Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q53,19 - Revision history

Reversedragon: Landlords build character

2026-06-10T02:12:37Z

Landlords build character

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:12, 10 June 2026
Line 107:		Line 107:

	{{li\|I=S2/LR\|Q=618}}Rights are inappropriate for a river because they're too easy to overturn [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/nov/02/trees-have-rights-too-robert-macfarlane-on-the-new-laws-of-nature] -> oof. it's a little darkly funny when not even Liberal-republicans believe in human rights.		{{li\|I=S2/LR\|Q=618}}Rights are inappropriate for a river because they're too easy to overturn [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/nov/02/trees-have-rights-too-robert-macfarlane-on-the-new-laws-of-nature] -> oof. it's a little darkly funny when not even Liberal-republicans believe in human rights.

			{{li\|I=S2/MX/ES\|Q=618}}Landlords build character / Landlords train people to treat houses with care because when houses literally belong to another individual person instead of you you are forced to approach inanimate objects created through labor with empathy -> this makes fully as much sense as "Empathy for hypothetical workers can fix supply chains" (landlords bring in respect for humans to regulate interactions with inanimate objects) or "The U.S. military is a neutral force in the world because being in it changes consciousness" (landlords change consciousness by putting people into a situation that forces a response), but nobody would say it. why?

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

Reversedragon: re-sort

2026-06-10T02:09:33Z

re-sort

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:09, 10 June 2026
Line 54:		Line 54:

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/ES\|Q=618}}hotel hallway of minds / David Rain doorways (philosophy) / psychological hotel hallway (psychoanalytic; critical-theoretic; Freud, Jung; Habermas) / communicative reason (Habermas; generic) -> this is the gateway, pun somewhat intended, between Jungian psychoanalysis and anarchism. this silly hall of mind doorways. one door leads to traditional animism, one door leads to psychoanalysis and the "collective unconscious", and one door leads to modern anarchisms including the "Arceism" motif in {{game\|Pokémon}}. oh yeah and one door leads back to [[E:Q42\|early-existentialism]] and Henri Bergson.<br/>		{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/ES\|Q=618}}hotel hallway of minds / David Rain doorways (philosophy) / psychological hotel hallway (psychoanalytic; critical-theoretic; Freud, Jung; Habermas) / communicative reason (Habermas; generic) -> this is the gateway, pun somewhat intended, between Jungian psychoanalysis and anarchism. this silly hall of mind doorways. one door leads to traditional animism, one door leads to psychoanalysis and the "collective unconscious", and one door leads to modern anarchisms including the "Arceism" motif in {{game\|Pokémon}}. oh yeah and one door leads back to [[E:Q42\|early-existentialism]] and Henri Bergson.<br/>
	why do human beings keep coming up with this. I mean, I know the reasons behind the secular-animism and animism-revival side of things, but how do people keep getting here in such {{em\|different ways}}?? Jung got his hallway out of shared themes in dreams coming from similar human minds. Last Dragon Chronicles and {{game\|Pokémon}} got it from old religions (Shintō and Inuit animism respectively). anarchists seem to get it from weird psychological trips about ecology that genuinely don't make any sense. I'm going to ignore the fact that sometimes they copy it from tribal populations because they almost always have independent lines of reasoning to get there that are supposed to lead there anyway. so.... what's the commonality? I don't really understand why these all lead to the same place.		why do human beings keep coming up with this. I mean, I know the reasons behind the secular-animism and animism-revival side of things, but how do people keep getting here in such {{em\|different ways}}?? Jung got his hallway out of shared themes in dreams coming from similar human minds. Last Dragon Chronicles and {{game\|Pokémon}} got it from old religions (Shintō and Inuit animism respectively). anarchists seem to get it from weird psychological trips about ecology that genuinely don't make any sense. {{YouTube\|oM1fXC3beeI}} I'm going to ignore the fact that sometimes they copy it from tribal populations because they almost always have independent lines of reasoning to get there that are supposed to lead there anyway. so.... what's the commonality? I don't really understand why these all lead to the same place.

	{{li\|I=S2/A/ES\|Q=618}}Reality is a commons; this is to imply that all conscious beings are united by consciousness rather than divided by it (Andreas Weber) [https://patternsofcommoning.org/reality-as-commons-a-poetics-of-participation-for-the-anthropocene/] -> ah. they're using "commoning" to smuggle in Henri Bergson.		{{li\|I=S2/A/ES\|Q=618}}Reality is a commons; this is to imply that all conscious beings are united by consciousness rather than divided by it (Andreas Weber) [https://patternsofcommoning.org/reality-as-commons-a-poetics-of-participation-for-the-anthropocene/] -> ah. they're using "commoning" to smuggle in Henri Bergson.
Line 106:		Line 106:
	{{li\|I=S2/A/MX\|Q=618}}Most anarchists are egocentric / There are no anarchists that aren't egoists (using the word "egoism" to refer to a particular concept of egocentrism) / Because anarchism generally or usually revolves around the ability of individuals to express feelings, make moral pronouncements, and break from bad relationships at literally any second, anarchism cannot claim to have separated itself from an egocentric view of reality and in fact almost all anarchisms do revolve around the power of any particular individual mind or ego to spontaneously dictate and declare without limit what all other people will do and be; this is to imply that the intersubjective "hotel hallway" model of secular animism is actually a manifestation of anarchisms' latent egocentrism -> I'm not positive that this claim is true but man did typing it out feel good		{{li\|I=S2/A/MX\|Q=618}}Most anarchists are egocentric / There are no anarchists that aren't egoists (using the word "egoism" to refer to a particular concept of egocentrism) / Because anarchism generally or usually revolves around the ability of individuals to express feelings, make moral pronouncements, and break from bad relationships at literally any second, anarchism cannot claim to have separated itself from an egocentric view of reality and in fact almost all anarchisms do revolve around the power of any particular individual mind or ego to spontaneously dictate and declare without limit what all other people will do and be; this is to imply that the intersubjective "hotel hallway" model of secular animism is actually a manifestation of anarchisms' latent egocentrism -> I'm not positive that this claim is true but man did typing it out feel good

	{{li\|I=S2/A\|Q=618}}Tribal populations lived less exploitative and more sustainable lives because of animism -> rebuttals incoming		{{li\|I=S2/LR\|Q=618}}Rights are inappropriate for a river because they're too easy to overturn [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/nov/02/trees-have-rights-too-robert-macfarlane-on-the-new-laws-of-nature] -> oof. it's a little darkly funny when not even Liberal-republicans believe in human rights.

			</li></ol>

			=== Morality of racism ===
			<ol class="hue clean">

			{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/A\|Q=618}}Tribal populations lived less exploitative and more sustainable lives because of animism -> rebuttals incoming

	{{li\|I=S2/ES\|Q=618}}The person who speaks of tribal populations as an exotic artifact cannot be moral -> I find discussions about the ethics of ~~prejudice~~ terribly boring but this one being the wind-up for the next one makes it better		{{li\|I=S2/ES\|Q=618}}The person who speaks of tribal populations as an exotic artifact cannot be moral -> I find discussions about the ethics of having prejudices terribly boring but this one being the wind-up for the next one makes it better

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}A White person speaking of tribal populations as the ideal society due to having a way of life that does not lead to the material inevitability of empire or having a model of spirituality that does not lead to wasting and destroying nature (at least according to the claims) cannot have made a coherent statement of ethics, because if the overall reasoning for Habermasian movements is that history is pushed forward specifically by the most moral individuals or collections of people, the person making the statement about tribal populations does not belong to that category at the moment of speaking that statement and must not have any power to lead history or describe history, because speaking of tribal populations as the perfect ideal people must return to is implicitly treating them as an exotic artifact that does not function like other ethnic groups, which is a form of prejudice and is not a moral thing to do		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}A White person speaking of tribal populations as the ideal society due to having a way of life that does not lead to the material inevitability of empire or having a model of spirituality that does not lead to wasting and destroying nature (at least according to the claims) cannot have made a coherent statement of ethics, because if the overall reasoning for Habermasian movements is that history is pushed forward specifically by the most moral individuals or collections of people, the person making the statement about tribal populations does not belong to that category at the moment of speaking that statement and must not have any power to lead history or describe history, because speaking of tribal populations as the perfect ideal people must return to is implicitly treating them as an exotic artifact that does not function like other ethnic groups, which is a form of prejudice and is not a moral thing to do
Line 116:		Line 123:
	I'm so done with anarchism because at the end of the day it sort of corrupts Communism too.<br/>		I'm so done with anarchism because at the end of the day it sort of corrupts Communism too.<br/>
	Communism: we will create a scientific model of reality. anarchism: a what??! you mean a cold unfeeling model of reality? Communism: what. anarchism: movements and revolutions only come from empathy so I am going to go talk to some Native Americans. Communism: uh. okay. anarchism: I have learned from the Native Americans that White people have a horrible way of life and I want to bring back secular animism. Communism: oh boy this is going to end badly. anarchism: you say that because you're a coward who isn't willing to question Western biases while I'm the true radical. Communism: uh, no, I say that because ancient religions come from a definite form of society and whenever you try to bring them to a later historical period it's going to look utterly tacky. or, to put it in language you understand, like you are stealing other people's culture for the benefit of Whiteness. anarchism: I would never do that. I believe in the sanctity of all living beings and natural objects because I am connected with the original semiotic and harmonious flows of nature. Native Americans: what the fuck. anarchism: see, I'm deconstructing Whiteness. Native Americans: and all of your summaries of animism amount to racial stereotypes. Communism: yeah, I knew how this was going to go. excuse me while I go read up on the conflict between Mao, Deng, and Alan Woods as something probably more relevant to the United States and less easy to accidentally turn offensive. anarchism: oh, you mean three people aligned with modern civilization, who are practically White? Communism: you have apparently never heard my racist relatives talk about Mao. do you even know what a racist {{em\|is}} or do you just immediately swallow whatever new trend academia feeds you? anarchism: oh wow revolution as [[E:moral vanguard (critical theory)\|morally-conscious]] populational subjectivity. {{i\|(gulp)}}		Communism: we will create a scientific model of reality. anarchism: a what??! you mean a cold unfeeling model of reality? Communism: what. anarchism: movements and revolutions only come from empathy so I am going to go talk to some Native Americans. Communism: uh. okay. anarchism: I have learned from the Native Americans that White people have a horrible way of life and I want to bring back secular animism. Communism: oh boy this is going to end badly. anarchism: you say that because you're a coward who isn't willing to question Western biases while I'm the true radical. Communism: uh, no, I say that because ancient religions come from a definite form of society and whenever you try to bring them to a later historical period it's going to look utterly tacky. or, to put it in language you understand, like you are stealing other people's culture for the benefit of Whiteness. anarchism: I would never do that. I believe in the sanctity of all living beings and natural objects because I am connected with the original semiotic and harmonious flows of nature. Native Americans: what the fuck. anarchism: see, I'm deconstructing Whiteness. Native Americans: and all of your summaries of animism amount to racial stereotypes. Communism: yeah, I knew how this was going to go. excuse me while I go read up on the conflict between Mao, Deng, and Alan Woods as something probably more relevant to the United States and less easy to accidentally turn offensive. anarchism: oh, you mean three people aligned with modern civilization, who are practically White? Communism: you have apparently never heard my racist relatives talk about Mao. do you even know what a racist {{em\|is}} or do you just immediately swallow whatever new trend academia feeds you? anarchism: oh wow revolution as [[E:moral vanguard (critical theory)\|morally-conscious]] populational subjectivity. {{i\|(gulp)}}

	{{li\|I=S2/LR\|Q=618}}Rights are inappropriate for a river because they're too easy to overturn [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/nov/02/trees-have-rights-too-robert-macfarlane-on-the-new-laws-of-nature] -> oof. it's a little darkly funny when not even Liberal-republicans believe in human rights.

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

Reversedragon: Reality is subjective consensus

2026-06-02T00:50:54Z

Reality is subjective consensus

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:50, 2 June 2026
Line 59:		Line 59:

	{{li\|I=S2/A\|Q=618}}Anarchism is not an economic system of structures and items but a living system of social relationships where relationality is a core reality [https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-01-29/the-new-animism-and-commoning/]		{{li\|I=S2/A\|Q=618}}Anarchism is not an economic system of structures and items but a living system of social relationships where relationality is a core reality [https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-01-29/the-new-animism-and-commoning/]

			{{li\|I=S2/A\|Q=555\|Q2=555}}Reality is subjective consensus / Truth is that which can be reached by the biggest possible subjective consensus / ({{9k\|RD/Q530}})

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

Reversedragon: If it's not good to walk away from The Problems We Have on Earth, then why do people leave China and move to California to study science?

2026-05-30T06:36:10Z

If it's not good to walk away from The Problems We Have on Earth, then why do people leave China and move to California to study science?

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:36, 30 May 2026
Line 133:		Line 133:

	{{li\|I=S2/MX/A/JC\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Kim Il-sung looked below the heavens to solve problems on earth / Kim Il-sung held that more than any "greater" ideal the Korean people were his god, and he could only be justified by how well he served them; [https://www.marxists.org/archive//kim-il-sung/bio/rev-act.pdf] this is to say that he looked past divine or metaphysical standards and larger-than-life celestial battles to solve the problems we already have on earth -> if you really want to {{censor\|piss}} off people who shallowly critique science fiction by talking about "problems on earth" they have no idea how to solve, this is the way to do it.<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/MX/A/JC\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Kim Il-sung looked below the heavens to solve problems on earth / Kim Il-sung held that more than any "greater" ideal the Korean people were his god, and he could only be justified by how well he served them; [https://www.marxists.org/archive//kim-il-sung/bio/rev-act.pdf] this is to say that he looked past divine or metaphysical standards and larger-than-life celestial battles to solve the problems we already have on earth -> if you really want to {{censor\|piss}} off people who shallowly critique science fiction by talking about "problems on earth" they have no idea how to solve, this is the way to do it.<br/>
	to be clear, the "futuristic" aesthetic of science fiction is false and feels outright wonky at this point; the claims that science fiction talks about imperialism {{em\|do}} feel about as hollow as claiming that bible stories talking about empire somehow speak about justice. but I swear the only thing cheaper than science fiction stories and their recycled mainframes they use as TV props is people claiming that "fixing problems on earth" isn't as hard as creating as some of the wild technologies you see in science fiction stories like hibernation chambers and warp drives.		to be clear, the "futuristic" aesthetic of science fiction is false and feels outright wonky at this point; the claims that science fiction talks about imperialism {{em\|do}} feel about as hollow as claiming that bible stories talking about empire somehow speak about justice. (funny how they're both about empires, isn't it?) but I swear the only thing cheaper than science fiction stories and their recycled mainframes they use as TV props is people claiming that "fixing problems on earth" isn't as hard as creating as some of the wild technologies you see in science fiction stories like hibernation chambers and warp drives.

			{{li\|I=M3/MX/A/ML\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}If it's not good to walk away from The Problems We Have on Earth, then why do people leave China and move to California to study science instead of staying in China and studying Marxism? [https://www.simonsfoundation.org/2020/09/14/infinitely-long-chains-of-hydrogen-atoms-have-surprising-properties-including-a-metallic-phase/] -> when you think about it, vilifying technology makes a whole lot of scientific research superfluous. and that alone doesn't mean it's the wrong choice; maybe scientists really do allocate themselves badly and really should be focusing on other problems. but if you commit yourself to that actually being the case.... then Marxism becomes one of the most important "sciences" in the world, so important that a bunch of people already employed in science should be asked to drop their careers and study Marxism. you can try to dispute this, but if social phenomena are what cause most of society's problems, then most of society's overall education money and scientific effort should be spontaneously taken out of other sciences and thrown at descriptive understandings of the exact problems that are happening. with minimal focus on framing problems in terms of "ethics" or "culture" or "conditioning", and greater focus on what kinds of material processes would stop the problems and under what conditions they would happen. for some reason, I can only imagine that this prospect of people dropping everything and really actually drawing out solutions to the problems anarchists endlessly complain about would be terrifying to anarchists and they'd go "wait wait no"<br/>
			I think the concept of people sensibly planning themselves in order to receive positive reinforcement instead of doing a bunch of stuff wrong and all getting punished and beaten and scapegoated is something anarchists find terrifying. they never want to acknowledge that punishing people is giving them orders retroactively, or that if people actually tried to be good and do what others wanted they would all be predetermining their purposes and ordering themselves around. think about it though, what kind of a world would we live in if people really just solved how to please anarchists the most efficiently by using their actions and energy the most efficiently. it would be so {{censor\|damn}} funny if the ultimate consequence of anarchism was that under anarchist moral frameworks the only moral choice was for everyone to abandon anarchism and be a Trotskyist. anarchists look over the models fifteen times unable to believe the results and are just like, what the hell<br/>
			Kim Il-sung looked below the heavens to solve problems on earth + Chinese immigrants in the United States = this.

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

Reversedragon: Kim Il-sung looked below the heavens to solve problems on earth

2026-05-25T04:07:57Z

Kim Il-sung looked below the heavens to solve problems on earth

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:07, 25 May 2026
Line 131:		Line 131:

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}It's easier to imagine the end of capitalism than the end of capitalism / It's easier to {{em\|talk about imagining the end of capitalism}} without those words actually meaning anything in particular than it is to imagine {{em\|an actual end of capitalism}} which is described practically enough that all people who currently belong to any ideological faction can come together and create it barring actual material incentives that prevent them from taking different actions or joining different ideologies -> this is about 10% a troll proposition made because the sentence was really funny to say. but I do think it's true.		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}It's easier to imagine the end of capitalism than the end of capitalism / It's easier to {{em\|talk about imagining the end of capitalism}} without those words actually meaning anything in particular than it is to imagine {{em\|an actual end of capitalism}} which is described practically enough that all people who currently belong to any ideological faction can come together and create it barring actual material incentives that prevent them from taking different actions or joining different ideologies -> this is about 10% a troll proposition made because the sentence was really funny to say. but I do think it's true.

			{{li\|I=S2/MX/A/JC\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Kim Il-sung looked below the heavens to solve problems on earth / Kim Il-sung held that more than any "greater" ideal the Korean people were his god, and he could only be justified by how well he served them; [https://www.marxists.org/archive//kim-il-sung/bio/rev-act.pdf] this is to say that he looked past divine or metaphysical standards and larger-than-life celestial battles to solve the problems we already have on earth -> if you really want to {{censor\|piss}} off people who shallowly critique science fiction by talking about "problems on earth" they have no idea how to solve, this is the way to do it.<br/>
			to be clear, the "futuristic" aesthetic of science fiction is false and feels outright wonky at this point; the claims that science fiction talks about imperialism {{em\|do}} feel about as hollow as claiming that bible stories talking about empire somehow speak about justice. but I swear the only thing cheaper than science fiction stories and their recycled mainframes they use as TV props is people claiming that "fixing problems on earth" isn't as hard as creating as some of the wild technologies you see in science fiction stories like hibernation chambers and warp drives.

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

Reversedragon: Nature gods promote the ideal of respecting other human individuals ; recorded 2026-05-07T08:35:40H

2026-05-21T01:01:26Z

Nature gods promote the ideal of respecting other human individuals ; recorded 2026-05-07T08:35:40H

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:01, 21 May 2026
Line 78:		Line 78:

	{{li\|I=S2/Aqr/HAS\|Q=53,22\|Q2=5322}}local god as personification / god (personification) / local god (generic) / tutelary deity (generic) / spirit (local god; generic) -> this is the concept of a local god ([[E:spirit (local god)\|spirit]]) as the personification of what today we would think of as a material thing. this concept is blatantly present in Egyptian myth if you look into it deeply enough, as well as in modern kaiju stories.		{{li\|I=S2/Aqr/HAS\|Q=53,22\|Q2=5322}}local god as personification / god (personification) / local god (generic) / tutelary deity (generic) / spirit (local god; generic) -> this is the concept of a local god ([[E:spirit (local god)\|spirit]]) as the personification of what today we would think of as a material thing. this concept is blatantly present in Egyptian myth if you look into it deeply enough, as well as in modern kaiju stories.

			{{li\|I=S2/Fy\|Q=618}}Nature gods promote the ideal of respecting other human individuals -> motif found in Pokémon videos.

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

Reversedragon: oh wow revolution as morally-conscious populational subjectivity

2026-05-13T23:04:34Z

oh wow revolution as morally-conscious populational subjectivity

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:04, 13 May 2026
Line 111:		Line 111:
	I'm not entirely free of this either because I'm one of those people who started vaguely appropriating {{em\|Soviet identity}} on account of how Russians apparently don't want it any more so now it's mine I guess. the situation for White people is just terrible because practically everybody is agreeing that Whiteness has to go (including the fascists who want to revert to medieval empire, in their own weird way) but absolutely nobody wants to step away from Idealism and consider a theory based on really fine-grained "reductionist" changes to material conditions as opposed to one all about "subjectivity" and "ethics", so it always turns into this game of trying to change Whiteness through abstract Ideals or finding a group of people it's theoretically okay to appropriate as a substitute for everyone not being entirely isolated into vulnerable individuals and there actually being any real living individuals for anyone to team up with. I make use of historical theorists of Marxism because they are defined by Materialist models as opposed to cultural identity or experiences and while that's a reason by itself it also has the bonus I can't really turn them into an exotic group distinguished by not being Whiteness that is then hijacked by Whiteness. but that ironically leads to the contradiction that in trying not to appropriate other countries I am still almost exclusively wearing other countries because the United States sucks.<br/>		I'm not entirely free of this either because I'm one of those people who started vaguely appropriating {{em\|Soviet identity}} on account of how Russians apparently don't want it any more so now it's mine I guess. the situation for White people is just terrible because practically everybody is agreeing that Whiteness has to go (including the fascists who want to revert to medieval empire, in their own weird way) but absolutely nobody wants to step away from Idealism and consider a theory based on really fine-grained "reductionist" changes to material conditions as opposed to one all about "subjectivity" and "ethics", so it always turns into this game of trying to change Whiteness through abstract Ideals or finding a group of people it's theoretically okay to appropriate as a substitute for everyone not being entirely isolated into vulnerable individuals and there actually being any real living individuals for anyone to team up with. I make use of historical theorists of Marxism because they are defined by Materialist models as opposed to cultural identity or experiences and while that's a reason by itself it also has the bonus I can't really turn them into an exotic group distinguished by not being Whiteness that is then hijacked by Whiteness. but that ironically leads to the contradiction that in trying not to appropriate other countries I am still almost exclusively wearing other countries because the United States sucks.<br/>
	I'm so done with anarchism because at the end of the day it sort of corrupts Communism too.<br/>		I'm so done with anarchism because at the end of the day it sort of corrupts Communism too.<br/>
	Communism: we will create a scientific model of reality. anarchism: a what??! you mean a cold unfeeling model of reality? Communism: what. anarchism: movements and revolutions only come from empathy so I am going to go talk to some Native Americans. Communism: uh. okay. anarchism: I have learned from the Native Americans that White people have a horrible way of life and I want to bring back secular animism. Communism: oh boy this is going to end badly. anarchism: you say that because you're a coward who isn't willing to question Western biases while I'm the true radical. Communism: uh, no, I say that because ancient religions come from a definite form of society and whenever you try to bring them to a later historical period it's going to look utterly tacky. or, to put it in language you understand, like you are stealing other people's culture for the benefit of Whiteness. anarchism: I would never do that. I believe in the sanctity of all living beings and natural objects because I am connected with the original semiotic and harmonious flows of nature. Native Americans: what the fuck. anarchism: see, I'm deconstructing Whiteness. Native Americans: and all of your summaries of animism amount to racial stereotypes. Communism: yeah, I knew how this was going to go. excuse me while I go read up on the conflict between Mao, Deng, and Alan Woods as something probably more relevant to the United States and less easy to accidentally turn offensive. anarchism: oh, you mean three people aligned with modern civilization, who are practically White? Communism: you have apparently never heard my racist relatives talk about Mao. do you even know what a racist {{em\|is}} or do you just immediately swallow whatever new trend academia feeds you? anarchism: oh wow [~~placeholder~~]. {{i\|(gulp)}}		Communism: we will create a scientific model of reality. anarchism: a what??! you mean a cold unfeeling model of reality? Communism: what. anarchism: movements and revolutions only come from empathy so I am going to go talk to some Native Americans. Communism: uh. okay. anarchism: I have learned from the Native Americans that White people have a horrible way of life and I want to bring back secular animism. Communism: oh boy this is going to end badly. anarchism: you say that because you're a coward who isn't willing to question Western biases while I'm the true radical. Communism: uh, no, I say that because ancient religions come from a definite form of society and whenever you try to bring them to a later historical period it's going to look utterly tacky. or, to put it in language you understand, like you are stealing other people's culture for the benefit of Whiteness. anarchism: I would never do that. I believe in the sanctity of all living beings and natural objects because I am connected with the original semiotic and harmonious flows of nature. Native Americans: what the fuck. anarchism: see, I'm deconstructing Whiteness. Native Americans: and all of your summaries of animism amount to racial stereotypes. Communism: yeah, I knew how this was going to go. excuse me while I go read up on the conflict between Mao, Deng, and Alan Woods as something probably more relevant to the United States and less easy to accidentally turn offensive. anarchism: oh, you mean three people aligned with modern civilization, who are practically White? Communism: you have apparently never heard my racist relatives talk about Mao. do you even know what a racist {{em\|is}} or do you just immediately swallow whatever new trend academia feeds you? anarchism: oh wow revolution as [[E:moral vanguard (critical theory)\|morally-conscious]] populational subjectivity. {{i\|(gulp)}}

	{{li\|I=S2/LR\|Q=618}}Rights are inappropriate for a river because they're too easy to overturn [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/nov/02/trees-have-rights-too-robert-macfarlane-on-the-new-laws-of-nature] -> oof. it's a little darkly funny when not even Liberal-republicans believe in human rights.		{{li\|I=S2/LR\|Q=618}}Rights are inappropriate for a river because they're too easy to overturn [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/nov/02/trees-have-rights-too-robert-macfarlane-on-the-new-laws-of-nature] -> oof. it's a little darkly funny when not even Liberal-republicans believe in human rights.

Reversedragon: European land enclosure is similar to frontier wars

2026-05-13T23:01:34Z

European land enclosure is similar to frontier wars

@@ Line 101: / Line 101: @@
 {{li|I=S2/A/MX|Q=618}}Most anarchists are egocentric / There are no anarchists that aren't egoists (using the word "egoism" to refer to a particular concept of egocentrism) / Because anarchism generally or usually revolves around the ability of individuals to express feelings, make moral pronouncements, and break from bad relationships at literally any second, anarchism cannot claim to have separated itself from an egocentric view of reality and in fact almost all anarchisms do revolve around the power of any particular individual mind or ego to spontaneously dictate and declare without limit what all other people will do and be; this is to imply that the intersubjective "hotel hallway" model of secular animism is actually a manifestation of anarchisms' latent egocentrism  ->  I'm not positive that this claim is true but man did typing it out feel good
 {{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Rights are inappropriate for a river because they're too easy to overturn [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/nov/02/trees-have-rights-too-robert-macfarlane-on-the-new-laws-of-nature]  ->  oof. it's a little darkly funny when not even Liberal-republicans believe in human rights.
 </li></ol>

Reversedragon: Most anarchists are egocentric

2026-05-11T01:04:20Z

Most anarchists are egocentric

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:04, 11 May 2026
Line 99:		Line 99:
	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Sociality distorts human beings' view of material reality -> anarchists are going to get so upset if you try to argue this at them. they'll try to argue that reality is whatever comes naturally to living things, and different states of natural for each living species must naturally want to go together, blah blah blah. [*] but they're all privileged. they haven't experienced a state of truly being fenced out of society by thousands and millions of people that all simultaneously agree they don't like you (probably without having met you or having much of any idea what they're doing). they especially haven't experienced it owing to the existence of anarchism, because anarchism already selected for people like them. but they should wise up to the fact that anarchism doesn't really pass the veil of ignorance with flying colors. it's quite easy to end up on the wrong side of "community" where you simply have nobody and nothing and also everyone assumes you must be a bad person just because you haven't claimed an exclusive spot in Community that supposedly you only have to be nice to people to get and follow morality though in reality it's much more difficult and complicated and trivial to simply be born wrong and fail to survive the ecological parameters of the 'community-icene'. I think that as a period of biological life the Anthropocene truly began at tribal society, not at industrial society. it was the ability to form entire ecosystems made of nothing but humans that changed things, but {{em\|if anarchists are correct}} that the natural state of humans and human psychology is in tribes then all the current destruction of the environment ultimately came from the characteristics of tribes. tribal populations are not wholly innocent for all the horrors of global empire and ecological destruction if at the end of the day we're {{em\|all}} still tribes and they're the only ones trying to disclaim that there are bad things about that. really, as crazy as it sounds, they might be accidentally benefiting from a corrupt system that has killed great numbers of people. of course, if humans don't have a seemingly eternal resting state of being in tribes that we have no choice but to return to which in turn implies we are currently tribes in denial and will still be tribes for the next hundred thousand years, then tribal populations carry no blame for what industrial societies have done.<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Sociality distorts human beings' view of material reality -> anarchists are going to get so upset if you try to argue this at them. they'll try to argue that reality is whatever comes naturally to living things, and different states of natural for each living species must naturally want to go together, blah blah blah. [*] but they're all privileged. they haven't experienced a state of truly being fenced out of society by thousands and millions of people that all simultaneously agree they don't like you (probably without having met you or having much of any idea what they're doing). they especially haven't experienced it owing to the existence of anarchism, because anarchism already selected for people like them. but they should wise up to the fact that anarchism doesn't really pass the veil of ignorance with flying colors. it's quite easy to end up on the wrong side of "community" where you simply have nobody and nothing and also everyone assumes you must be a bad person just because you haven't claimed an exclusive spot in Community that supposedly you only have to be nice to people to get and follow morality though in reality it's much more difficult and complicated and trivial to simply be born wrong and fail to survive the ecological parameters of the 'community-icene'. I think that as a period of biological life the Anthropocene truly began at tribal society, not at industrial society. it was the ability to form entire ecosystems made of nothing but humans that changed things, but {{em\|if anarchists are correct}} that the natural state of humans and human psychology is in tribes then all the current destruction of the environment ultimately came from the characteristics of tribes. tribal populations are not wholly innocent for all the horrors of global empire and ecological destruction if at the end of the day we're {{em\|all}} still tribes and they're the only ones trying to disclaim that there are bad things about that. really, as crazy as it sounds, they might be accidentally benefiting from a corrupt system that has killed great numbers of people. of course, if humans don't have a seemingly eternal resting state of being in tribes that we have no choice but to return to which in turn implies we are currently tribes in denial and will still be tribes for the next hundred thousand years, then tribal populations carry no blame for what industrial societies have done.<br/>
	(* why didn't they say that about workers' states and the healthy state of the Soviet Union versus the very disordered states that occurred at every moment after tearing it apart? they have even less excuse than Trotskyists. Trotskyists wilfully wanting to overwrite another Marxism with their own Marxism is at least logical even if it's terrible.)		(* why didn't they say that about workers' states and the healthy state of the Soviet Union versus the very disordered states that occurred at every moment after tearing it apart? they have even less excuse than Trotskyists. Trotskyists wilfully wanting to overwrite another Marxism with their own Marxism is at least logical even if it's terrible.)

			{{li\|I=S2/A/MX\|Q=618}}Most anarchists are egocentric / There are no anarchists that aren't egoists (using the word "egoism" to refer to a particular concept of egocentrism) / Because anarchism generally or usually revolves around the ability of individuals to express feelings, make moral pronouncements, and break from bad relationships at literally any second, anarchism cannot claim to have separated itself from an egocentric view of reality and in fact almost all anarchisms do revolve around the power of any particular individual mind or ego to spontaneously dictate and declare without limit what all other people will do and be; this is to imply that the intersubjective "hotel hallway" model of secular animism is actually a manifestation of anarchisms' latent egocentrism -> I'm not positive that this claim is true but man did typing it out feel good

	{{li\|I=S2/LR\|Q=618}}Rights are inappropriate for a river because they're too easy to overturn [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/nov/02/trees-have-rights-too-robert-macfarlane-on-the-new-laws-of-nature] -> oof. it's a little darkly funny when not even Liberal-republicans believe in human rights.		{{li\|I=S2/LR\|Q=618}}Rights are inappropriate for a river because they're too easy to overturn [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/nov/02/trees-have-rights-too-robert-macfarlane-on-the-new-laws-of-nature] -> oof. it's a little darkly funny when not even Liberal-republicans believe in human rights.

Reversedragon: title / spacing

2026-05-08T12:49:11Z

title / spacing

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:49, 8 May 2026
Line 119:		Line 119:
	* A / anarchism		* A / anarchism

			== Full title for bookmarks (optional) ==
			<pre>[9k] secular animism ; ensoulment ; David Rain doorways ; hotel hallway of minds ; Deng Xiaoping Thought is a form of anarchism ; apple plus apple dualism</pre>

	[[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 or titles: [[Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q618-SecularAnimism]] [[EC:9k/RD/Q53,19 secular animism]]		redirects or titles: [[Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q618-SecularAnimism]] [[EC:9k/RD/Q53,19 secular animism]]

	duplication hint: copy markup from [[Special:PermanentLink/NNNN\|9k/Q618-SecularAnimism]] -->		duplication hint: copy markup from [[Special:PermanentLink/NNNN\|9k/Q618-SecularAnimism]] -->