User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/3000 - Revision history

Reversedragon: the scientific community

2026-06-12T03:36:13Z

the scientific community

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:36, 12 June 2026
Line 99:		Line 99:
	</li><li class="number_empty" value="3047" data-dimension="S">??		</li><li class="number_empty" value="3047" data-dimension="S">??
	</li><li class="number_empty" value="3048" data-dimension="S">??		</li><li class="number_empty" value="3048" data-dimension="S">??
	</~~li><li class~~=~~"number_empty" value~~="3049~~" data-dimension="S">??~~
			{{li\|I=S1/STM/LR\|Q=30,49\|Q2=3049}}the scientific community / ({{9k\|RD/Q42,34}})

	{{li\|I=S1/HM/W\|Q=30,50\|Q2=3050}}right-wing semantic hegemony / ({{9k\|RD/Q30,52}})		{{li\|I=S1/HM/W\|Q=30,50\|Q2=3050}}right-wing semantic hegemony / ({{9k\|RD/Q30,52}})

Reversedragon: You are already free (anarchism)

2026-06-09T13:47:04Z

You are already free (anarchism)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:47, 9 June 2026
Line 429:		Line 429:
	</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="32,69" value="3269" data-dimension="S">Populationism (meta-Marxism) / nameless prejudice against all other populations		</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="32,69" value="3269" data-dimension="S">Populationism (meta-Marxism) / nameless prejudice against all other populations

	</li~~><li class~~=~~"field_anarchy" data-qid~~="32,70~~" value~~="3270~~" data-tradition="A" data-dimension="F2">~~Anarchism is acting as if you are already free / Freedom is using individual will to realize ~~Anarchism -> well, here it is. a claim said by anarchists which says the thing I call Existentialism is one specific form of Anarchism.~~ (found in the context of an interview with David Graeber, who was claimed to be an anarchist at some point in time.) I think this claim is inherently contradictory such that it could not possibly be true. if anarchism is acting as if you are free, some people are already anti-vaccine, anti-immigrant, anti-Islam/~~anti-atheist Tories before they do that~~, and then they can do "anarchism" on top of being a Tory. so Anarchism would then be a system where half of the population transitions to fascists with a fascist state and half of the population is Anarchists and the fascists kill the Anarchists (potentially). I think most anarchists would not say fascism is part of any anarchism, so this is not a definition which can actually mark off where anarchism starts and ends. on the other hand, the claim that anarchism generates Liberalism is more plausible, because nothing rules out Liberalism being what anarchism looks like in reality, and it doesn't rule out the possibility that anarchism generates Liberalism and Liberalism then generates fascism.		{{li\|I=F2/A\|tradition=A, ES\|Q=32,70\|Q2=3270}}You are already free (anarchism) / Anarchism is acting as if you are already free / Freedom is using individual will to realize anarchism / ({{9k\|RD/Q32,70}})

	</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="32,71" value="3271" data-dimension="S2">Freedom is the discovery of escape routes / Freedom is the rearrangement of social connections -> schizoanalysis		</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="32,71" value="3271" data-dimension="S2">Freedom is the discovery of escape routes / Freedom is the rearrangement of social connections -> schizoanalysis

Reversedragon: Propositions are 40 characters

2026-06-07T04:00:55Z

Propositions are 40 characters

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:00, 7 June 2026
Line 821:		Line 821:
	</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3539" data-dimension="M3">What is the truth value of creepypastas?		</li><li class="field_mdem" value="3539" data-dimension="M3">What is the truth value of creepypastas?

	</li><li class="number_empty" value="~~3540~~" data-dimension="S">??		{{li\|I=S2/MW\|Q=35,40\|Q2=3540}}Propositions are 40 characters / Propositions should be summarized in about 40 characters or less assuming they are being summarized in the English language; this by itself does not imply any specific length for other languages, although it is possible the recommended character lengths for languages such as German and Spanish (languages based on Latin letters) will be similar / Propositions are allowed but not required to be 4 characters long in Mandarin Chinese (sense) -> this is more important than the rule that propositions are four words long, especially when it is easier to apply across different languages

			</li><li class="number_empty" value="3541" data-dimension="S">??
			</li><li class="number_empty" value="3542" data-dimension="S">??
			</li><li class="number_empty" value="3543" data-dimension="S">??
			</li><li class="number_empty" value="3544" data-dimension="S">??
			</li><li class="number_empty" value="3545" data-dimension="S">??
			</li><li class="number_empty" value="3546" data-dimension="S">??
			</li><li class="number_empty" value="3547" data-dimension="S">??
			</li><li class="number_empty" value="3548" data-dimension="S">??
			</li><li class="number_empty" value="3549" data-dimension="S">??
	</li><li class="number_empty" value="3550" data-dimension="S">??		</li><li class="number_empty" value="3550" data-dimension="S">??
			</li><li class="number_empty" value="3551" data-dimension="S">??
			</li><li class="number_empty" value="3552" data-dimension="S">??
			</li><li class="number_empty" value="3553" data-dimension="S">??
			</li><li class="number_empty" value="3554" data-dimension="S">??

	</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" data-qid="35,55" value="3555" data-dimension="S">If I had a nickel for every time ... I'd have two nickels — which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice / ([[User:RD/9k/Q225\|9k]])		</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" data-qid="35,55" value="3555" data-dimension="S">If I had a nickel for every time ... I'd have two nickels — which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice / ([[User:RD/9k/Q225\|9k]])

			</li><li class="number_empty" value="3556" data-dimension="S">??
			</li><li class="number_empty" value="3557" data-dimension="S">??
			</li><li class="number_empty" value="3558" data-dimension="S">??
			</li><li class="number_empty" value="3559" data-dimension="S">??
	</li><li class="number_empty" value="3560" data-dimension="S">??		</li><li class="number_empty" value="3560" data-dimension="S">??
			</li><li class="number_empty" value="3561" data-dimension="S">??
			</li><li class="number_empty" value="3562" data-dimension="S">??
			</li><li class="number_empty" value="3563" data-dimension="S">??
			</li><li class="number_empty" value="3564" data-dimension="S">??
	</li><li class="number_empty" value="3565" data-dimension="S">??		</li><li class="number_empty" value="3565" data-dimension="S">??

	{{li\|I=S1/ML/IV\|Q=35,66\|Q2=3566}}characters that would be journalists becoming Communist theorists or revolutionaries / characters that would be journalists or educators becoming Communist leaders / ({{9k\|RD/Q12,10}})		{{li\|I=S1/ML/IV\|Q=35,66\|Q2=3566}}characters that would be journalists becoming Communist theorists or revolutionaries / characters that would be journalists or educators becoming Communist leaders / ({{9k\|RD/Q12,10}})

			</li><li class="number_empty" value="3567" data-dimension="S">??
			</li><li class="number_empty" value="3568" data-dimension="S">??
			</li><li class="number_empty" value="3569" data-dimension="S">??
	</li><li class="number_empty" value="3570" data-dimension="S">??		</li><li class="number_empty" value="3570" data-dimension="S">??
	</li><li class="number_empty" value="3575" data-dimension="S">??		</li><li class="number_empty" value="3575" data-dimension="S">??

Reversedragon: right-wing semantic hegemony

2026-06-01T01:48:08Z

right-wing semantic hegemony

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:48, 1 June 2026
Line 101:		Line 101:
	</li><li class="number_empty" value="3049" data-dimension="S">??		</li><li class="number_empty" value="3049" data-dimension="S">??

	{{li\|I=S1/HM/W\|Q=30,50\|Q2=3050}}right-wing semantic hegemony {{~~YouTube~~\|~~2BPTuMuYn_I~~}} ~~-> how do I tell you this? there isn't any such thing. language isn't a thing anyone can have hegemony over. not really. not actually. language (ontology~~) is the holding of beliefs and the formation of culture itself. whatever its content is, you can't just tell people not to have it, or to "break free" of having it. they'll never think that being part of it isn't being free if they chose it in order to be free, which is almost always the case. talking about such nonsense as "right-wing semantic hegemony" is basically saying "I don't like the right-wing countable culture, I want to smash all of Tory culture and purge it from the world", and there's no real difference between those two things.<br/>		{{li\|I=S1/HM/W\|Q=30,50\|Q2=3050}}right-wing semantic hegemony / ({{9k\|RD/Q30,52}})
	~~absolute lies. the people who say this are absolute liars about what they're really talking about and what they really mean.~~

	{{li\|I=S1/W\|Q=30,51\|Q2=3051}}hegemonic motif (idea; model; ideology; philosophy) / hegemonic ideology (Western Marxism) / ruling idea (early Marxism) / dominant narrative (postmodernism) / ({{9k\|RD/Q30,52}})		{{li\|I=S1/W\|Q=30,51\|Q2=3051}}hegemonic motif (idea; model; ideology; philosophy) / hegemonic ideology (Western Marxism) / ruling idea (early Marxism) / dominant narrative (postmodernism) / ({{9k\|RD/Q30,52}})

Reversedragon: right-wing semantic hegemony

2026-06-01T00:33:51Z

right-wing semantic hegemony

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:33, 1 June 2026
Line 100:		Line 100:
	</li><li class="number_empty" value="3048" data-dimension="S">??		</li><li class="number_empty" value="3048" data-dimension="S">??
	</li><li class="number_empty" value="3049" data-dimension="S">??		</li><li class="number_empty" value="3049" data-dimension="S">??
	</li>~~<li class=~~"~~number_empty~~" ~~value=~~"~~3050~~" ~~data~~-~~dimension="S~~">??
			{{li\|I=S1/HM/W\|Q=30,50\|Q2=3050}}right-wing semantic hegemony {{YouTube\|2BPTuMuYn_I}} -> how do I tell you this? there isn't any such thing. language isn't a thing anyone can have hegemony over. not really. not actually. language (ontology) is the holding of beliefs and the formation of culture itself. whatever its content is, you can't just tell people not to have it, or to "break free" of having it. they'll never think that being part of it isn't being free if they chose it in order to be free, which is almost always the case. talking about such nonsense as "right-wing semantic hegemony" is basically saying "I don't like the right-wing countable culture, I want to smash all of Tory culture and purge it from the world", and there's no real difference between those two things.<br/>
			absolute lies. the people who say this are absolute liars about what they're really talking about and what they really mean.

	{{li\|I=S1/W\|Q=30,51\|Q2=3051}}hegemonic motif (idea; model; ideology; philosophy) / hegemonic ideology (Western Marxism) / ruling idea (early Marxism) / dominant narrative (postmodernism) / ({{9k\|RD/Q30,52}})		{{li\|I=S1/W\|Q=30,51\|Q2=3051}}hegemonic motif (idea; model; ideology; philosophy) / hegemonic ideology (Western Marxism) / ruling idea (early Marxism) / dominant narrative (postmodernism) / ({{9k\|RD/Q30,52}})

Reversedragon: materialist inversion and math

2026-05-29T22:34:11Z

materialist inversion and math

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:34, 29 May 2026
Line 1,196:		Line 1,196:
	</li><li class="number_empty" value="3856" data-dimension="S2">??		</li><li class="number_empty" value="3856" data-dimension="S2">??
	</li><li class="number_empty" value="3857" data-dimension="S2">??		</li><li class="number_empty" value="3857" data-dimension="S2">??
	</li><li class="~~number_empty" value="3858~~" data-~~dimension~~="S2"~~>??~~
	~~</li><li class~~="~~field_mdem~~" data-~~qid~~="~~38,~~59~~" value="3859~~" data-dimension="S">the earth was the experience of a worm / prior to man the earth was the experience of a worm -> this one is violet because this thought experiment would get you all the way to meta-Marxism if you only did it with "the world before mainstream Marxism-Leninism" or "the world before Trotskyism". if Trotsky was only smart enough to be able to see a world where he hadn't been born and realize that for a Marxist theorist people are fungible and the actual world shouldn't be different we wouldn't be in this mess		</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="38,58" value="3858" data-rem="previously 59" data-dimension="S">the earth was the experience of a worm / prior to man the earth was the experience of a worm -> this one is violet because this thought experiment would get you all the way to meta-Marxism if you only did it with "the world before mainstream Marxism-Leninism" or "the world before Trotskyism". if Trotsky was only smart enough to be able to see a world where he hadn't been born and realize that for a Marxist theorist people are fungible and the actual world shouldn't be different we wouldn't be in this mess

			{{li\|I=S1/MX\|Q=38,59\|Q2=3859\|rem=Q59 mathematics}}[[E:MaterialistInversionAndMath\|materialist inversion and math]] / ({{9k\|RD/Q38,59}})

	</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="38,60" value="3860" data-dimension="S2">Sensation is a fence / We can only perceive psychical elements, not physical elements -> the positivist core of [[Ontology:Q19,09\|empirio-criticism]]<br /> yeah, it's more of a fuzzy boundary between a lawn and a road if it's anything.		</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="38,60" value="3860" data-dimension="S2">Sensation is a fence / We can only perceive psychical elements, not physical elements -> the positivist core of [[Ontology:Q19,09\|empirio-criticism]]<br /> yeah, it's more of a fuzzy boundary between a lawn and a road if it's anything.

Reversedragon: The workers must subordinate their interests to the interests of the bourgeois liberals (Menshevism)

2026-05-24T00:55:55Z

The workers must subordinate their interests to the interests of the bourgeois liberals (Menshevism)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:55, 24 May 2026
Line 290:		Line 290:
	</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3175" data-dimension="S">why didn't they just build bigger towns / town more than big enough for the two of us / ([[User:RD/9k/Q31,76\|9k]])		</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3175" data-dimension="S">why didn't they just build bigger towns / town more than big enough for the two of us / ([[User:RD/9k/Q31,76\|9k]])
	</li><li class="field_horror" value="3176" data-dimension="S">town ain't big enough for the two of us / ([[User:RD/9k/Q31,76\|9k]])		</li><li class="field_horror" value="3176" data-dimension="S">town ain't big enough for the two of us / ([[User:RD/9k/Q31,76\|9k]])
	</~~li><li class~~=~~"number_empty" value~~="~~3177~~"~~>??~~
			{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=31,77\|Q2=3177}}Duginism equals Liberal Zionism / Alexander Dugin failed to create a "new political philosophy distinct from Liberal-republicanism", because it is indistinguishable from Zionism

	</li><li class="field_geo" data-remark="this motif makes me think of anti-religion writings or something." value="3178" data-dimension="S">humorous euphemism for trash / please pick up your campaign promises and put them in the designated bag / what kind of Lacanianism is this? / what kind of Western-Marxism is this?		</li><li class="field_geo" data-remark="this motif makes me think of anti-religion writings or something." value="3178" data-dimension="S">humorous euphemism for trash / please pick up your campaign promises and put them in the designated bag / what kind of Lacanianism is this? / what kind of Western-Marxism is this?
Line 313:		Line 314:
	</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3196" data-dimension="S">??		</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3196" data-dimension="S">??
	</li><li class="field_nations" data-tradition="A, PT" data-qid="31,97" value="3197" data-dimension="S">pre-judging yourself out of the feeling that it's unethical or rude to not be mean to yourself and present yourself to others as bad		</li><li class="field_nations" data-tradition="A, PT" data-qid="31,97" value="3197" data-dimension="S">pre-judging yourself out of the feeling that it's unethical or rude to not be mean to yourself and present yourself to others as bad
	</~~li><li class~~=~~"field_exstruct" value~~="3198~~" data~~-~~dimension="S"~~>??
			{{li\|I=S2/LR\|Q=31,98\|Q2=3198}}The workers must subordinate their interests to the interests of the bourgeois liberals (Menshevism) -> I'll have to find sources on this because man, it looks like in some ways little has changed between the Mensheviks and today

	</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="31,99" value="3199" data-dimension="S">particular name as stupid idiot garbage trash / ([[User:RD/9k/Q3180\|9k]])		</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="31,99" value="3199" data-dimension="S">particular name as stupid idiot garbage trash / ([[User:RD/9k/Q3180\|9k]])

Reversedragon: gostak analysis

2026-05-24T00:49:01Z

gostak analysis

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:49, 24 May 2026
Line 275:		Line 275:
	{{li\|I=F2/ES\|tradition=MX onto ES\|Q=31,67\|Q2=3167}}The Israel-Palestine conflict is more effective than Communism / If the Israel-Palestine conflict lasted longer than the Soviet Union, it must be closer to being a good thing we want to keep going forever -> this should bring the whole idea of quantifying whether things work to the ground. the only real way to dismiss it is to claim that the Israel-Palestine conflict is a destructive process of some sort, and start distinguishing between constructive and destructive processes.		{{li\|I=F2/ES\|tradition=MX onto ES\|Q=31,67\|Q2=3167}}The Israel-Palestine conflict is more effective than Communism / If the Israel-Palestine conflict lasted longer than the Soviet Union, it must be closer to being a good thing we want to keep going forever -> this should bring the whole idea of quantifying whether things work to the ground. the only real way to dismiss it is to claim that the Israel-Palestine conflict is a destructive process of some sort, and start distinguishing between constructive and destructive processes.

	</~~li><li class~~=~~"number_empty" value~~="3168~~" data~~-~~dimension="S"~~>??		{{li\|I=S1/HAS\|Q=31,68\|Q2=3168}}gostak analysis -> the motif of discovering what something is, is made of, or is described as by looking at what things or objects are connected to it. technically the way all LLMs learn what any word means.

	</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3169" data-dimension="S">artistic abstraction -> the motif of art deliberately separating itself from reality and representation. Magritte's pipe is a decent example. early newspaper-type cartoons are another example. {{YouTube\|mkzHTemRfAk}}<br />		</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="3169" data-dimension="S">artistic abstraction -> the motif of art deliberately separating itself from reality and representation. Magritte's pipe is a decent example. early newspaper-type cartoons are another example. {{YouTube\|mkzHTemRfAk}}<br />

Reversedragon: undialectical idealism, historical non-materialism, and class non-analysis

2026-05-23T04:54:47Z

undialectical idealism, historical non-materialism, and class non-analysis

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:54, 23 May 2026
Line 85:		Line 85:
	</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3040" data-dimension="S">assigned liberal at birth / the Democratic Party is a sheer collection of abstract ideas on a metaphysical quality slider, never an organization or collection of people (motif) -> the motif of Liberal-republicanism asserting people belong to a single population of "liberals" (progressives) regardless of whether they actually belong to [[E:plurality\|multiple conflicting populations]] of non-center-LiberalRepublicans.		</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3040" data-dimension="S">assigned liberal at birth / the Democratic Party is a sheer collection of abstract ideas on a metaphysical quality slider, never an organization or collection of people (motif) -> the motif of Liberal-republicanism asserting people belong to a single population of "liberals" (progressives) regardless of whether they actually belong to [[E:plurality\|multiple conflicting populations]] of non-center-LiberalRepublicans.
	</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3041" data-dimension="S2">The U.S. Democratic Party is metaphysical / The United States Democratic Party is a sheer collection of abstract ideas on a metaphysical quality slider, never ever an organization or collection of people (proposition) -> if you want to understand why "United States people refuse to detach from the Democratic Party" to form a social-democratic subpopulation of workers and bourgeois allies, this would be why. Liberal-republicanism has made people so dumb they don't even understand what collections of people are. this is not a joke or hyperbole, I'm very serious when I say this. people really really literally think the Democratic Party never becomes a collection of people and is always carved out metaphysically as if from the cosmos. so when you say the phrase "detach from the Democratic Party" they literally don't understand what that means because to them that's like deleting an idea from your brain or deleting an idea from the universe. in their mind it's a law of nature that anybody whose brain contains the concepts of the Democratic Party is automatically a member. it's like an SCP report. the Democratic Party is like a hazardous anti-meme that deletes the whole concept of any group of people being a material object that it's optional to be a part of when it invades your brain. if the Christian god is a mind virus the Democratic Party is a mind virus that's ten or a hundred times worse.		</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3041" data-dimension="S2">The U.S. Democratic Party is metaphysical / The United States Democratic Party is a sheer collection of abstract ideas on a metaphysical quality slider, never ever an organization or collection of people (proposition) -> if you want to understand why "United States people refuse to detach from the Democratic Party" to form a social-democratic subpopulation of workers and bourgeois allies, this would be why. Liberal-republicanism has made people so dumb they don't even understand what collections of people are. this is not a joke or hyperbole, I'm very serious when I say this. people really really literally think the Democratic Party never becomes a collection of people and is always carved out metaphysically as if from the cosmos. so when you say the phrase "detach from the Democratic Party" they literally don't understand what that means because to them that's like deleting an idea from your brain or deleting an idea from the universe. in their mind it's a law of nature that anybody whose brain contains the concepts of the Democratic Party is automatically a member. it's like an SCP report. the Democratic Party is like a hazardous anti-meme that deletes the whole concept of any group of people being a material object that it's optional to be a part of when it invades your brain. if the Christian god is a mind virus the Democratic Party is a mind virus that's ten or a hundred times worse.
	~~</li><~~li ~~class~~=~~"field_exstruct" data-qid~~="30,42~~" value~~="3042~~" data-dimension="S">~~undialectical idealism, historical non-materialism, and class non-analysis / undialectical idealism, historical existentialism, & class non-analysis / ([[User:RD/9k/30,42\|9k]])
			{{li\|I=S1/ES\|Q=30,42\|Q2=3042}}undialectical idealism, historical non-materialism, and class non-analysis / undialectical idealism, historical existentialism, & class non-analysis / ([[User:RD/9k/30,42\|9k]])

	</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="30,43" value="3043" data-dimension="S">Democratic Party as cognitohazard / U.S. Democratic Party as cognitohazard -> this can be in a fictional context or a metaphorical one, said in these words or other words. get creative		</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="30,43" value="3043" data-dimension="S">Democratic Party as cognitohazard / U.S. Democratic Party as cognitohazard -> this can be in a fictional context or a metaphorical one, said in these words or other words. get creative

Reversedragon: Spiritual people are just deeply absorbed in culture, poetry, and romanticism

2026-05-12T05:35:04Z

Spiritual people are just deeply absorbed in culture, poetry, and romanticism

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:35, 12 May 2026
Line 881:		Line 881:
	</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="36,08" value="3608" data-dimension="S2">Siding with God is like siding with Goku / A personal relationship with God is like being allied with Goku / Personal relationship with God equal to personal relationship with Goku / A person having a "personal relationship with God" in the real world is equivalent to a person in the <cite>Dragon Ball</cite> universe having a personal relationship with one of its heroes -> this can be said in either a positive tone or a negative tone. positive, in that the narrative purpose of God in a bible story or an anecdote is to be a reassuring ally, just like Goku. negative, in that the way things work in <cite>Dragon Ball</cite>, its universe doesn't have inherent cosmic morality, and whenever you ally with a hero and hope they can defeat your enemy, you also take a gamble that the hero isn't evil and you haven't created an Evil faction. see: [[E:Super Saiyan God fallacy\|Super Saiyan God fallacy]].		</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="36,08" value="3608" data-dimension="S2">Siding with God is like siding with Goku / A personal relationship with God is like being allied with Goku / Personal relationship with God equal to personal relationship with Goku / A person having a "personal relationship with God" in the real world is equivalent to a person in the <cite>Dragon Ball</cite> universe having a personal relationship with one of its heroes -> this can be said in either a positive tone or a negative tone. positive, in that the narrative purpose of God in a bible story or an anecdote is to be a reassuring ally, just like Goku. negative, in that the way things work in <cite>Dragon Ball</cite>, its universe doesn't have inherent cosmic morality, and whenever you ally with a hero and hope they can defeat your enemy, you also take a gamble that the hero isn't evil and you haven't created an Evil faction. see: [[E:Super Saiyan God fallacy\|Super Saiyan God fallacy]].

	</li~~><li class~~=~~"field_mdem" data-qid~~="36,09~~" value~~="3609~~" data-dimension="S2">~~Spiritual people aren't delusional; they're highly cultural / Spiritual people aren't delusional, they're just deeply absorbed in culture, poetry, and romanticism -> this becomes very apparent if you read enough secondary-source Christian media totally detached from the opinions of any Christians as if it all fell out of the sky yesterday and you're the first person that ever saw it. the point of the stories is poetry. to tell things that would make sense said another way through really opaque poetry. that's just it.<br /> the reason it's so frustrating to try to get people out of religion is this. religion was never about the supernatural. people don't necessarily care about a supernatural or afterlife existing whatsoever. the true draw of religion that keeps sucking everybody in is <i>culture</i>. religion is culture. people are really obsessed with culture, they absolutely love culture. (while I'm one of the only people in existence who doesn't; I hate culture and love math.) a normal person sees a poetic description of some Lived Experience purportedly universal to multiple people's lives in a bible story or a novel and goes crazy for it, they flip out about how much they related to it and go pour out their emotions of how much they love whatever simple trope of "love your neighbor", "lesbians got together", etc with however many other people who are all there just because they're flipping out over a little shred of poetry. and these normal people intrinsically trust each other and trust that they each belong there flipping out over a line of poetry and it's completely expected nothing bad will happen and they won't spontaneously turn out to be enemies because they come from different subpopulations. if that happens they just go "it's unthinkable for that to be able to happen" and act quickly to suppress it and crush the way things really work. (not that that's a terrible thing, ~~should they actually succeed.~~) because they're totally wrapped up in poetry, they're under poetry's spell. people get together around a bit of poetry and become spellbound that whatever people they clustered together can become a stable ongoing countable culture and a "community". and from there they can get so wrapped up in poetry and "community" that they even start to have serious faith in their poetry-group out-enduring every human being who doesn't belong to it. this, I feel, partially explains the typical narrative around the New Deal and "fireside chats". people keep bringing up the fireside chats because they love the poetry of it. the simplicity of just collecting people together and sharing the same bit of culture and poetry, and thinking that this will supposedly make all of the suffering of the United States bit by bit slowly go away. but then it doesn't. the events that come next reveal people's attachment to poetry to be a mythology. it's revealed that the most innocuous case of people gathering around a national campfire and uniting together around poetry is a Cartesian system of reasoning that doesn't account for the existence of two separate plural groups in conflict with each other. the ignored group not integrated into the poetry gets upset and [[E:Zinovievizing\|Zinovievizes]] the Roosevelt followers and the whole thing comes crashing down. and this, I think, is a microcosm of all of Liberal-republicanism. the human brain really isn't built for intuitively understanding [[E:separable multiplicity\|separable multiplicity]]. the whole artistic, cultural, poetic, spiritual mode of thinking practically always fails to catch the existence of whole different countable cultures with whole different internal realities.		{{li\|I=S2/HAS/MX\|Q=36,09\|Q2=3609}}Spiritual people are theatrical / Spiritual people aren't delusional; they're highly cultural / Spiritual people aren't delusional, they're just deeply absorbed in culture, poetry, and romanticism / ({{9k\|RD/Q36,10}})

	{{li\|I=S2/HAS\|Q=36,10\|Q2=3610}}Some people prefer poetry to science / Myth, religion, dreams, visions ... the dark waters Freud fished to find his conception of human nature (Roszak 1968) / ({{9k\|RD/Q36,10}})		{{li\|I=S2/HAS\|Q=36,10\|Q2=3610}}Some people prefer poetry to science / Myth, religion, dreams, visions ... the dark waters Freud fished to find his conception of human nature (Roszak 1968) / ({{9k\|RD/Q36,10}})

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:35, 12 May 2026
Line 881:		Line 881:
	</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="36,08" value="3608" data-dimension="S2">Siding with God is like siding with Goku / A personal relationship with God is like being allied with Goku / Personal relationship with God equal to personal relationship with Goku / A person having a "personal relationship with God" in the real world is equivalent to a person in the <cite>Dragon Ball</cite> universe having a personal relationship with one of its heroes -> this can be said in either a positive tone or a negative tone. positive, in that the narrative purpose of God in a bible story or an anecdote is to be a reassuring ally, just like Goku. negative, in that the way things work in <cite>Dragon Ball</cite>, its universe doesn't have inherent cosmic morality, and whenever you ally with a hero and hope they can defeat your enemy, you also take a gamble that the hero isn't evil and you haven't created an Evil faction. see: [[E:Super Saiyan God fallacy\|Super Saiyan God fallacy]].		</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="36,08" value="3608" data-dimension="S2">Siding with God is like siding with Goku / A personal relationship with God is like being allied with Goku / Personal relationship with God equal to personal relationship with Goku / A person having a "personal relationship with God" in the real world is equivalent to a person in the <cite>Dragon Ball</cite> universe having a personal relationship with one of its heroes -> this can be said in either a positive tone or a negative tone. positive, in that the narrative purpose of God in a bible story or an anecdote is to be a reassuring ally, just like Goku. negative, in that the way things work in <cite>Dragon Ball</cite>, its universe doesn't have inherent cosmic morality, and whenever you ally with a hero and hope they can defeat your enemy, you also take a gamble that the hero isn't evil and you haven't created an Evil faction. see: [[E:Super Saiyan God fallacy\|Super Saiyan God fallacy]].

	</li~~><li class~~=~~"field_mdem" data-qid~~="36,09~~" value~~="3609~~" data-dimension="S2">~~Spiritual people aren't delusional; they're highly cultural / Spiritual people aren't delusional, they're just deeply absorbed in culture, poetry, and romanticism -> this becomes very apparent if you read enough secondary-source Christian media totally detached from the opinions of any Christians as if it all fell out of the sky yesterday and you're the first person that ever saw it. the point of the stories is poetry. to tell things that would make sense said another way through really opaque poetry. that's just it.<br /> the reason it's so frustrating to try to get people out of religion is this. religion was never about the supernatural. people don't necessarily care about a supernatural or afterlife existing whatsoever. the true draw of religion that keeps sucking everybody in is <i>culture</i>. religion is culture. people are really obsessed with culture, they absolutely love culture. (while I'm one of the only people in existence who doesn't; I hate culture and love math.) a normal person sees a poetic description of some Lived Experience purportedly universal to multiple people's lives in a bible story or a novel and goes crazy for it, they flip out about how much they related to it and go pour out their emotions of how much they love whatever simple trope of "love your neighbor", "lesbians got together", etc with however many other people who are all there just because they're flipping out over a little shred of poetry. and these normal people intrinsically trust each other and trust that they each belong there flipping out over a line of poetry and it's completely expected nothing bad will happen and they won't spontaneously turn out to be enemies because they come from different subpopulations. if that happens they just go "it's unthinkable for that to be able to happen" and act quickly to suppress it and crush the way things really work. (not that that's a terrible thing, ~~should they actually succeed.~~) because they're totally wrapped up in poetry, they're under poetry's spell. people get together around a bit of poetry and become spellbound that whatever people they clustered together can become a stable ongoing countable culture and a "community". and from there they can get so wrapped up in poetry and "community" that they even start to have serious faith in their poetry-group out-enduring every human being who doesn't belong to it. this, I feel, partially explains the typical narrative around the New Deal and "fireside chats". people keep bringing up the fireside chats because they love the poetry of it. the simplicity of just collecting people together and sharing the same bit of culture and poetry, and thinking that this will supposedly make all of the suffering of the United States bit by bit slowly go away. but then it doesn't. the events that come next reveal people's attachment to poetry to be a mythology. it's revealed that the most innocuous case of people gathering around a national campfire and uniting together around poetry is a Cartesian system of reasoning that doesn't account for the existence of two separate plural groups in conflict with each other. the ignored group not integrated into the poetry gets upset and [[E:Zinovievizing\|Zinovievizes]] the Roosevelt followers and the whole thing comes crashing down. and this, I think, is a microcosm of all of Liberal-republicanism. the human brain really isn't built for intuitively understanding [[E:separable multiplicity\|separable multiplicity]]. the whole artistic, cultural, poetic, spiritual mode of thinking practically always fails to catch the existence of whole different countable cultures with whole different internal realities.		{{li\|I=S2/HAS/MX\|Q=36,09\|Q2=3609}}Spiritual people are theatrical / Spiritual people aren't delusional; they're highly cultural / Spiritual people aren't delusional, they're just deeply absorbed in culture, poetry, and romanticism / ({{9k\|RD/Q36,10}})

	{{li\|I=S2/HAS\|Q=36,10\|Q2=3610}}Some people prefer poetry to science / Myth, religion, dreams, visions ... the dark waters Freud fished to find his conception of human nature (Roszak 1968) / ({{9k\|RD/Q36,10}})		{{li\|I=S2/HAS\|Q=36,10\|Q2=3610}}Some people prefer poetry to science / Myth, religion, dreams, visions ... the dark waters Freud fished to find his conception of human nature (Roszak 1968) / ({{9k\|RD/Q36,10}})