== Trotskyism / "Zinovievism" and what is wonderful ==		== Trotskyism / "Zinovievism" and what is wonderful ==
	<!--		<!--
			<ol class="hue clean">
			</li></ol>

	~~<ol class="hue clean">~~		-->
	~~</li></ol>~~ -->
	== Ideology codes ==		== Ideology codes ==

Reversedragon: Prejudice is an inherent characteristic of the universe

2026-05-09T07:32:36Z

Prejudice is an inherent characteristic of the universe

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:32, 9 May 2026
Line 17:		Line 17:
	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">

	{{li\|I=S2/ES\|tradition=ES, A\|Q=56,42\|Q2=5642}}Human moralities are a fundamental layer of material reality -> this goes way back to early Liberal-republicanism and Kant, so it's not neatly an anarchist concept		{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/ES\|tradition=ES, A\|Q=56,42\|Q2=5642}}Human moralities are a fundamental layer of material reality {{Youtube\|cpP1EX8kK0o}} -> this goes way back to early Liberal-republicanism and Kant, so it's not neatly an anarchist concept

			{{li\|I=S2/ES\|tradition=\|Q=56,42\|Q2=5642}}Prejudice is an inherent characteristic of the universe

	{{li\|I=F2/ES\|tradition=A, IK, HM, ES\|Q=618}}Righteousness can be True / What is moral can be [[E:true (formal logic)\|True]] / It is safe to use morality or ethics as a means of judging what is accurate to material reality -> this seems to be one of the major pitfalls in Orwell's thinking. whether something appears to be immoral to somebody isn't actually a good standard of whether that thing is true. for a good demonstration, you only have to look at Liberal-republican candidates madly trying to claim "if elected I will stop Zionism" just to get people to choose the person that supports morality, but materially the proposition the candidate says is false, not true, and going through that 'all-important' Orwell process of abandoning the guy that sounds mean and picking the guy that sounds nice accomplishes absolutely nothing.<br/>		{{li\|I=F2/ES\|tradition=A, IK, HM, ES\|Q=618}}Righteousness can be True / What is moral can be [[E:true (formal logic)\|True]] / It is safe to use morality or ethics as a means of judging what is accurate to material reality -> this seems to be one of the major pitfalls in Orwell's thinking. whether something appears to be immoral to somebody isn't actually a good standard of whether that thing is true. for a good demonstration, you only have to look at Liberal-republican candidates madly trying to claim "if elected I will stop Zionism" just to get people to choose the person that supports morality, but materially the proposition the candidate says is false, not true, and going through that 'all-important' Orwell process of abandoning the guy that sounds mean and picking the guy that sounds nice accomplishes absolutely nothing.<br/>

Reversedragon: redirects

2026-04-21T04:01:06Z

redirects

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:01, 21 April 2026
Line 10:		Line 10:
	this... is also the same thing as the [[E:Shenlong effect (meta-Marxism)\|Shenlong effect]]. it just has a slightly different context it appears in and explanation of the process. this one is strictly viewing the world through ethics and the assumption it exists or makes sense, while the Shenlong effect as it's defined in its original context is viewing the world through material analysis of behavior and interactions at various scales, basically a slightly warped version of dialectical materialism. this proposition is like, an origin story for why particular individuals assume the Shenlong effect to exist, although people could also hypothetically invent it through different assumptions		this... is also the same thing as the [[E:Shenlong effect (meta-Marxism)\|Shenlong effect]]. it just has a slightly different context it appears in and explanation of the process. this one is strictly viewing the world through ethics and the assumption it exists or makes sense, while the Shenlong effect as it's defined in its original context is viewing the world through material analysis of behavior and interactions at various scales, basically a slightly warped version of dialectical materialism. this proposition is like, an origin story for why particular individuals assume the Shenlong effect to exist, although people could also hypothetically invent it through different assumptions

	{{li\|I=S2/MX/A\|tradition=\|Q=36,67\|Q2=3667}}Do only what is wonderful (xenon rule) / Do not what others would not "unto" (xenon inverse) / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q618-PeriodicTableOfRules\|9k]]) -> after making an extended list of metallic rules, I've given this one a name. it's the xenon rule because it mostly involves doing absolutely nothing, and you only do anything in very special circumstances. {{YouTube\|eZYvSFSI-rg}} [https://bartlett.chem.ubc.ca/neil-bartlett/]		{{li\|I=S2/MX/A\|tradition=\|Q=36,67\|Q2=3667}}Do only what is wonderful ({{a\|E=xenon rule}}) / Do not what others would not "unto" (xenon inverse) / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q618-PeriodicTableOfRules\|9k]]) -> after making an extended list of metallic rules, I've given this one a name. it's the xenon rule because it mostly involves doing absolutely nothing, and you only do anything in very special circumstances. {{YouTube\|eZYvSFSI-rg}} [https://bartlett.chem.ubc.ca/neil-bartlett/]

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 89:		Line 89:

	[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]] <!-- page ends here. TTS-unfriendly numbers incoming		[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]] <!-- page ends here. TTS-unfriendly numbers incoming
	redirects: [[User:RD/9k/Q3667]]		redirects: [[User:RD/9k/Q3667]] [[User:RD/9k/Q36,67]]
	duplication hint: copy markup from [[Special:PermanentLink/NNNN\|9k/Q36,67]] -->		duplication hint: copy markup from [[Special:PermanentLink/NNNN\|9k/Q36,67]] -->

Reversedragon: Reversedragon moved page User:RD/9k/Q36,67 to Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q36,67: Moving 9k pages to Ontology talk for search purposes

2026-04-21T03:59:02Z

Reversedragon moved page User:RD/9k/Q36,67 to Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q36,67: Moving 9k pages to Ontology talk for search purposes

← Older revision	Revision as of 03:59, 21 April 2026
(No difference)

Reversedragon: xenon rule

2026-04-21T03:58:27Z

xenon rule

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:58, 21 April 2026
Line 9:		Line 9:
	{{li\|I=S2/MX/A\|tradition=\|Q=36,67\|Q2=3667}}Do not what unto others is not wonderful / Do not what unto others surprises / Do not what others would not experience / Do not unto others what they would not decide / Do not what others would not 'unto' themselves / Do not what others would not normally-see-happen-as-a-spontaneous-event-unto-them / Do not unto others what they would not decide you do / Do not treat others how they would not like to be treated, regardless of the existence of "you" / Do not what others would not "unto" / platinum inverse (generic) -> in the end this thing is a lot like a twisted version of the [[EC:9k/RD/Q50,98\|golden rule]].<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/MX/A\|tradition=\|Q=36,67\|Q2=3667}}Do not what unto others is not wonderful / Do not what unto others surprises / Do not what others would not experience / Do not unto others what they would not decide / Do not what others would not 'unto' themselves / Do not what others would not normally-see-happen-as-a-spontaneous-event-unto-them / Do not unto others what they would not decide you do / Do not treat others how they would not like to be treated, regardless of the existence of "you" / Do not what others would not "unto" / platinum inverse (generic) -> in the end this thing is a lot like a twisted version of the [[EC:9k/RD/Q50,98\|golden rule]].<br/>
	this... is also the same thing as the [[E:Shenlong effect (meta-Marxism)\|Shenlong effect]]. it just has a slightly different context it appears in and explanation of the process. this one is strictly viewing the world through ethics and the assumption it exists or makes sense, while the Shenlong effect as it's defined in its original context is viewing the world through material analysis of behavior and interactions at various scales, basically a slightly warped version of dialectical materialism. this proposition is like, an origin story for why particular individuals assume the Shenlong effect to exist, although people could also hypothetically invent it through different assumptions		this... is also the same thing as the [[E:Shenlong effect (meta-Marxism)\|Shenlong effect]]. it just has a slightly different context it appears in and explanation of the process. this one is strictly viewing the world through ethics and the assumption it exists or makes sense, while the Shenlong effect as it's defined in its original context is viewing the world through material analysis of behavior and interactions at various scales, basically a slightly warped version of dialectical materialism. this proposition is like, an origin story for why particular individuals assume the Shenlong effect to exist, although people could also hypothetically invent it through different assumptions

			{{li\|I=S2/MX/A\|tradition=\|Q=36,67\|Q2=3667}}Do only what is wonderful (xenon rule) / Do not what others would not "unto" (xenon inverse) / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q618-PeriodicTableOfRules\|9k]]) -> after making an extended list of metallic rules, I've given this one a name. it's the xenon rule because it mostly involves doing absolutely nothing, and you only do anything in very special circumstances. {{YouTube\|eZYvSFSI-rg}} [https://bartlett.chem.ubc.ca/neil-bartlett/]

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

Reversedragon: move over 'platinum inverse' synonyms from EC:9k/RD/Q50,98

2026-04-21T03:07:28Z

move over 'platinum inverse' synonyms from EC:9k/RD/Q50,98

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:07, 21 April 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{NextNineThousand\|PPPA=When everyone thinks it wonderful\|User=RD\|E=Q36,67\|Contents=y}}		{{NextNineThousand\|PPPA=When everyone thinks it wonderful\|User=RD\|E=Q36,67\|Contents=y}}
	== Main ~~entry~~ ==		== Main entries ==
			{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean">
	~~<noinclude>~~{{HueCSS}}~~</noinclude>~~<ol class="hue clean">

	<li data-qid="36,67" value="3667" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q3667\|Nothing should be done unless everybody considers it wonderful]] / "they had such good reasons for doing what they did that the ends justify the means" -> I am so sick of this phrase and its use in analyzing both fiction and reality. there are so many wrong assumptions in it that are difficult to dig up at first, but whenever anyone uses this concept it always totally distorts their view of how reality really works. you get so many crazy propositions out of this like that it's absolutely not allowed to investigate how reality works without obeying metaphysics, etc.		<li data-qid="36,67" value="3667" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q3667\|Nothing should be done unless everybody considers it wonderful]] / "they had such good reasons for doing what they did that the ends justify the means" -> I am so sick of this phrase and its use in analyzing both fiction and reality. there are so many wrong assumptions in it that are difficult to dig up at first, but whenever anyone uses this concept it always totally distorts their view of how reality really works. you get so many crazy propositions out of this like that it's absolutely not allowed to investigate how reality works without obeying metaphysics, etc.
Line 8:		Line 7:
	</li><li data-qid="36,67" value="3667" class="field_anarchy" data-dimension="S2">Peter Singer should never donate unless tribal populations consider it wonderful / If Peter Singer believes that acting is better than not acting, it results in brutally assimilating tribal populations; telling people that nothing should be done unless everyone considers it wonderful will somehow cause Peter Singer never to do anything [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=od9HIsKHiLk&lc=UgwyBN_KvSCw8uZ5AVp4AaABAg] -> no no no no no. I mean, those historical events are real, but this is terrible reasoning to apply to explain them. the moment you start reasoning like this you empower millions of Tories to say that a single person making them use preferred pronouns or teach the history of racism is tyranny. you don't want to open that can of worms. before constructing a system of ethics please just admit that people don't actually have control over other people's minds and decisions.		</li><li data-qid="36,67" value="3667" class="field_anarchy" data-dimension="S2">Peter Singer should never donate unless tribal populations consider it wonderful / If Peter Singer believes that acting is better than not acting, it results in brutally assimilating tribal populations; telling people that nothing should be done unless everyone considers it wonderful will somehow cause Peter Singer never to do anything [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=od9HIsKHiLk&lc=UgwyBN_KvSCw8uZ5AVp4AaABAg] -> no no no no no. I mean, those historical events are real, but this is terrible reasoning to apply to explain them. the moment you start reasoning like this you empower millions of Tories to say that a single person making them use preferred pronouns or teach the history of racism is tyranny. you don't want to open that can of worms. before constructing a system of ethics please just admit that people don't actually have control over other people's minds and decisions.

	</~~li><li data-qid~~="36,67~~" value~~="3667~~" class="field_mdem" data-dimension="S2">~~Do not what unto others is not wonderful / Do not what unto others surprises / Do not what others would not experience / Do not unto others what they would not decide / Do not what others would not 'unto' themselves / Do not what others would not normally-see-happen-as-a-spontaneous-event-unto-them / Do not what others would not "unto" -> in the end this thing is a lot like a twisted version of the golden rule.<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/MX/A\|tradition=\|Q=36,67\|Q2=3667}}Do not what unto others is not wonderful / Do not what unto others surprises / Do not what others would not experience / Do not unto others what they would not decide / Do not what others would not 'unto' themselves / Do not what others would not normally-see-happen-as-a-spontaneous-event-unto-them / Do not unto others what they would not decide you do / Do not treat others how they would not like to be treated, regardless of the existence of "you" / Do not what others would not "unto" / platinum inverse (generic) -> in the end this thing is a lot like a twisted version of the [[EC:9k/RD/Q50,98\|golden rule]].<br/>
	this... is also the same thing as the [[E:Shenlong effect (meta-Marxism)\|Shenlong effect]]. it just has a slightly different context it appears in and explanation of the process. this one is strictly viewing the world through ethics and the assumption it exists or makes sense, while the Shenlong effect as it's defined in its original context is viewing the world through material analysis of behavior and interactions at various scales, basically a slightly warped version of dialectical materialism. this proposition is like, an origin story for why particular individuals assume the Shenlong effect to exist, although people could also hypothetically invent it through different assumptions		this... is also the same thing as the [[E:Shenlong effect (meta-Marxism)\|Shenlong effect]]. it just has a slightly different context it appears in and explanation of the process. this one is strictly viewing the world through ethics and the assumption it exists or makes sense, while the Shenlong effect as it's defined in its original context is viewing the world through material analysis of behavior and interactions at various scales, basically a slightly warped version of dialectical materialism. this proposition is like, an origin story for why particular individuals assume the Shenlong effect to exist, although people could also hypothetically invent it through different assumptions

Line 14:		Line 13:

	== Shared ==		== Shared ==

	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">

	{{li\|I=S2/ES\|tradition=ES, A\|Q=56,42\|Q2=5642}}Human moralities are a fundamental layer of material reality -> this goes way back to early Liberal-republicanism and Kant, so it's not neatly an anarchist concept		{{li\|I=S2/ES\|tradition=ES, A\|Q=56,42\|Q2=5642}}Human moralities are a fundamental layer of material reality -> this goes way back to early Liberal-republicanism and Kant, so it's not neatly an anarchist concept

	{{li\|I=F2/ES\|tradition=A, IK, HM, ES\|Q=618}}Righteousness can be True / ~~<s>Only</s> what~~ is moral can be [[E:true (formal logic)\|True]] / It is safe to use morality or ethics as a means of judging what is accurate to material reality -> this seems to be one of the major pitfalls in Orwell's thinking. whether something appears to be immoral to somebody isn't actually a good standard of whether that thing is true. for a good demonstration, you only have to look at Liberal-republican candidates madly trying to claim "if elected I will stop Zionism" just to get people to choose the person that supports morality, but materially the proposition the candidate says is false, not true, and going through that 'all-important' Orwell process of abandoning the guy that sounds mean and picking the guy that sounds nice accomplishes absolutely nothing.<br/>		{{li\|I=F2/ES\|tradition=A, IK, HM, ES\|Q=618}}Righteousness can be True / What is moral can be [[E:true (formal logic)\|True]] / It is safe to use morality or ethics as a means of judging what is accurate to material reality -> this seems to be one of the major pitfalls in Orwell's thinking. whether something appears to be immoral to somebody isn't actually a good standard of whether that thing is true. for a good demonstration, you only have to look at Liberal-republican candidates madly trying to claim "if elected I will stop Zionism" just to get people to choose the person that supports morality, but materially the proposition the candidate says is false, not true, and going through that 'all-important' Orwell process of abandoning the guy that sounds mean and picking the guy that sounds nice accomplishes absolutely nothing.<br/>
	this + ?? = free of domination (truth value)		this + ?? = free of domination (truth value)

Line 27:		Line 25:

	== Critical theory and what is wonderful ==		== Critical theory and what is wonderful ==

	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">

Line 38:		Line 35:

	== Queer studies and what is wonderful ==		== Queer studies and what is wonderful ==

	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">

Line 46:		Line 42:

	== Psychoanalysis and what is wonderful ==		== Psychoanalysis and what is wonderful ==

	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">

Line 62:		Line 57:

	== Anarchism and what is wonderful ==		== Anarchism and what is wonderful ==

	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">

Line 73:		Line 67:

	== Žižek and what is wonderful ==		== Žižek and what is wonderful ==

	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">

Line 80:		Line 73:
	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

	== Trotskyism / "Zinovievism" and what is wonderful ==<!--		== Trotskyism / "Zinovievism" and what is wonderful ==
			<!--

	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">
	</li></ol> -->		</li></ol> -->

	== Ideology codes ==		== Ideology codes ==

Reversedragon: Righteousness can be True

2026-03-27T00:37:10Z

Righteousness can be True

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:37, 27 March 2026
Line 17:		Line 17:
	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">

	~~</li><~~li ~~class~~=~~"field_exstruct" data-~~tradition="ES, A~~" data-qid~~="56,42~~" value~~="5642~~" data-dimension="S2">~~Human moralities are a fundamental layer of material reality -> this goes way back to early Liberal-republicanism and Kant, so it's not neatly an anarchist concept		{{li\|I=S2/ES\|tradition=ES, A\|Q=56,42\|Q2=5642}}Human moralities are a fundamental layer of material reality -> this goes way back to early Liberal-republicanism and Kant, so it's not neatly an anarchist concept

	</li><li ~~class~~=~~"field_anarchy" data-~~tradition=~~"A" data-qid~~="22,96~~" value~~="2296~~" data-dimension="S">~~True people versus False people / ([[User:RD/9k/Q22,96\|9k]]) ~~<!-- -> the concept that Truth in general is the -->~~		{{li\|I=F2/ES\|tradition=A, IK, HM, ES\|Q=618}}Righteousness can be True / <s>Only</s> what is moral can be [[E:true (formal logic)\|True]] / It is safe to use morality or ethics as a means of judging what is accurate to material reality -> this seems to be one of the major pitfalls in Orwell's thinking. whether something appears to be immoral to somebody isn't actually a good standard of whether that thing is true. for a good demonstration, you only have to look at Liberal-republican candidates madly trying to claim "if elected I will stop Zionism" just to get people to choose the person that supports morality, but materially the proposition the candidate says is false, not true, and going through that 'all-important' Orwell process of abandoning the guy that sounds mean and picking the guy that sounds nice accomplishes absolutely nothing.<br/>
			this + ?? = free of domination (truth value)

			{{li\|I=S1/A\|tradition=unknown\|Q=22,96\|Q2=2296}}True people versus False people / ([[User:RD/9k/Q22,96\|9k]])

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 85:		Line 88:

	* ES		* ES
			* IK / Kantianism
	* HM / critical theory		* HM / critical theory
	* A / anarchism and transition to restore Native American tribes (motif)		* A / anarchism and transition to restore Native American tribes (motif)

Reversedragon: /* Anarchism and what is wonderful */ Being autistic is counter-revolutionary - move to Anarchism can oppress people

2026-03-11T00:40:19Z

Anarchism and what is wonderful: Being autistic is counter-revolutionary - move to Anarchism can oppress people

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:40, 11 March 2026
Line 66:		Line 66:

	<li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="MX onto A" data-qid="56,88" value="5688" data-dimension="S">anarchist orientalism / ([[User:RD/9k/Q56,88\|9k]])		<li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="MX onto A" data-qid="56,88" value="5688" data-dimension="S">anarchist orientalism / ([[User:RD/9k/Q56,88\|9k]])

	</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" data-qid="51,06" value="5106" data-dimension="S2">Scientific thinking is a pathology / Scientific thinking is a disease symptom created by such conditions as autism and ADHD that make individuals unable to understand intuition and to solve social situations through individuals intuitively unifying onto the nicest and most friendship-like behaviors that become local culture rather than attempting to characterize patterns in societies sociologically<br />
	~~Anti-racism education is an oxymoron + ?? = this~~

	{{li\|I=S2/A\|Q=51,07\|Q2=5107}}Being autistic is counter-revolutionary (anarchism) / Being born autistic is counter-revolutionary to anarchism because autistic people have a defect in performing Rhizome, but everyone performing Rhizome on the basis of cultures and lived experiences automatically going together in a strictly subjective space is more important than anything else including autistic people -> anarchism always believes it's incapable of making errors like the ones historical Marxist states made of funneling a demographic into the counter-revolutionary bucket because that demographic's actual {{em\|movements}} were currently opposing the integrity of the country at that point in time. but I think that is the opposite of true. the insistence of both blue and charcoal anarchisms on forcing everyone to comprehend "prejudices" and "exclusion" solely on the basis of intuition, empathy, "lived experiences", syncretism, fractalizing freedom-of-religion down to individuals to create democulture, strategic association and exclusion, and the judgement of morality as both whatever makes majorities unhappy and whatever makes minorities unhappy in impossible simultaneity to the exclusion of logic, objectivity, internal coherence, mathematics, and science is definitely excluding some people based on physical characteristics they can't control.

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

Reversedragon: The Roaring Knight is real (United States)

2026-03-03T11:15:03Z

The Roaring Knight is real (United States)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:15, 3 March 2026
Line 51:		Line 51:

	</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="Aa" data-qid="53,82" value="5382" data-dimension="S2">We know gay marriage is a fact because Jungian repression / ([[User:RD/9k/Q5383\|9k]])		</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="Aa" data-qid="53,82" value="5382" data-dimension="S2">We know gay marriage is a fact because Jungian repression / ([[User:RD/9k/Q5383\|9k]])

			</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto Aa / meta-Marxism onto Jungianism" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The Roaring Knight is real (United States; Deltarune) / U.S. people think the Roaring Knight is real / [[E:Roaring Knight (Deltarune)\|The Roaring Knight]] is arguably a representation of the process of [[E:Society are not singular (meta-Marxism)\|a society]] meeting its breaking point and shattering apart (see: The Roaring, the artificial game-world shattering apart) due to said society's inability to observe and process human suffering, this failure to discover or take in accurate information being generally understood or claimed to be a form of prejudice or inherently bad behavior and its remedy being generally understood to be a psychological resolution (see: Deltarune characters going deep into psychological world and presumably yanking out needles of suffering or pulling Dess out of depression ocean) because a particular state of people being socially connected (Kris and Susie going to school and not having hallucinations or nightmares) is assumed to be normal and healthy and necessary until the shattering event breaks through it and shatters what is assumed to be natural and normal whether it really truly is the way things should be or it isn't the way things should be and the shattering of the relationships is the only thing that can happen (Deltarune's one ending of the Roaring Knight and the Roaring tearing open the world which presumably there is a secret way for the heroes to thwart to reach the actual one ending)

			</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto Aa / MX onto ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The Roaring Knight is anarchism / The Roaring Knight is a fantastical and hyperbolic representation of some of the most core concepts of anarchist theory / The Roaring Knight is an anarchist (hyperbolic statement that the Roaring Knight is a representation of abstract concepts in anarchism) -> move this onto 9k for above proposition when it gets a number

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

Reversedragon: Scientific thinking is a pathology

2026-03-03T09:03:43Z

Scientific thinking is a pathology

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:03, 3 March 2026
Line 62:		Line 62:

	<li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="MX onto A" data-qid="56,88" value="5688" data-dimension="S">anarchist orientalism / ([[User:RD/9k/Q56,88\|9k]])		<li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="MX onto A" data-qid="56,88" value="5688" data-dimension="S">anarchist orientalism / ([[User:RD/9k/Q56,88\|9k]])

			</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" data-qid="51,06" value="5106" data-dimension="S2">Scientific thinking is a pathology / Scientific thinking is a disease symptom created by such conditions as autism and ADHD that make individuals unable to understand intuition and to solve social situations through individuals intuitively unifying onto the nicest and most friendship-like behaviors that become local culture rather than attempting to characterize patterns in societies sociologically<br />
			Anti-racism education is an oxymoron + ?? = this

			{{li\|I=S2/A\|Q=51,07\|Q2=5107}}Being autistic is counter-revolutionary (anarchism) / Being born autistic is counter-revolutionary to anarchism because autistic people have a defect in performing Rhizome, but everyone performing Rhizome on the basis of cultures and lived experiences automatically going together in a strictly subjective space is more important than anything else including autistic people -> anarchism always believes it's incapable of making errors like the ones historical Marxist states made of funneling a demographic into the counter-revolutionary bucket because that demographic's actual {{em\|movements}} were currently opposing the integrity of the country at that point in time. but I think that is the opposite of true. the insistence of both blue and charcoal anarchisms on forcing everyone to comprehend "prejudices" and "exclusion" solely on the basis of intuition, empathy, "lived experiences", syncretism, fractalizing freedom-of-religion down to individuals to create democulture, strategic association and exclusion, and the judgement of morality as both whatever makes majorities unhappy and whatever makes minorities unhappy in impossible simultaneity to the exclusion of logic, objectivity, internal coherence, mathematics, and science is definitely excluding some people based on physical characteristics they can't control.

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>