Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q64,43 - Revision history

Reversedragon: Offensive jokes are democracy

2026-06-07T12:11:16Z

Offensive jokes are democracy

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:11, 7 June 2026
Line 23:		Line 23:
	<ol class="hue clean terse field_exstruct">		<ol class="hue clean terse field_exstruct">

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/LR\|Q=64,76\|Q2=6476}}Offensive jokes are democracy / Making offensive jokes is democracy / Making offensive jokes is a core and basic form of freedom situated within the level of social reality that everything called democracy stands on and springs out of; this is to imply that freedom is more important than democracy and democracy is actually made of freedom rather than the other way around		{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/LR\|Q=64,76\|Q2=6476\|h4= Offensive jokes are democracy }} / Making offensive jokes is democracy / Making offensive jokes is a core and basic form of freedom situated within the level of social reality that everything called democracy stands on and springs out of; this is to imply that freedom is more important than democracy and democracy is actually made of freedom rather than the other way around / Offensive jokes are freedom, and freedom is the exact same thing as democracy / ({{9k\|RD/Q64,76}})

	{{li\|I=S2/LR\|Q=64,76\|Q2=6476}}Nothing is more democratic than to have the high and mighty lampooned and spoofed (Hustler v. Falwell) ; Hustler Magazine and Larry C. Flynt, Petitioners v. Jerry Falwell [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell] {{YouTube\|DF152HUdTvg}} -> it feels strange there is so much talk about the role of humor recently. I feel like it's one of many faces of [[E:Edgeworth's dialectic\|Edgeworth's dialectic]].		{{li\|I=S2/LR\|Q=64,76\|Q2=6476}}Nothing is more democratic than to have the high and mighty lampooned and spoofed (Hustler v. Falwell) ; Hustler Magazine and Larry C. Flynt, Petitioners v. Jerry Falwell [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell] {{YouTube\|DF152HUdTvg}} -> it feels strange there is so much talk about the role of humor recently. I feel like it's one of many faces of [[E:Edgeworth's dialectic\|Edgeworth's dialectic]].

Reversedragon: Offensive jokes are democracy

2026-06-07T06:34:41Z

Offensive jokes are democracy

Reversedragon: Humor is a form of control

2026-06-07T06:21:26Z

Humor is a form of control

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:21, 7 June 2026
Line 33:		Line 33:

	{{li\|I=S2/PT\|Q=618}}If humor is a form of government, then it can outlaw protests / If humor is a form of government, then protesting can be outlawed and suppressed simply by calling frivolous protests "actually stupid" -> I am really surprised I haven't already seen this happening. because it's exactly the way actual nazis think.		{{li\|I=S2/PT\|Q=618}}If humor is a form of government, then it can outlaw protests / If humor is a form of government, then protesting can be outlawed and suppressed simply by calling frivolous protests "actually stupid" -> I am really surprised I haven't already seen this happening. because it's exactly the way actual nazis think.

			{{li\|I=S2/PT\|tradition=\|Q=618}}Humor is a form of government / Humor is a form of control (sense) -> ...god, yeah. it just hit me. when Franziska von Karma calls people "fools", why do you think she does it? to legitimize the regulatory power of the whip. certain connections hit you after you find psychoanalytic hypotheses in the {{game\|Ace Attorney}} games.<br/>
			the question then is, exactly how fast does "Edgeworth's dialectic" turn into "von Karma's dialectic"? what are the parameters? what is the process?

	{{li\|I=S2/LR\|tradition=\|Q=618}}Humor is a form of government -> to claim that humor is "democratic" seems to be using a definition where "democracy" has nothing to do with giving the people any power to govern each other (so, democracy is not government of the people by the people and for the people), and in fact is almost synonymous with {{i\|freedom}}; as people have more and more freedom there is democracy, but when people are actually given the power to govern the people that has nothing to do with democracy.		{{li\|I=S2/LR\|tradition=\|Q=618}}Humor is a form of government -> to claim that humor is "democratic" seems to be using a definition where "democracy" has nothing to do with giving the people any power to govern each other (so, democracy is not government of the people by the people and for the people), and in fact is almost synonymous with {{i\|freedom}}; as people have more and more freedom there is democracy, but when people are actually given the power to govern the people that has nothing to do with democracy.

Reversedragon: If humor is a form of government, then it can outlaw protests / Trump is Žižek

2026-06-07T06:12:35Z

If humor is a form of government, then it can outlaw protests / Trump is Žižek

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:12, 7 June 2026
Line 26:		Line 26:

	{{li\|I=S2/Aa\|tradition=LR, ES, Aa, A\|Q=618}}Humor is a form of government <!-- / Humour is a form of government --> -> I hate this proposition because I know it's not true but I have a very hard time disproving it because I don't even know what's the best concrete place to start.		{{li\|I=S2/Aa\|tradition=LR, ES, Aa, A\|Q=618}}Humor is a form of government <!-- / Humour is a form of government --> -> I hate this proposition because I know it's not true but I have a very hard time disproving it because I don't even know what's the best concrete place to start.

			{{li\|I=S2/LR/Aa\|Q=618}}The point of protests is to increase social costs {{YouTube\|vAYgJ9X0xS0}} -> this is one of the most Lacanian political theories I have ever seen, and I feel secondhand embarrassment that anyone calling themselves "communist" would advance it. this is just a version of Edgeworth's dialectic. it's one of the least bad ones, granted, but it's still not very good.

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=\|Q=618}}Humor is a form of government -> my first thoughts here... humor can be used by literally anyone with any point of view, and it can be used to discourage things that are normal or harmless if enough people subjectively decide they're awkward. trans women have been the subject of terrible jokes for decades and decades, all intended to make them go away. "global warming" has also been a very frequent subject of jokes. and people who are told that hateful jokes aren't funny generally don't change their minds, they just keep repeating them to people quietly anyway and complaining that culture has become 'authoritarian'. as much as it may be tempting to say that that in itself is funny (decades ago the complaint was Stalin's government killing 100,000 Trotskyites and now you get upset about this?), it's really not, because it shows that the statement that humor can {{em\|govern}} people including everyday bullies and political figures isn't true.<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=\|Q=618}}Humor is a form of government -> my first thoughts here... humor can be used by literally anyone with any point of view, and it can be used to discourage things that are normal or harmless if enough people subjectively decide they're awkward. trans women have been the subject of terrible jokes for decades and decades, all intended to make them go away. "global warming" has also been a very frequent subject of jokes. and people who are told that hateful jokes aren't funny generally don't change their minds, they just keep repeating them to people quietly anyway and complaining that culture has become 'authoritarian'. as much as it may be tempting to say that that in itself is funny (decades ago the complaint was Stalin's government killing 100,000 Trotskyites and now you get upset about this?), it's really not, because it shows that the statement that humor can {{em\|govern}} people including everyday bullies and political figures isn't true.<br/>
	if you have a definition of "democratic" that includes people actually facing consequences when they're governed that wouldn't allow them to infinitely continue the same behavior, then no, humor is {{em\|not}} democratic. humor is about as democratic as impeaching Donald Trump, because it has done about as much to get him out of office.		if you have a definition of "democratic" that includes people actually facing consequences when they're governed that wouldn't allow them to infinitely continue the same behavior, then no, humor is {{em\|not}} democratic. humor is about as democratic as impeaching Donald Trump, because it has done about as much to get him out of office.

			{{li\|I=S2/PT\|Q=618}}If humor is a form of government, then it can outlaw protests / If humor is a form of government, then protesting can be outlawed and suppressed simply by calling frivolous protests "actually stupid" -> I am really surprised I haven't already seen this happening. because it's exactly the way actual nazis think.

	{{li\|I=S2/LR\|tradition=\|Q=618}}Humor is a form of government -> to claim that humor is "democratic" seems to be using a definition where "democracy" has nothing to do with giving the people any power to govern each other (so, democracy is not government of the people by the people and for the people), and in fact is almost synonymous with {{i\|freedom}}; as people have more and more freedom there is democracy, but when people are actually given the power to govern the people that has nothing to do with democracy.		{{li\|I=S2/LR\|tradition=\|Q=618}}Humor is a form of government -> to claim that humor is "democratic" seems to be using a definition where "democracy" has nothing to do with giving the people any power to govern each other (so, democracy is not government of the people by the people and for the people), and in fact is almost synonymous with {{i\|freedom}}; as people have more and more freedom there is democracy, but when people are actually given the power to govern the people that has nothing to do with democracy.

	{{li\|I=S2/~~LR/Aa~~\|Q=618}}~~The point of protests~~ is ~~to increase social costs {{YouTube\|vAYgJ9X0xS0}}~~ -~~> this~~ is ~~one of~~ the ~~most Lacanian political theories I have ever seen~~, ~~and I feel secondhand embarrassment~~ that ~~anyone calling themselves "communist" would advance~~ it~~. this~~ is ~~just~~ a ~~version~~ of ~~Edgeworth~~'s ~~dialectic. it's one of the least bad ones, granted,~~ but it~~'s still~~ not ~~very good~~.		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Trump is Žižek / Trump making crude jokes does not prove [[E:If Slavoj Žižek does not believe in standard center-Liberalism, he is almost exactly the same as Donald Trump\|Slavoj Žižek is Donald Trump]], but arguably does prove that Trump is Žižek, or, to put it more literally, that the Republican party is a countable instance of blue or brown anarchism whether charcoal anarchists want to believe that is actually considered anarchism or not / Trump making crude jokes does not prove Žižek is a Tory, but does imply that Žižek's premises are incorrect and he is not modeling what he thinks he is; Žižek claimed he was a "Communist" but if Trump does what Žižek says and is against Communism it means that what Žižek believes is not Marxism or Leninism; this is to imply that what Žižek believes is blue anarchism<br/>
			Humor is a form of government + Donald Trump and crude jokes = Trump is Žižek.

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}The point of protests is to increase social costs -> Can "social costs" meaningfully exist if people can at any point pivot and claim they aren't part of the countable society that attempts to impose costs? They have every incentive to claim that they aren't part of that society and also that the "other" society is part of theirs or subject to theirs. This theory of society actively breeds imperialism.<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}The point of protests is to increase social costs -> Can "social costs" meaningfully exist if people can at any point pivot and claim they aren't part of the countable society that attempts to impose costs? They have every incentive to claim that they aren't part of that society and also that the "other" society is part of theirs or subject to theirs. This theory of society actively breeds imperialism.<br/>
	god, the use of the US Civil War as somehow proving the point that upholding slavery created a social cost..... is 'we can secede, gain sovereignty, and shoot whoever we want' a social consequence or is that a position of power? I think it's hard to defend that it isn't the latter, especially after Reconstruction only led to a more even balance of power between bigotry and not. Confederates weren't trying to conquer the North, but Tories now are, as if ~~making~~ them ~~part of~~ society in fact created a trend toward more social consequences for progress and fewer social consequences for bigotry.<br/>		god, the use of the US Civil War as somehow proving the point that upholding slavery created a social cost..... is 'we can secede, gain sovereignty, and shoot whoever we want' a social consequence or is that a position of power? I think it's hard to defend that it isn't the latter, especially after Reconstruction only led to a more even balance of power between bigotry and not-bigotry. not a good thing! you don't want not-bigotry and bigotry to be equally valid.<br/>
			Confederates weren't trying to conquer the North, but Tories now are, as if adding them into society and calling them 'Americans too' in fact created a trend toward more social consequences for progress and fewer social consequences for bigotry.<br/>
	neodymium rule: social costs flip over; impose cultural standards onto others only when you are willing to endure completely different and objectionable standards {{em\|actually}} being imposed onto you.		neodymium rule: social costs flip over; impose cultural standards onto others only when you are willing to endure completely different and objectionable standards {{em\|actually}} being imposed onto you.

Reversedragon: Trotsky showed that Stalin was wrong by being authentic / Sanctions can be anarchic

2026-05-24T05:17:54Z

Trotsky showed that Stalin was wrong by being authentic / Sanctions can be anarchic

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:17, 24 May 2026
Line 7:		Line 7:
	Socratic dialectic + ?? = Edgeworth's dialectic. Fukuyama's dialectic + character development (fiction) = Edgeworth's dialectic. Miles Edgeworth + authenticity (Lacanianism) = Edgeworth's dialectic. Miles Edgeworth + The unpredictability of Subjects will save the world = Edgeworth's dialectic.		Socratic dialectic + ?? = Edgeworth's dialectic. Fukuyama's dialectic + character development (fiction) = Edgeworth's dialectic. Miles Edgeworth + authenticity (Lacanianism) = Edgeworth's dialectic. Miles Edgeworth + The unpredictability of Subjects will save the world = Edgeworth's dialectic.

	{{li\|I=S1/Fy/Aa\|Q=64,43\|Q2=64,43}}Edgeworth's dialectic ({{game\|Ace Attorney}}) -> added previous propositions. <s>some of these may need to be merged together?</s> I think Q64,43 is its own motif because it can be considered the {{game\|Ace Attorney}} version, or the "fictional works" version of the motif, while at least Q51,01 would be separate from it.		{{li\|I=S1/Fy/Aa\|Q=64,43\|Q2=64,43}}Edgeworth's dialectic ({{game\|Ace Attorney}}) -> added previous propositions. <s>some of these may need to be merged together?</s> I think Q64,43 is its own motif because it can be considered the {{game\|Ace Attorney}} version, or the "fictional works" version of the motif, while at least Q51,01 would be separate from it.<br/>
	~~{{li\|I=S1~~/~~Fy/Aa\|Q=51,01\|Q2=5101}}Edgeworth's dialectic -~~> yeah, no, I think all of these items can reasonably be separate, but Q51,01 is the main one, and Q64,43 and Q51,03 are specific senses of it expressed as Items rather than sense labels (which is okay, or perhaps better).		[edit:] yeah, no, I think all of these items can reasonably be separate, but Q51,01 is the main one, and Q64,43 and Q51,03 are specific senses of it expressed as Items rather than sense labels (which is okay, or perhaps better).

	{{li\|I=S2/ES\|Q=51,01\|Q2=5101}}When The Subject simply {{em\|is}}, it compels people to listen / Edgeworth's dialectic ({{game\|Ace Attorney}}; generic) / Susie's dialectic ({{game\|Deltarune}}) / Bartleby's dialectic (Lacanianism)		{{li\|I=S2/ES\|Q=51,01\|Q2=5101}}Subjectivity makes people listen / When The Subject simply {{em\|is}}, it compels people to listen / Edgeworth's dialectic ({{game\|Ace Attorney}}; generic) / Susie's dialectic ({{game\|Deltarune}}) / Bartleby's dialectic (Lacanianism)

	{{li\|I=S1/ES/Fy\|Q=51,03\|Q2=5103}}watch my taffy dance ("Come along with me")		{{li\|I=S1/ES/Fy\|Q=51,03\|Q2=5103}}watch my taffy dance ("Come along with me")
Line 75:		Line 75:
	so like, when Lacanians go around spewing this idea that [[E:The Excessive Subject\|Edgeworth's dialectic can fix anything with no historical materialism or Marxism required]], this really tests that claim. dropping an atomic bomb on Japan is basically just a very large-scale version of Edgeworth's dialectic — it attempts to bring a change in Japan's consciousness by the United States being exactly as it is but fighting back against Japan. at small scales it may not be harmful but at large scales it can become horrifically violent. and for what, to preserve the arbitrary idea that people change their behavior or artificially design their national culture starting at Free Will?? I genuinely don't see how a country spontaneously attacking the United States with a plane isn't the same thing. the other country sees the United States being aggressive, it asks for a change in behavior, it deals a warning blow if there is not a change in behavior to signify that the other country wants the United States to go away and isn't giving in to the bullies. we've already established that Edgeworth's dialectic is a potentially toxic process that allows reactionary groups of people to pressure anybody they like to behave the way they behave. so we know it's not actually a matter of Good and Evil. but I think this demonstrates that it inherently favors and privileges war. if two populations each get convinced that 'fighting back against each other and setting boundaries' is the way to end each other's aggression, they can end up going to war basically indefinitely.<br/>		so like, when Lacanians go around spewing this idea that [[E:The Excessive Subject\|Edgeworth's dialectic can fix anything with no historical materialism or Marxism required]], this really tests that claim. dropping an atomic bomb on Japan is basically just a very large-scale version of Edgeworth's dialectic — it attempts to bring a change in Japan's consciousness by the United States being exactly as it is but fighting back against Japan. at small scales it may not be harmful but at large scales it can become horrifically violent. and for what, to preserve the arbitrary idea that people change their behavior or artificially design their national culture starting at Free Will?? I genuinely don't see how a country spontaneously attacking the United States with a plane isn't the same thing. the other country sees the United States being aggressive, it asks for a change in behavior, it deals a warning blow if there is not a change in behavior to signify that the other country wants the United States to go away and isn't giving in to the bullies. we've already established that Edgeworth's dialectic is a potentially toxic process that allows reactionary groups of people to pressure anybody they like to behave the way they behave. so we know it's not actually a matter of Good and Evil. but I think this demonstrates that it inherently favors and privileges war. if two populations each get convinced that 'fighting back against each other and setting boundaries' is the way to end each other's aggression, they can end up going to war basically indefinitely.<br/>
	gosh imagine a category-of-things Item which is 'book that effectively recommends dropping an atomic bomb on Japan'.		gosh imagine a category-of-things Item which is 'book that effectively recommends dropping an atomic bomb on Japan'.

			{{li\|I=Z2/ES\|tradition=MX onto ES\|Q=618}}Sanctions can be anarchic / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q1961\|9k]])

			{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=50,54\|Q2=5054}}Anarchy can be anhierarchy / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q50,54\|9k]]) -> Cuba is one of the best examples. anarchists go around trying to say that the negative effects that occur during Government or a locus of conjoined patriots [[E:Correlation is not causation\|happen {{em\|because of}} Government]], but what they don't realize is that there can be any number of cases where similar negative effects occur from decentralized processes in which people come together as equals and nobody rules anybody else, all the un-governed equals in the process who fairly agreed with each other to enter the process as a matter of peace and friendship just spontaneously all collect onto a decision that's really terrible, and somewhat literally a bunch of equal people simply decide to be more equal than other groups of equals.<br/>
			something can totally, {{em\|almost indisputably}} be an {{a\|anarchy\|E=stationary combination of heterogeneous elements}} and yet do horrible things to other groups of people on the level of Bellegarrigue's concept of "civil war" (warring states periods, violent global empire).

			{{li\|I=S2/IV/Aa\|Q=51,01\|Q2=5101}}Trotsky showed that Stalin was wrong by being authentic

	{{li\|I=S2/Aa/MX\|tradition=MX onto Aa, MX onto ES, MX onto LR\|Q=618}}A world that tries to fix prejudice and hatred through "moderation" ("normalcy"; "basic human decency"; "socialization"; "symbolic castration" or "discipline"; etc) will see moderate lukewarm forms of fascism pop up and persist for decades, not the elimination of fascism		{{li\|I=S2/Aa/MX\|tradition=MX onto Aa, MX onto ES, MX onto LR\|Q=618}}A world that tries to fix prejudice and hatred through "moderation" ("normalcy"; "basic human decency"; "socialization"; "symbolic castration" or "discipline"; etc) will see moderate lukewarm forms of fascism pop up and persist for decades, not the elimination of fascism

Reversedragon: The point of protests is to increase social costs

2026-05-24T03:06:10Z

The point of protests is to increase social costs

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:06, 24 May 2026
Line 7:		Line 7:
	Socratic dialectic + ?? = Edgeworth's dialectic. Fukuyama's dialectic + character development (fiction) = Edgeworth's dialectic. Miles Edgeworth + authenticity (Lacanianism) = Edgeworth's dialectic. Miles Edgeworth + The unpredictability of Subjects will save the world = Edgeworth's dialectic.		Socratic dialectic + ?? = Edgeworth's dialectic. Fukuyama's dialectic + character development (fiction) = Edgeworth's dialectic. Miles Edgeworth + authenticity (Lacanianism) = Edgeworth's dialectic. Miles Edgeworth + The unpredictability of Subjects will save the world = Edgeworth's dialectic.

	{{li\|I=S1/Fy/Aa\|Q=64,43\|Q2=64,43}}Edgeworth's dialectic ({{game\|Ace Attorney}}~~) / Susie's dialectic ({{game\|Deltarune}}) / Bartleby's dialectic (Lacanianism~~) -> added previous propositions. some of these may need to be merged together? I think Q64,43 is its own motif because it can be considered the {{game\|Ace Attorney}} version, or the "fictional works" version of the motif, while at least Q51,01 would be separate from it.		{{li\|I=S1/Fy/Aa\|Q=64,43\|Q2=64,43}}Edgeworth's dialectic ({{game\|Ace Attorney}}) -> added previous propositions. <s>some of these may need to be merged together?</s> I think Q64,43 is its own motif because it can be considered the {{game\|Ace Attorney}} version, or the "fictional works" version of the motif, while at least Q51,01 would be separate from it.
			{{li\|I=S1/Fy/Aa\|Q=51,01\|Q2=5101}}Edgeworth's dialectic -> yeah, no, I think all of these items can reasonably be separate, but Q51,01 is the main one, and Q64,43 and Q51,03 are specific senses of it expressed as Items rather than sense labels (which is okay, or perhaps better).

	{{li\|I=S2/ES\|Q=51,01\|Q2=5101}}When The Subject simply {{em\|is}}, it compels people to listen / Edgeworth's dialectic (generic)		{{li\|I=S2/ES\|Q=51,01\|Q2=5101}}When The Subject simply {{em\|is}}, it compels people to listen / Edgeworth's dialectic ({{game\|Ace Attorney}}; generic) / Susie's dialectic ({{game\|Deltarune}}) / Bartleby's dialectic (Lacanianism)

	{{li\|I=S1/ES/Fy\|Q=51,03\|Q2=5103}}watch my taffy dance ("Come along with me")		{{li\|I=S1/ES/Fy\|Q=51,03\|Q2=5103}}watch my taffy dance ("Come along with me")

	{{li\|I=S2/Aa\|Q=51,02\|Q2=5102}}The unpredictability of Subjects will save the world / Bartleby the unlikeable guy will stop the problem by stoking empathy ({{cite\|The Excessive Subject}}, Žižek) / <s>whatsisname the unlikeable guy will stop the problem by stoking empathy</s> (misquote) -> I only caught this one after three or more times of listening to a Deltarune analysis. on Noelle's blog there is [https://deltarune.com/the_n3w3st_g1rl_g1rl/ an incident] where Susie is about to bite Kris, but then she stops because Kris said something unexpected. the blog post does not even explain what Kris said, underscoring the motif that Kris is an "excessive Subject" even to The Player. outside Deltarune, this same concept is portrayed much worse in <cite>The Excessive Subject</cite>. Rothenberg and Žižek clumsily try to explain that basically if a person is just really unpredictable people would eventually be forced to have intersubjectivity and learn empathy. honestly? I really do not think so. the problem isn't that reactionaries don't understand things. the problem is that the processes of society are much more physical and "inanimate" than people want to believe, reactionaries understand those processes all too well, and they choose to perpetuate cruel patterns because it's genuinely materially easier than doing otherwise. like, to get them to change you'd have to force <em>them</em> to expend energy and create things when they don't want to. doing nothing is much easier than doing something. people being unpredictable doesn't make Actually Getting Off Your Butt And Doing Things become easy.		{{li\|I=S2/Aa\|Q=51,02\|Q2=5102}}The unpredictability of Subjects will save the world / Bartleby the unlikeable guy will stop the problem by stoking empathy ({{cite\|The Excessive Subject}}, Žižek) / <s>whatsisname the unlikeable guy will stop the problem by stoking empathy</s> (misquote) -> I only caught this one after three or more times of listening to a Deltarune analysis. on Noelle's blog there is [https://deltarune.com/the_n3w3st_g1rl_g1rl/ an incident] where Susie is about to bite Kris, but then she stops because Kris said something unexpected. the blog post does not even explain what Kris said, underscoring the motif that Kris is an "excessive Subject" even to The Player. outside Deltarune, this same concept is portrayed much worse in <cite>The Excessive Subject</cite>. Rothenberg and Žižek clumsily try to explain that basically if a person is just really unpredictable people would eventually be forced to have intersubjectivity and learn empathy. honestly? I really do not think so. the problem isn't that reactionaries don't understand things. the problem is that the processes of society are much more physical and "inanimate" than people want to believe, reactionaries understand those processes all too well, and they choose to perpetuate cruel patterns because it's genuinely materially easier than doing otherwise. like, to get them to change you'd have to force <em>them</em> to expend energy and create things when they don't want to. doing nothing is much easier than doing something. people being unpredictable doesn't make Actually Getting Off Your Butt And Doing Things become easy.

			{{li\|I=S1/Aa\|Q=51,01\|Q2=5101-ME}}technetium rule / Be authentic unto others so that others will be authentic unto you / ({{9k\|RD/Q618-PeriodicTableOfRules}})

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 28:		Line 31:

	{{li\|I=S2/LR\|tradition=\|Q=618}}Humor is a form of government -> to claim that humor is "democratic" seems to be using a definition where "democracy" has nothing to do with giving the people any power to govern each other (so, democracy is not government of the people by the people and for the people), and in fact is almost synonymous with {{i\|freedom}}; as people have more and more freedom there is democracy, but when people are actually given the power to govern the people that has nothing to do with democracy.		{{li\|I=S2/LR\|tradition=\|Q=618}}Humor is a form of government -> to claim that humor is "democratic" seems to be using a definition where "democracy" has nothing to do with giving the people any power to govern each other (so, democracy is not government of the people by the people and for the people), and in fact is almost synonymous with {{i\|freedom}}; as people have more and more freedom there is democracy, but when people are actually given the power to govern the people that has nothing to do with democracy.

			{{li\|I=S2/LR/Aa\|Q=618}}The point of protests is to increase social costs {{YouTube\|vAYgJ9X0xS0}} -> this is one of the most Lacanian political theories I have ever seen, and I feel secondhand embarrassment that anyone calling themselves "communist" would advance it. this is just a version of Edgeworth's dialectic. it's one of the least bad ones, granted, but it's still not very good.

			{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}The point of protests is to increase social costs -> Can "social costs" meaningfully exist if people can at any point pivot and claim they aren't part of the countable society that attempts to impose costs? They have every incentive to claim that they aren't part of that society and also that the "other" society is part of theirs or subject to theirs. This theory of society actively breeds imperialism.<br/>
			god, the use of the US Civil War as somehow proving the point that upholding slavery created a social cost..... is 'we can secede, gain sovereignty, and shoot whoever we want' a social consequence or is that a position of power? I think it's hard to defend that it isn't the latter, especially after Reconstruction only led to a more even balance of power between bigotry and not. Confederates weren't trying to conquer the North, but Tories now are, as if making them part of society in fact created a trend toward more social consequences for progress and fewer social consequences for bigotry.<br/>
			neodymium rule: social costs flip over; impose cultural standards onto others only when you are willing to endure completely different and objectionable standards {{em\|actually}} being imposed onto you.

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 66:		Line 75:
	so like, when Lacanians go around spewing this idea that [[E:The Excessive Subject\|Edgeworth's dialectic can fix anything with no historical materialism or Marxism required]], this really tests that claim. dropping an atomic bomb on Japan is basically just a very large-scale version of Edgeworth's dialectic — it attempts to bring a change in Japan's consciousness by the United States being exactly as it is but fighting back against Japan. at small scales it may not be harmful but at large scales it can become horrifically violent. and for what, to preserve the arbitrary idea that people change their behavior or artificially design their national culture starting at Free Will?? I genuinely don't see how a country spontaneously attacking the United States with a plane isn't the same thing. the other country sees the United States being aggressive, it asks for a change in behavior, it deals a warning blow if there is not a change in behavior to signify that the other country wants the United States to go away and isn't giving in to the bullies. we've already established that Edgeworth's dialectic is a potentially toxic process that allows reactionary groups of people to pressure anybody they like to behave the way they behave. so we know it's not actually a matter of Good and Evil. but I think this demonstrates that it inherently favors and privileges war. if two populations each get convinced that 'fighting back against each other and setting boundaries' is the way to end each other's aggression, they can end up going to war basically indefinitely.<br/>		so like, when Lacanians go around spewing this idea that [[E:The Excessive Subject\|Edgeworth's dialectic can fix anything with no historical materialism or Marxism required]], this really tests that claim. dropping an atomic bomb on Japan is basically just a very large-scale version of Edgeworth's dialectic — it attempts to bring a change in Japan's consciousness by the United States being exactly as it is but fighting back against Japan. at small scales it may not be harmful but at large scales it can become horrifically violent. and for what, to preserve the arbitrary idea that people change their behavior or artificially design their national culture starting at Free Will?? I genuinely don't see how a country spontaneously attacking the United States with a plane isn't the same thing. the other country sees the United States being aggressive, it asks for a change in behavior, it deals a warning blow if there is not a change in behavior to signify that the other country wants the United States to go away and isn't giving in to the bullies. we've already established that Edgeworth's dialectic is a potentially toxic process that allows reactionary groups of people to pressure anybody they like to behave the way they behave. so we know it's not actually a matter of Good and Evil. but I think this demonstrates that it inherently favors and privileges war. if two populations each get convinced that 'fighting back against each other and setting boundaries' is the way to end each other's aggression, they can end up going to war basically indefinitely.<br/>
	gosh imagine a category-of-things Item which is 'book that effectively recommends dropping an atomic bomb on Japan'.		gosh imagine a category-of-things Item which is 'book that effectively recommends dropping an atomic bomb on Japan'.

			{{li\|I=S2/Aa/MX\|tradition=MX onto Aa, MX onto ES, MX onto LR\|Q=618}}A world that tries to fix prejudice and hatred through "moderation" ("normalcy"; "basic human decency"; "socialization"; "symbolic castration" or "discipline"; etc) will see moderate lukewarm forms of fascism pop up and persist for decades, not the elimination of fascism

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

Reversedragon: Humor is a form of government

2026-05-24T02:23:10Z

Humor is a form of government

Show changes

Reversedragon: re-sort

2026-05-24T01:23:35Z

re-sort

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 </li></ol>
-== Related ==
+== Technology ==
 <ol class="hue clean terse field_exstruct">
@@ Line 44: / Line 32: @@
 I know this would be a fun B-side chapter though. {{i|Hello, U.S. Congress. This is the Emancipation Party for statist anarchy. I may be an anarchist, but I don't believe in letting dangerous technologies run around freely. This is why you have to regulate anticommunism as a dangerous technology...}}<br/>
 Anticommunism is a technology + ?? = Anticommunism is a dangerous technology
 </li></ol>
@@ Line 78: / Line 68: @@
 {{li|I=S2/MX/DG/A|tradition=MX onto DG|Q=55,16|Q2=5516}}Moderation is a form of extremism / Because individuals vary greatly, their normal healthy states of being are in effect naturally "extreme" relative to each other, and thus any attempt to regulate an overall population's "extreme" behavior by bringing down "moderation" on every single individual one-by-one is in effect an attempt to intolerantly force a specific way of being on large numbers of people, and through the sheer quantity of that action it becomes extreme  ->  this sounds like something a schizoanalyst would say but at the very least it's more correct than [[E:Fukuyama's dialectic|what Mr. Jiang says]].
 </li></ol>

Reversedragon: Humor is a form of government

2026-05-20T06:11:35Z

Humor is a form of government

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:11, 20 May 2026
Line 52:		Line 52:
	{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/LR\|Q=618}}Nothing is more democratic than to have the high and mighty lampooned and spoofed (Hustler v. Falwell) ; Hustler Magazine and Larry C. Flynt, Petitioners v. Jerry Falwell [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell] {{YouTube\|DF152HUdTvg}} -> it feels strange there is so much talk about the role of humor recently. I feel like it's one of many faces of [[E:Edgeworth's dialectic\|Edgeworth's dialectic]].		{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/LR\|Q=618}}Nothing is more democratic than to have the high and mighty lampooned and spoofed (Hustler v. Falwell) ; Hustler Magazine and Larry C. Flynt, Petitioners v. Jerry Falwell [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell] {{YouTube\|DF152HUdTvg}} -> it feels strange there is so much talk about the role of humor recently. I feel like it's one of many faces of [[E:Edgeworth's dialectic\|Edgeworth's dialectic]].

	{{li\|I=S2/Aa\|tradition=LR, ES, Aa, A\|Q=618}}Humor is a form of government <!-- / Humour is a form of government --> -> I hate this proposition because I know it's not true, but I have a very hard time disproving it because I don't even know what's the best concrete place to start.		{{li\|I=S2/Aa\|tradition=LR, ES, Aa, A\|Q=618}}Humor is a form of government <!-- / Humour is a form of government --> -> I hate this proposition because I know it's not true but I have a very hard time disproving it because I don't even know what's the best concrete place to start.

			{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=\|Q=618}}Humor is a form of government -> my first thoughts here... humor can be used by literally anyone with any point of view, and it can be used to discourage things that are normal or harmless if enough people subjectively decide they're awkward. trans women have been the subject of terrible jokes for decades and decades, all intended to make them go away. "global warming" has also been a very frequent subject of jokes. and people who are told that hateful jokes aren't funny generally don't change their minds, they just keep repeating them to people quietly anyway and complaining that culture has become 'authoritarian'. as much as it may be tempting to say that that in itself is funny (decades ago the complaint was Stalin's government killing 100,000 Trotskyites and now you get upset about this?), it's really not, because it shows that the statement that humor can {{em\|govern}} people including everyday bullies and political figures isn't true.<br/>
			if you have a definition of "democratic" that includes people actually facing consequences when they're governed that wouldn't allow them to infinitely continue the same behavior, then no, humor is {{em\|not}} democratic. humor is about as democratic as impeaching Donald Trump, because it has done about as much to get him out of office.

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

Reversedragon: Humor is a form of government

2026-05-20T04:37:48Z

Humor is a form of government

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:37, 20 May 2026
Line 44:		Line 44:
	I know this would be a fun B-side chapter though. {{i\|Hello, U.S. Congress. This is the Emancipation Party for statist anarchy. I may be an anarchist, but I don't believe in letting dangerous technologies run around freely. This is why you have to regulate anticommunism as a dangerous technology...}}<br/>		I know this would be a fun B-side chapter though. {{i\|Hello, U.S. Congress. This is the Emancipation Party for statist anarchy. I may be an anarchist, but I don't believe in letting dangerous technologies run around freely. This is why you have to regulate anticommunism as a dangerous technology...}}<br/>
	Anticommunism is a technology + ?? = Anticommunism is a dangerous technology		Anticommunism is a technology + ?? = Anticommunism is a dangerous technology

			</li></ol>

			== Humor ==
			<ol class="hue clean terse field_exstruct">

			{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/LR\|Q=618}}Nothing is more democratic than to have the high and mighty lampooned and spoofed (Hustler v. Falwell) ; Hustler Magazine and Larry C. Flynt, Petitioners v. Jerry Falwell [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell] {{YouTube\|DF152HUdTvg}} -> it feels strange there is so much talk about the role of humor recently. I feel like it's one of many faces of [[E:Edgeworth's dialectic\|Edgeworth's dialectic]].

			{{li\|I=S2/Aa\|tradition=LR, ES, Aa, A\|Q=618}}Humor is a form of government <!-- / Humour is a form of government --> -> I hate this proposition because I know it's not true, but I have a very hard time disproving it because I don't even know what's the best concrete place to start.

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

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:12, 7 June 2026
Line 26:		Line 26:

	{{li\|I=S2/Aa\|tradition=LR, ES, Aa, A\|Q=618}}Humor is a form of government <!-- / Humour is a form of government --> -> I hate this proposition because I know it's not true but I have a very hard time disproving it because I don't even know what's the best concrete place to start.		{{li\|I=S2/Aa\|tradition=LR, ES, Aa, A\|Q=618}}Humor is a form of government <!-- / Humour is a form of government --> -> I hate this proposition because I know it's not true but I have a very hard time disproving it because I don't even know what's the best concrete place to start.

			{{li\|I=S2/LR/Aa\|Q=618}}The point of protests is to increase social costs {{YouTube\|vAYgJ9X0xS0}} -> this is one of the most Lacanian political theories I have ever seen, and I feel secondhand embarrassment that anyone calling themselves "communist" would advance it. this is just a version of Edgeworth's dialectic. it's one of the least bad ones, granted, but it's still not very good.

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=\|Q=618}}Humor is a form of government -> my first thoughts here... humor can be used by literally anyone with any point of view, and it can be used to discourage things that are normal or harmless if enough people subjectively decide they're awkward. trans women have been the subject of terrible jokes for decades and decades, all intended to make them go away. "global warming" has also been a very frequent subject of jokes. and people who are told that hateful jokes aren't funny generally don't change their minds, they just keep repeating them to people quietly anyway and complaining that culture has become 'authoritarian'. as much as it may be tempting to say that that in itself is funny (decades ago the complaint was Stalin's government killing 100,000 Trotskyites and now you get upset about this?), it's really not, because it shows that the statement that humor can {{em\|govern}} people including everyday bullies and political figures isn't true.<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=\|Q=618}}Humor is a form of government -> my first thoughts here... humor can be used by literally anyone with any point of view, and it can be used to discourage things that are normal or harmless if enough people subjectively decide they're awkward. trans women have been the subject of terrible jokes for decades and decades, all intended to make them go away. "global warming" has also been a very frequent subject of jokes. and people who are told that hateful jokes aren't funny generally don't change their minds, they just keep repeating them to people quietly anyway and complaining that culture has become 'authoritarian'. as much as it may be tempting to say that that in itself is funny (decades ago the complaint was Stalin's government killing 100,000 Trotskyites and now you get upset about this?), it's really not, because it shows that the statement that humor can {{em\|govern}} people including everyday bullies and political figures isn't true.<br/>
	if you have a definition of "democratic" that includes people actually facing consequences when they're governed that wouldn't allow them to infinitely continue the same behavior, then no, humor is {{em\|not}} democratic. humor is about as democratic as impeaching Donald Trump, because it has done about as much to get him out of office.		if you have a definition of "democratic" that includes people actually facing consequences when they're governed that wouldn't allow them to infinitely continue the same behavior, then no, humor is {{em\|not}} democratic. humor is about as democratic as impeaching Donald Trump, because it has done about as much to get him out of office.

			{{li\|I=S2/PT\|Q=618}}If humor is a form of government, then it can outlaw protests / If humor is a form of government, then protesting can be outlawed and suppressed simply by calling frivolous protests "actually stupid" -> I am really surprised I haven't already seen this happening. because it's exactly the way actual nazis think.

	{{li\|I=S2/LR\|tradition=\|Q=618}}Humor is a form of government -> to claim that humor is "democratic" seems to be using a definition where "democracy" has nothing to do with giving the people any power to govern each other (so, democracy is not government of the people by the people and for the people), and in fact is almost synonymous with {{i\|freedom}}; as people have more and more freedom there is democracy, but when people are actually given the power to govern the people that has nothing to do with democracy.		{{li\|I=S2/LR\|tradition=\|Q=618}}Humor is a form of government -> to claim that humor is "democratic" seems to be using a definition where "democracy" has nothing to do with giving the people any power to govern each other (so, democracy is not government of the people by the people and for the people), and in fact is almost synonymous with {{i\|freedom}}; as people have more and more freedom there is democracy, but when people are actually given the power to govern the people that has nothing to do with democracy.

	{{li\|I=S2/~~LR/Aa~~\|Q=618}}~~The point of protests~~ is ~~to increase social costs {{YouTube\|vAYgJ9X0xS0}}~~ -~~> this~~ is ~~one of~~ the ~~most Lacanian political theories I have ever seen~~, ~~and I feel secondhand embarrassment~~ that ~~anyone calling themselves "communist" would advance~~ it~~. this~~ is ~~just~~ a ~~version~~ of ~~Edgeworth~~'s ~~dialectic. it's one of the least bad ones, granted,~~ but it~~'s still~~ not ~~very good~~.		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Trump is Žižek / Trump making crude jokes does not prove [[E:If Slavoj Žižek does not believe in standard center-Liberalism, he is almost exactly the same as Donald Trump\|Slavoj Žižek is Donald Trump]], but arguably does prove that Trump is Žižek, or, to put it more literally, that the Republican party is a countable instance of blue or brown anarchism whether charcoal anarchists want to believe that is actually considered anarchism or not / Trump making crude jokes does not prove Žižek is a Tory, but does imply that Žižek's premises are incorrect and he is not modeling what he thinks he is; Žižek claimed he was a "Communist" but if Trump does what Žižek says and is against Communism it means that what Žižek believes is not Marxism or Leninism; this is to imply that what Žižek believes is blue anarchism<br/>
			Humor is a form of government + Donald Trump and crude jokes = Trump is Žižek.

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}The point of protests is to increase social costs -> Can "social costs" meaningfully exist if people can at any point pivot and claim they aren't part of the countable society that attempts to impose costs? They have every incentive to claim that they aren't part of that society and also that the "other" society is part of theirs or subject to theirs. This theory of society actively breeds imperialism.<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}The point of protests is to increase social costs -> Can "social costs" meaningfully exist if people can at any point pivot and claim they aren't part of the countable society that attempts to impose costs? They have every incentive to claim that they aren't part of that society and also that the "other" society is part of theirs or subject to theirs. This theory of society actively breeds imperialism.<br/>
	god, the use of the US Civil War as somehow proving the point that upholding slavery created a social cost..... is 'we can secede, gain sovereignty, and shoot whoever we want' a social consequence or is that a position of power? I think it's hard to defend that it isn't the latter, especially after Reconstruction only led to a more even balance of power between bigotry and not. Confederates weren't trying to conquer the North, but Tories now are, as if ~~making~~ them ~~part of~~ society in fact created a trend toward more social consequences for progress and fewer social consequences for bigotry.<br/>		god, the use of the US Civil War as somehow proving the point that upholding slavery created a social cost..... is 'we can secede, gain sovereignty, and shoot whoever we want' a social consequence or is that a position of power? I think it's hard to defend that it isn't the latter, especially after Reconstruction only led to a more even balance of power between bigotry and not-bigotry. not a good thing! you don't want not-bigotry and bigotry to be equally valid.<br/>
			Confederates weren't trying to conquer the North, but Tories now are, as if adding them into society and calling them 'Americans too' in fact created a trend toward more social consequences for progress and fewer social consequences for bigotry.<br/>
	neodymium rule: social costs flip over; impose cultural standards onto others only when you are willing to endure completely different and objectionable standards {{em\|actually}} being imposed onto you.		neodymium rule: social costs flip over; impose cultural standards onto others only when you are willing to endure completely different and objectionable standards {{em\|actually}} being imposed onto you.

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:17, 24 May 2026
Line 7:		Line 7:
	Socratic dialectic + ?? = Edgeworth's dialectic. Fukuyama's dialectic + character development (fiction) = Edgeworth's dialectic. Miles Edgeworth + authenticity (Lacanianism) = Edgeworth's dialectic. Miles Edgeworth + The unpredictability of Subjects will save the world = Edgeworth's dialectic.		Socratic dialectic + ?? = Edgeworth's dialectic. Fukuyama's dialectic + character development (fiction) = Edgeworth's dialectic. Miles Edgeworth + authenticity (Lacanianism) = Edgeworth's dialectic. Miles Edgeworth + The unpredictability of Subjects will save the world = Edgeworth's dialectic.

	{{li\|I=S1/Fy/Aa\|Q=64,43\|Q2=64,43}}Edgeworth's dialectic ({{game\|Ace Attorney}}) -> added previous propositions. <s>some of these may need to be merged together?</s> I think Q64,43 is its own motif because it can be considered the {{game\|Ace Attorney}} version, or the "fictional works" version of the motif, while at least Q51,01 would be separate from it.		{{li\|I=S1/Fy/Aa\|Q=64,43\|Q2=64,43}}Edgeworth's dialectic ({{game\|Ace Attorney}}) -> added previous propositions. <s>some of these may need to be merged together?</s> I think Q64,43 is its own motif because it can be considered the {{game\|Ace Attorney}} version, or the "fictional works" version of the motif, while at least Q51,01 would be separate from it.<br/>
	~~{{li\|I=S1~~/~~Fy/Aa\|Q=51,01\|Q2=5101}}Edgeworth's dialectic -~~> yeah, no, I think all of these items can reasonably be separate, but Q51,01 is the main one, and Q64,43 and Q51,03 are specific senses of it expressed as Items rather than sense labels (which is okay, or perhaps better).		[edit:] yeah, no, I think all of these items can reasonably be separate, but Q51,01 is the main one, and Q64,43 and Q51,03 are specific senses of it expressed as Items rather than sense labels (which is okay, or perhaps better).

	{{li\|I=S2/ES\|Q=51,01\|Q2=5101}}When The Subject simply {{em\|is}}, it compels people to listen / Edgeworth's dialectic ({{game\|Ace Attorney}}; generic) / Susie's dialectic ({{game\|Deltarune}}) / Bartleby's dialectic (Lacanianism)		{{li\|I=S2/ES\|Q=51,01\|Q2=5101}}Subjectivity makes people listen / When The Subject simply {{em\|is}}, it compels people to listen / Edgeworth's dialectic ({{game\|Ace Attorney}}; generic) / Susie's dialectic ({{game\|Deltarune}}) / Bartleby's dialectic (Lacanianism)

	{{li\|I=S1/ES/Fy\|Q=51,03\|Q2=5103}}watch my taffy dance ("Come along with me")		{{li\|I=S1/ES/Fy\|Q=51,03\|Q2=5103}}watch my taffy dance ("Come along with me")
Line 75:		Line 75:
	so like, when Lacanians go around spewing this idea that [[E:The Excessive Subject\|Edgeworth's dialectic can fix anything with no historical materialism or Marxism required]], this really tests that claim. dropping an atomic bomb on Japan is basically just a very large-scale version of Edgeworth's dialectic — it attempts to bring a change in Japan's consciousness by the United States being exactly as it is but fighting back against Japan. at small scales it may not be harmful but at large scales it can become horrifically violent. and for what, to preserve the arbitrary idea that people change their behavior or artificially design their national culture starting at Free Will?? I genuinely don't see how a country spontaneously attacking the United States with a plane isn't the same thing. the other country sees the United States being aggressive, it asks for a change in behavior, it deals a warning blow if there is not a change in behavior to signify that the other country wants the United States to go away and isn't giving in to the bullies. we've already established that Edgeworth's dialectic is a potentially toxic process that allows reactionary groups of people to pressure anybody they like to behave the way they behave. so we know it's not actually a matter of Good and Evil. but I think this demonstrates that it inherently favors and privileges war. if two populations each get convinced that 'fighting back against each other and setting boundaries' is the way to end each other's aggression, they can end up going to war basically indefinitely.<br/>		so like, when Lacanians go around spewing this idea that [[E:The Excessive Subject\|Edgeworth's dialectic can fix anything with no historical materialism or Marxism required]], this really tests that claim. dropping an atomic bomb on Japan is basically just a very large-scale version of Edgeworth's dialectic — it attempts to bring a change in Japan's consciousness by the United States being exactly as it is but fighting back against Japan. at small scales it may not be harmful but at large scales it can become horrifically violent. and for what, to preserve the arbitrary idea that people change their behavior or artificially design their national culture starting at Free Will?? I genuinely don't see how a country spontaneously attacking the United States with a plane isn't the same thing. the other country sees the United States being aggressive, it asks for a change in behavior, it deals a warning blow if there is not a change in behavior to signify that the other country wants the United States to go away and isn't giving in to the bullies. we've already established that Edgeworth's dialectic is a potentially toxic process that allows reactionary groups of people to pressure anybody they like to behave the way they behave. so we know it's not actually a matter of Good and Evil. but I think this demonstrates that it inherently favors and privileges war. if two populations each get convinced that 'fighting back against each other and setting boundaries' is the way to end each other's aggression, they can end up going to war basically indefinitely.<br/>
	gosh imagine a category-of-things Item which is 'book that effectively recommends dropping an atomic bomb on Japan'.		gosh imagine a category-of-things Item which is 'book that effectively recommends dropping an atomic bomb on Japan'.

			{{li\|I=Z2/ES\|tradition=MX onto ES\|Q=618}}Sanctions can be anarchic / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q1961\|9k]])

			{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=50,54\|Q2=5054}}Anarchy can be anhierarchy / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q50,54\|9k]]) -> Cuba is one of the best examples. anarchists go around trying to say that the negative effects that occur during Government or a locus of conjoined patriots [[E:Correlation is not causation\|happen {{em\|because of}} Government]], but what they don't realize is that there can be any number of cases where similar negative effects occur from decentralized processes in which people come together as equals and nobody rules anybody else, all the un-governed equals in the process who fairly agreed with each other to enter the process as a matter of peace and friendship just spontaneously all collect onto a decision that's really terrible, and somewhat literally a bunch of equal people simply decide to be more equal than other groups of equals.<br/>
			something can totally, {{em\|almost indisputably}} be an {{a\|anarchy\|E=stationary combination of heterogeneous elements}} and yet do horrible things to other groups of people on the level of Bellegarrigue's concept of "civil war" (warring states periods, violent global empire).

			{{li\|I=S2/IV/Aa\|Q=51,01\|Q2=5101}}Trotsky showed that Stalin was wrong by being authentic

	{{li\|I=S2/Aa/MX\|tradition=MX onto Aa, MX onto ES, MX onto LR\|Q=618}}A world that tries to fix prejudice and hatred through "moderation" ("normalcy"; "basic human decency"; "socialization"; "symbolic castration" or "discipline"; etc) will see moderate lukewarm forms of fascism pop up and persist for decades, not the elimination of fascism		{{li\|I=S2/Aa/MX\|tradition=MX onto Aa, MX onto ES, MX onto LR\|Q=618}}A world that tries to fix prejudice and hatred through "moderation" ("normalcy"; "basic human decency"; "socialization"; "symbolic castration" or "discipline"; etc) will see moderate lukewarm forms of fascism pop up and persist for decades, not the elimination of fascism

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:34, 7 June 2026
Line 23:		Line 23:
	<ol class="hue clean terse field_exstruct">		<ol class="hue clean terse field_exstruct">

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/LR\|Q=~~618~~}}~~Nothing~~ is ~~more democratic than to have~~ the ~~high~~ and ~~mighty lampooned and spoofed (Hustler v. Falwell)~~ ; ~~Hustler Magazine~~ and ~~Larry C. Flynt, Petitioners v. Jerry Falwell [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell] {{YouTube\|DF152HUdTvg}} -> it feels strange there~~ is ~~so much talk about~~ the ~~role of humor recently. I feel like it's one of many faces of [[E:Edgeworth's dialectic\|Edgeworth's dialectic]].~~		{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/LR\|Q=64,76\|Q2=6476}}Offensive jokes are democracy / Making offensive jokes is democracy / Making offensive jokes is a core and basic form of freedom situated within the level of social reality that everything called democracy stands on and springs out of; this is to imply that freedom is more important than democracy and democracy is actually made of freedom rather than the other way around

	{{li\|I=S2/Aa\|tradition=LR, ES, Aa, A\|Q=~~618~~}}Humor is a form of government <!-- / Humour is a form of government --> -> I hate this proposition because I know it's not true but I have a very hard time disproving it because I don't even know what's the best concrete place to start.		{{li\|I=S2/LR\|Q=64,76\|Q2=6476}}Nothing is more democratic than to have the high and mighty lampooned and spoofed (Hustler v. Falwell) ; Hustler Magazine and Larry C. Flynt, Petitioners v. Jerry Falwell [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell] {{YouTube\|DF152HUdTvg}} -> it feels strange there is so much talk about the role of humor recently. I feel like it's one of many faces of [[E:Edgeworth's dialectic\|Edgeworth's dialectic]].

			{{li\|I=S2/Aa\|tradition=LR, ES, Aa, A\|Q=64,77\|Q2=6477}}Humor is a form of government <!-- / Humour is a form of government --> -> I hate this proposition because I know it's not true but I have a very hard time disproving it because I don't even know what's the best concrete place to start.

	{{li\|I=S2/LR/Aa\|Q=618}}The point of protests is to increase social costs {{YouTube\|vAYgJ9X0xS0}} -> this is one of the most Lacanian political theories I have ever seen, and I feel secondhand embarrassment that anyone calling themselves "communist" would advance it. this is just a version of Edgeworth's dialectic. it's one of the least bad ones, granted, but it's still not very good.		{{li\|I=S2/LR/Aa\|Q=618}}The point of protests is to increase social costs {{YouTube\|vAYgJ9X0xS0}} -> this is one of the most Lacanian political theories I have ever seen, and I feel secondhand embarrassment that anyone calling themselves "communist" would advance it. this is just a version of Edgeworth's dialectic. it's one of the least bad ones, granted, but it's still not very good.

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|~~tradition~~=\|Q=~~618~~}}Humor is a form of government -> my first thoughts here... humor can be used by literally anyone with any point of view, and it can be used to discourage things that are normal or harmless if enough people subjectively decide they're awkward. trans women have been the subject of terrible jokes for decades and decades, all intended to make them go away. "global warming" has also been a very frequent subject of jokes. and people who are told that hateful jokes aren't funny generally don't change their minds, they just keep repeating them to people quietly anyway and complaining that culture has become 'authoritarian'. as much as it may be tempting to say that that in itself is funny (decades ago the complaint was Stalin's government killing 100,000 Trotskyites and now you get upset about this?), it's really not, because it shows that the statement that humor can {{em\|govern}} people including everyday bullies and political figures isn't true.<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=64,77\|Q2=6477}}Humor is a form of government -> my first thoughts here... humor can be used by literally anyone with any point of view, and it can be used to discourage things that are normal or harmless if enough people subjectively decide they're awkward. trans women have been the subject of terrible jokes for decades and decades, all intended to make them go away. "global warming" has also been a very frequent subject of jokes. and people who are told that hateful jokes aren't funny generally don't change their minds, they just keep repeating them to people quietly anyway and complaining that culture has become 'authoritarian'. as much as it may be tempting to say that that in itself is funny (decades ago the complaint was Stalin's government killing 100,000 Trotskyites and now you get upset about this?), it's really not, because it shows that the statement that humor can {{em\|govern}} people including everyday bullies and political figures isn't true.<br/>
	if you have a definition of "democratic" that includes people actually facing consequences when they're governed that wouldn't allow them to infinitely continue the same behavior, then no, humor is {{em\|not}} democratic. humor is about as democratic as impeaching Donald Trump, because it has done about as much to get him out of office.		if you have a definition of "democratic" that includes people actually facing consequences when they're governed that wouldn't allow them to infinitely continue the same behavior, then no, humor is {{em\|not}} democratic. humor is about as democratic as impeaching Donald Trump, because it has done about as much to get him out of office.

	{{li\|I=S2/PT\|Q=~~618~~}}If humor is a form of government, then it can outlaw protests / If humor is a form of government, then protesting can be outlawed and suppressed simply by calling frivolous protests "actually stupid" -> I am really surprised I haven't already seen this happening. because it's exactly the way actual nazis think.		{{li\|I=S2/PT\|Q=64,88\|Q=6488}}If humor is a form of government, then it can outlaw protests / If humor is a form of government, then protesting can be outlawed and suppressed simply by calling frivolous protests "actually stupid" -> I am really surprised I haven't already seen this happening. because it's exactly the way actual nazis think.

	{{li\|I=S2/PT\|~~tradition~~=\|Q=~~618~~}}~~Humor is a form of government /~~ Humor is a form of control ~~(sense)~~ -> ...god, yeah. it just hit me. when Franziska von Karma calls people "fools", why do you think she does it? to legitimize the regulatory power of the whip. certain connections hit you after you find psychoanalytic hypotheses in the {{game\|Ace Attorney}} games.<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/PT\|Q=64,77\|Q2=6477}}Humor is a form of control -> ...god, yeah. it just hit me. when Franziska von Karma calls people "fools", why do you think she does it? to legitimize the regulatory power of the whip. certain connections hit you after you find psychoanalytic hypotheses in the {{game\|Ace Attorney}} games.<br/>
	the question then is, exactly how fast does "Edgeworth's dialectic" turn into "von Karma's dialectic"? what are the parameters? what is the process?		the question then is, exactly how fast does "Edgeworth's dialectic" turn into "von Karma's dialectic"? what are the parameters? what is the process?

	{{li\|I=S2/LR\|~~tradition~~=\|Q=~~618~~}}Humor is a form of government -> to claim that humor is "democratic" seems to be using a definition where "democracy" has nothing to do with giving the people any power to govern each other (so, democracy is not government of the people by the people and for the people), and in fact is almost synonymous with {{i\|freedom}}; as people have more and more freedom there is democracy, but when people are actually given the power to govern the people that has nothing to do with democracy.		{{li\|I=S2/LR\|Q=64,77\|Q2=6477}}Humor is a form of government -> to claim that humor is "democratic" seems to be using a definition where "democracy" has nothing to do with giving the people any power to govern each other (so, democracy is not government of the people by the people and for the people), and in fact is almost synonymous with {{i\|freedom}}; as people have more and more freedom there is democracy, but when people are actually given the power to govern the people that has nothing to do with democracy.

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=~~618~~}}Trump is Žižek / Trump making crude jokes does not prove [[E:If Slavoj Žižek does not believe in standard center-Liberalism, he is almost exactly the same as Donald Trump\|Slavoj Žižek is Donald Trump]], but arguably does prove that Trump is Žižek, or, to put it more literally, that the Republican party is a countable instance of blue or brown anarchism whether charcoal anarchists want to believe that is actually considered anarchism or not / Trump making crude jokes does not prove Žižek is a Tory, but does imply that Žižek's premises are incorrect and he is not modeling what he thinks he is; Žižek claimed he was a "Communist" but if Trump does what Žižek says and is against Communism it means that what Žižek believes is not Marxism or Leninism; this is to imply that what Žižek believes is blue anarchism<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=64,75\|Q2=6475}}Trump is Žižek / Trump making crude jokes does not prove [[E:If Slavoj Žižek does not believe in standard center-Liberalism, he is almost exactly the same as Donald Trump\|Slavoj Žižek is Donald Trump]], but arguably does prove that Trump is Žižek, or, to put it more literally, that the Republican party is a countable instance of blue or brown anarchism whether charcoal anarchists want to believe that is actually considered anarchism or not / Trump making crude jokes does not prove Žižek is a Tory, but does imply that Žižek's premises are incorrect and he is not modeling what he thinks he is; Žižek claimed he was a "Communist" but if Trump does what Žižek says and is against Communism it means that what Žižek believes is not Marxism or Leninism; this is to imply that what Žižek believes is blue anarchism<br/>
	Humor is a form of government + Donald Trump and crude jokes = Trump is Žižek.		Humor is a form of government + Donald Trump and crude jokes = Trump is Žižek.