User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/5000 - Revision history

Reversedragon: Post-structuralist anarchists effectively hate China / Anarchism is partly defined by the claim that progress can only be described through the sheer assertion of human moralities as a fundamental layer of material reality

2026-04-23T20:57:08Z

Post-structuralist anarchists effectively hate China / Anarchism is partly defined by the claim that progress can only be described through the sheer assertion of human moralities as a fundamental layer of material reality

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:57, 23 April 2026
Line 303:		Line 303:
	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=MX onto ES\|Q=51,90\|Q2=5190}}Post-structuralist anarchism led to the YouTube algorithm -> when you think about it, "Algorithms" are almost tailor-made to mess with post-structuralist anarchists. they let you act individually. they let you withdraw from people with awful views that you don't like. they let you sort around and reward people who supposedly are free from "domination" (like "colonialism", I'm starting to hate that word for how much a typical use of it vulgarizes the concept it's talking about). they let you withdraw from the rest of society as much as you want.		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=MX onto ES\|Q=51,90\|Q2=5190}}Post-structuralist anarchism led to the YouTube algorithm -> when you think about it, "Algorithms" are almost tailor-made to mess with post-structuralist anarchists. they let you act individually. they let you withdraw from people with awful views that you don't like. they let you sort around and reward people who supposedly are free from "domination" (like "colonialism", I'm starting to hate that word for how much a typical use of it vulgarizes the concept it's talking about). they let you withdraw from the rest of society as much as you want.

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=MX onto ES\|Q=51,91\|Q2=5191}}Post-structuralist anarchists effectively hate China ~~-> another proposition that's a bit of a troll but I do think it's true. post-structuralist anarchism is sometimes~~ (~~apparently not always~~) defined as this sort of absolute-maxing-out of critical theory and the motif I dubbed "anarculture". this kind of anarchist believes both that we must purge everyone of all forms of culture and society that potentially contain biases and domination, and also that this is impossible so in a way we just have to stop trying. this may sound really stupid but practically, it still could lead to an anarchism if everybody basically just shuts off their brains and assembles into a society stochastically, in a very picky and mercurial way, purely based on their emotions and whatever they subjectively think is "freedom"; it's literally anti-Enlightenment and irrational, but not necessarily in a bad way because it at least makes sense mathematically. so, on with "trolling" anarchists. this kind of post-structuralist anarchist says that it isn't entirely possible to get rid of ideology, which I think is true; everyone sorting into red or orange or blue Social-Philosophical Systems is just going to happen. but they say that once you don't immediately participate in it it's okay to stop thinking about it. that logically means that you're still going to be part of an ideological faction whether you like it or not, and that faction as a whole material group of people can stochastically go brutalize other factions whether you like it or not, including destroying the governments of other countries and turning them into neocolonies. thus, assuming they do not live in China, post-structuralist anarchists effectively hate China.<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=MX onto ES\|Q=51,91\|Q2=5191}}Post-structuralist anarchists effectively hate China / ([[User:RD/9k/Q33,89\|9k]])
	to be fair to anarchists: I am not adding a Z Item or ideology code for "post-structuralist anarchism" at this time because I know for sure I do not fully understand it. a motif Item? maybe; I have to collect these first impressions somewhere.

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=51,92\|Q2=5192}}The purpose of Marxism is actually to defeat post-structuralism / The purpose of Marxism is actually to defeat Blobonomics -> so often it's not the owners that are actually causing the problems, it's everyone's commitment to the notion of structures being temporary and constantly being fixed not by any sort of knowledge or analysis but by breakages, swapping, "lines of flight" to other structures. physical post-structuralism has the power to take anyone who desires to form an organization and turn that person into an isolated shop. it's bad news.		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=51,92\|Q2=5192}}The purpose of Marxism is actually to defeat post-structuralism / The purpose of Marxism is actually to defeat Blobonomics -> so often it's not the owners that are actually causing the problems, it's everyone's commitment to the notion of structures being temporary and constantly being fixed not by any sort of knowledge or analysis but by breakages, swapping, "lines of flight" to other structures. physical post-structuralism has the power to take anyone who desires to form an organization and turn that person into an isolated shop. it's bad news.
Line 890:		Line 889:

	</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES, A" data-qid="56,42" value="5642" data-dimension="S2">Human moralities are a fundamental layer of material reality / ([[User:RD/9k/Q36,67\|9k]])		</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES, A" data-qid="56,42" value="5642" data-dimension="S2">Human moralities are a fundamental layer of material reality / ([[User:RD/9k/Q36,67\|9k]])
	</li~~><li class~~=~~"field_anarchy" data-tradition="~~MX ~~onto~~ A~~" data-qid~~="56,43~~" value~~=~~"5643" data-dimension="S2">~~Anarchism is partly defined by the claim that progress can only be described through the sheer assertion of human moralities as a fundamental layer of material reality ~~-> this seems common to both charcoal anarchism and blue anarchism, as well as to some forms of Western Marxism. and as far as I know, it's absent from Stalin's Marxism. <s>as it ought to be!<~~/~~s><br~~/>
	I have never liked this concept. it sounds great if the only thing you ever talk about in the entire world is Palestine. but it doesn't sound great as soon as you actually have to accommodate multiple countries and all the different political factions in those countries, which all have their own strictly conflicting moralities that then all have to be acknowledged as fundamentally important and fundamentally okay. whether you call it "ethics" or try to make it objective doesn't matter, because somebody can do objective ethics in China and somebody can do objective ethics in the United States and their conclusions could strictly conflict such that there's absolutely no intuitive way to be "considerately and sensitively inclusive" of both ethics theorists or both countable cultures at once — there's no answer! it's not only the case that "is models can't directly generate ought models". whenever you even have to comprehend another person or group of people at all you always have to start at an "is" model, unavoidably, always creating that gap of being at an "is" model and unable to create an "ought" model no matter how hard you try to start at "ought" models. people outright use the word "phenomenology" to promote studying people descriptively, and then they don't realize that that in itself is already destroying the ability to have any ought models. one of the only ways out is to realize that ought models don't truly exist and {{em\|only is models have ever existed}}. a whole lot of ought models are actually just wrong is models.<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/MX/A\|Q=56,43\|Q2=56,43}}Anarchism is partly defined by the claim that progress can only be described through the sheer assertion of human moralities as a fundamental layer of material reality / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q3300\|9k]])
	perhaps there is always just a tiny wedge way off in the corner of that first decision that arbitrarily selects what is models are the ones worth using and acting on. I don't think that's a big deal, as long as we can get the corner wedge as small as possible. a human being is a limited instrument when it comes to the problem of movement building, so we work within its limits. we don't have the choice to be ends instead of means at the moment the larger populational scale exists. a population doesn't have a brain. it doesn't have empathy. it can't even make decisions as much as mindlessly physically {{em\|behave}}, radially outward, under relativistic determinism. Liberal-republicanism has shown that everyone becomes a means of a major Liberal-republican party as a material object and isn't an end any more. the big problem is that everyone continues to believe that populations can treat individuals as ends and not means, when population-objects aren't capable of that. this leads to a system where the very worst people are automatically and necessarily treated as having valid codes of morality and being ends in themselves, and everyone else is just told to tolerate everything about them and operate together with them like a happy family like nothing happened. that's blue anarchism: making everybody who is a consciousness with a code of morality all Rhizome together even if they're Hitler, and asking Hitler to explain his code of morality so it can be Considerately and Sensitively Respected. that works on Stalin. that works on Trotsky. that works especially well on Mao. that doesn't work on Hitler, and it doesn't work on Trump.

	</li><li value="5644" class="number_empty">??		</li><li value="5644" class="number_empty">??

Reversedragon: Moderation is a form of extremism

2026-04-11T03:03:23Z

Moderation is a form of extremism

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:03, 11 April 2026
Line 714:		Line 714:

	</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5515" data-dimension="S2">??		</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5515" data-dimension="S2">??
	</~~li><li class~~=~~"field_exstruct" value~~="5516~~" data-dimension="S2">??~~
			{{li\|I=S2/A\|tradition=MX onto DG\|Q=55,16\|Q2=5516}}Moderation is a form of extremism / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q12,1,18\|9k]])

	</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5517" data-dimension="S2">??		</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5517" data-dimension="S2">??
	</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5518" data-dimension="S2">Differences between species are not culture -> the book I was reading kept referring to biological differences between human beings and chimpanzees as animal "culture". I don't think I like that usage because... it sounds a bit racist. a couple centuries ago, there were a lot of people who wanted to draw biological distinctions between North Americans and Africans which <em>accounted for differences in culture</em>; these days every single racist remark hides behind "culture" when it's unclear if in actuality people are <em>still</em> thinking of South Africans in the same phrenology-styled physiological terms. so, I don't think I like that link being drawn again even if the direction is reversed, because it's inadvertently training Tories to think that the concept of countable cultures could be connected to "primitive minds" or "primitive physiology" rather than existing solely on its own layer. monkeys having different behaviors from White people is not culture. that said, I think it's a more up-in-the-air question whether differences between neurotypical people and autistic people can be categorized as culture or not. it's very common for people to go labeling every single difference between populations as culture, and to just say that there exists autistic culture and disabled culture. I feel like, on the surface, this is not harmful in the particular sense that referring to animal ecology as culture is. sometimes this usage is meant to refer to methods of inclusion and retaining people as these subpopulations form communities. I don't think I have any strong thoughts on that right now.		</li><li class="field_mdem" value="5518" data-dimension="S2">Differences between species are not culture -> the book I was reading kept referring to biological differences between human beings and chimpanzees as animal "culture". I don't think I like that usage because... it sounds a bit racist. a couple centuries ago, there were a lot of people who wanted to draw biological distinctions between North Americans and Africans which <em>accounted for differences in culture</em>; these days every single racist remark hides behind "culture" when it's unclear if in actuality people are <em>still</em> thinking of South Africans in the same phrenology-styled physiological terms. so, I don't think I like that link being drawn again even if the direction is reversed, because it's inadvertently training Tories to think that the concept of countable cultures could be connected to "primitive minds" or "primitive physiology" rather than existing solely on its own layer. monkeys having different behaviors from White people is not culture. that said, I think it's a more up-in-the-air question whether differences between neurotypical people and autistic people can be categorized as culture or not. it's very common for people to go labeling every single difference between populations as culture, and to just say that there exists autistic culture and disabled culture. I feel like, on the surface, this is not harmful in the particular sense that referring to animal ecology as culture is. sometimes this usage is meant to refer to methods of inclusion and retaining people as these subpopulations form communities. I don't think I have any strong thoughts on that right now.

Reversedragon: Get Fuzzy

2026-04-10T09:39:19Z

Get Fuzzy

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:39, 10 April 2026
Line 720:		Line 720:
	</li><li class="field_geo" data-remark="animal ecology" value="5519" data-dimension="S2">Chimps do not have discipline / Chimpanzees do not perform individualized discipline in the Freudian sense of isolated aristocratic or Artisanal households teaching children mandatory behaviors to also carry to the rest of a population -> every time they tried to discourage a behavior the chimp took it as a fight and sometimes bit people. it's crazy how much confidence they had in their own way.		</li><li class="field_geo" data-remark="animal ecology" value="5519" data-dimension="S2">Chimps do not have discipline / Chimpanzees do not perform individualized discipline in the Freudian sense of isolated aristocratic or Artisanal households teaching children mandatory behaviors to also carry to the rest of a population -> every time they tried to discourage a behavior the chimp took it as a fight and sometimes bit people. it's crazy how much confidence they had in their own way.

	</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="~~5220~~" data-dimension="S2">Poor people are created to make you work {{YouTube\|tOm_aF_SB-k}} -> this is.... kind of correct but a little misleading. you can see the contradiction inside the lecture itself. nobility used money in order to arrange people into a kingdom. into an armored, armed "crab". it's easy to think the key word is "used" and that they're exploiting people and burning everything valuable for their own gain, but the key word is "arrange". in that example money is empowering people to form into societies. in Europe we can bring up how churches weren't <em>entirely</em> malevolent and sometimes they'd take their money and land and do administrative functions; today they run kindergartens. money enables merchants to test out the tiniest experiment in global capitalism before settling back into local small-capitalism because going around the world is hard. but what money is doing there is proving that people can connect one city to another city. the merchants actually succeed on the basis of creating connections. then when they create banks, again the bank is creating the connections between the nobility and the armies or the royal ministries later. with the development of capitalism-proper the local states lose control and the chunks become the businesses, which have to expand to accommodate population growth, but they succeed or fail based on how effectively they link to various other businesses in the world. particular rings of success take slots in society away from people who don't become inherently compatible with strengthening either individual business territories or the arrangement of connections. those are the poor people. so, the reason it's hard to end poverty is all the other individuals are actively working against all the individuals below them. they wouldn't have to be if they could just see the business lattice and realize that everybody has to be fit into it, and if everyone would just get a little smarter about arranging people nobody would have to waste work or arbitrarily take someone else's slot in the structure only to make the world a little worse. at this point they can kick out the capitalists. the issue is, capitalism keeps totally falling apart and leaving people unable to build up the business lattice fast enough to be able to remain united instead of necessarily having to fight each other and the outside "poor people" or Refuse layer.		</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5520" data-dimension="S2">Poor people are created to make you work {{YouTube\|tOm_aF_SB-k}} -> this is.... kind of correct but a little misleading. you can see the contradiction inside the lecture itself. nobility used money in order to arrange people into a kingdom. into an armored, armed "crab". it's easy to think the key word is "used" and that they're exploiting people and burning everything valuable for their own gain, but the key word is "arrange". in that example money is empowering people to form into societies. in Europe we can bring up how churches weren't <em>entirely</em> malevolent and sometimes they'd take their money and land and do administrative functions; today they run kindergartens. money enables merchants to test out the tiniest experiment in global capitalism before settling back into local small-capitalism because going around the world is hard. but what money is doing there is proving that people can connect one city to another city. the merchants actually succeed on the basis of creating connections. then when they create banks, again the bank is creating the connections between the nobility and the armies or the royal ministries later. with the development of capitalism-proper the local states lose control and the chunks become the businesses, which have to expand to accommodate population growth, but they succeed or fail based on how effectively they link to various other businesses in the world. particular rings of success take slots in society away from people who don't become inherently compatible with strengthening either individual business territories or the arrangement of connections. those are the poor people. so, the reason it's hard to end poverty is all the other individuals are actively working against all the individuals below them. they wouldn't have to be if they could just see the business lattice and realize that everybody has to be fit into it, and if everyone would just get a little smarter about arranging people nobody would have to waste work or arbitrarily take someone else's slot in the structure only to make the world a little worse. at this point they can kick out the capitalists. the issue is, capitalism keeps totally falling apart and leaving people unable to build up the business lattice fast enough to be able to remain united instead of necessarily having to fight each other and the outside "poor people" or Refuse layer.
	</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="~~5221~~" data-dimension="S2">Wars prolong artificial scarcity / Wars aim to destroy wealth {{YouTube\|tOm_aF_SB-k}} -> true and also not true? it's undialectical but if you duplexed it it would then be true.		</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5521" data-dimension="S2">Wars prolong artificial scarcity / Wars aim to destroy wealth {{YouTube\|tOm_aF_SB-k}} -> true and also not true? it's undialectical but if you duplexed it it would then be true.

	~~</li><~~li ~~class~~=~~"field_exstruct" value~~=~~"5222" data-dimension~~=~~"S">??~~		{{li\|I=Z1/Fy\|Q=52,22\|Q2=5522}}{{book\|Get Fuzzy}}
	</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="~~5223~~" data-dimension="S">??		</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5523" data-dimension="S">??

	</li><li class="field_horror" value="~~5224~~" data-dimension="S">physically slaying one's inner child -> Giggleland ep 2, Fatum Betula. I think there's something to be said about the vague analogy between cartoon furries slaying their inner child in Giggleland and the myth of the lion turning against the lamb in Pitch haven / other works like Kimba, Beastars, and Zootopia		</li><li class="field_horror" value="5524" data-dimension="S">physically slaying one's inner child -> Giggleland ep 2, Fatum Betula. I think there's something to be said about the vague analogy between cartoon furries slaying their inner child in Giggleland and the myth of the lion turning against the lamb in Pitch haven / other works like Kimba, Beastars, and Zootopia

	</li><li value="5525" data-remark="6525" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">wolf slaying lamb as Original Sin / lion slaying lamb as Original Sin / eating animals as forbidden fruit -> alternate version of book of Genesis that crops up frequently in fiction, sometimes quite literally as in Pitch haven mythos, sometimes much more figuratively in things like <cite>Zootopia</cite> or <cite>Kimba</cite>. runs narratively parallel to: Buddhist imagery of the existence of individuals being harmful		</li><li value="5525" data-remark="6525" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">wolf slaying lamb as Original Sin / lion slaying lamb as Original Sin / eating animals as forbidden fruit -> alternate version of book of Genesis that crops up frequently in fiction, sometimes quite literally as in Pitch haven mythos, sometimes much more figuratively in things like <cite>Zootopia</cite> or <cite>Kimba</cite>. runs narratively parallel to: Buddhist imagery of the existence of individuals being harmful

Reversedragon: Them (unspecified antagonist)

2026-04-07T05:23:42Z

Them (unspecified antagonist)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:23, 7 April 2026
Line 132:		Line 132:
	connected to, but not identical with, the concept that all people are connected through different oppressions by being The Subject and suffering.		connected to, but not identical with, the concept that all people are connected through different oppressions by being The Subject and suffering.

	</~~li><li class~~=~~"number_empty" value~~="~~5088~~" ~~data-dimension=~~"S"~~>??~~		{{li\|I=S1/Zv\|tradition=Zv, ES, A\|Q=50,88\|Q2=5088}}Them (unspecified antagonist) -> those that don't spend great amounts of time talking about a nebulous "The System" love to instead talk about what "They" recently did.

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=50,89\|Q2=5089}}The dissolution of the Soviet Union and transition of Soviet nationalities to capitalism shows exactly how White people in North America and Europe came to live in "[[E:Why did White people choose to live in The System?\|The System]]" — in general, all major populations on earth are [[E:Nice walnuts don't get cracked\|forced]] by people outside their population to operate a certain way or dissolve their population and their very national identity and vacate their land		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=50,89\|Q2=5089}}The dissolution of the Soviet Union and transition of Soviet nationalities to capitalism shows exactly how White people in North America and Europe came to live in "[[E:Why did White people choose to live in The System?\|The System]]" — in general, all major populations on earth are [[E:Nice walnuts don't get cracked\|forced]] by people outside their population to operate a certain way or dissolve their population and their very national identity and vacate their land

Reversedragon: Adin Ballou

2026-04-07T00:51:21Z

Adin Ballou

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:51, 7 April 2026
Line 854:		Line 854:

	{{li\|I=S2/ES\|Q=55,97\|Q2=5597}}Society comes from conformance (rules; obeying; obedience; conformity; worship; {{abbr\|MX\|tts=existential materialism}} onto {{abbr\|HAS\|tts=theology}}) / Society comes from following a bunch of rules / Society originates from deliberately following a bunch of methodologically-individualistic rules that individuals could have chosen to follow or chosen not to follow / Society is orthogonal to {{abbr\|reason\|title=Kantian reason}} (counter-claim) -> my mind drifted to thinking about {{book\|Journey to the West}} and what its fundamental assumptions about religion and society are. I think this is one of the first assumptions. and I think it's fundamentally wrong. because society can form on an intuitive level without anybody truly choosing to do it in any rational or deliberate way. if you doubt this... is a flock of birds using rationalism to form? flocks of birds and herds of zebras are some of the most basic transitional forms of society; they serve many of the basic functions society is supposed to perform. but none of what Kant or Hobbes say applies to them because from our point of view they are formed based on intuition, not logic, not reasoning, not theology, not justifications. if forming into tribes is human nature within a natural environment, then it should be possible for people to form into tribes intuitively rather than logically, based on the same processes as nonhuman animals. which means everything Kant and Rosseau and even Hobbes say is all bullshit. people don't form into tribes (etc) based on Free Will at all, not any more than a hawk chooses to be a hawk or a zebra chooses to be a zebra. the creation of society is matter in motion. the creation of society is animal instinct. the creation of society is the natural response of a repeatable animal belonging to a species behaving the way it behaves, repeated many times. and every single ideology, no, let me be clear, every single {{em\|philosophy}} that tries to explain the creation of society {{em\|even in tribal societies}}, {{em\|at all}}, as an individual or intelligent choice is just a mythology we tell ourselves that doesn't get at the actual causes.		{{li\|I=S2/ES\|Q=55,97\|Q2=5597}}Society comes from conformance (rules; obeying; obedience; conformity; worship; {{abbr\|MX\|tts=existential materialism}} onto {{abbr\|HAS\|tts=theology}}) / Society comes from following a bunch of rules / Society originates from deliberately following a bunch of methodologically-individualistic rules that individuals could have chosen to follow or chosen not to follow / Society is orthogonal to {{abbr\|reason\|title=Kantian reason}} (counter-claim) -> my mind drifted to thinking about {{book\|Journey to the West}} and what its fundamental assumptions about religion and society are. I think this is one of the first assumptions. and I think it's fundamentally wrong. because society can form on an intuitive level without anybody truly choosing to do it in any rational or deliberate way. if you doubt this... is a flock of birds using rationalism to form? flocks of birds and herds of zebras are some of the most basic transitional forms of society; they serve many of the basic functions society is supposed to perform. but none of what Kant or Hobbes say applies to them because from our point of view they are formed based on intuition, not logic, not reasoning, not theology, not justifications. if forming into tribes is human nature within a natural environment, then it should be possible for people to form into tribes intuitively rather than logically, based on the same processes as nonhuman animals. which means everything Kant and Rosseau and even Hobbes say is all bullshit. people don't form into tribes (etc) based on Free Will at all, not any more than a hawk chooses to be a hawk or a zebra chooses to be a zebra. the creation of society is matter in motion. the creation of society is animal instinct. the creation of society is the natural response of a repeatable animal belonging to a species behaving the way it behaves, repeated many times. and every single ideology, no, let me be clear, every single {{em\|philosophy}} that tries to explain the creation of society {{em\|even in tribal societies}}, {{em\|at all}}, as an individual or intelligent choice is just a mythology we tell ourselves that doesn't get at the actual causes.

			{{li\|I=S2/ES\|Q=55,97\|Q2=5597}}They who will not be obedient to [= choose to conform to] the law of love, shall bow down [= as a result] under the law of physical force (Adin Ballou) -> I can't help but wonder if this man was misquoted and he was actually saying the abolitionist movement will defend itself when necessary. out of context there are two ways to read this statement

	</li><li value="5598" class="number_empty">??		</li><li value="5598" class="number_empty">??

Reversedragon: Society comes from conformance

2026-04-07T00:31:41Z

Society comes from conformance

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:31, 7 April 2026
Line 852:		Line 852:
	</li><li value="5595" class="number_empty">??		</li><li value="5595" class="number_empty">??
	</li><li value="5596" class="number_empty">??		</li><li value="5596" class="number_empty">??
	</~~li><li value~~="5597~~" class~~=~~"number_empty"~~>??
			{{li\|I=S2/ES\|Q=55,97\|Q2=5597}}Society comes from conformance (rules; obeying; obedience; conformity; worship; {{abbr\|MX\|tts=existential materialism}} onto {{abbr\|HAS\|tts=theology}}) / Society comes from following a bunch of rules / Society originates from deliberately following a bunch of methodologically-individualistic rules that individuals could have chosen to follow or chosen not to follow / Society is orthogonal to {{abbr\|reason\|title=Kantian reason}} (counter-claim) -> my mind drifted to thinking about {{book\|Journey to the West}} and what its fundamental assumptions about religion and society are. I think this is one of the first assumptions. and I think it's fundamentally wrong. because society can form on an intuitive level without anybody truly choosing to do it in any rational or deliberate way. if you doubt this... is a flock of birds using rationalism to form? flocks of birds and herds of zebras are some of the most basic transitional forms of society; they serve many of the basic functions society is supposed to perform. but none of what Kant or Hobbes say applies to them because from our point of view they are formed based on intuition, not logic, not reasoning, not theology, not justifications. if forming into tribes is human nature within a natural environment, then it should be possible for people to form into tribes intuitively rather than logically, based on the same processes as nonhuman animals. which means everything Kant and Rosseau and even Hobbes say is all bullshit. people don't form into tribes (etc) based on Free Will at all, not any more than a hawk chooses to be a hawk or a zebra chooses to be a zebra. the creation of society is matter in motion. the creation of society is animal instinct. the creation of society is the natural response of a repeatable animal belonging to a species behaving the way it behaves, repeated many times. and every single ideology, no, let me be clear, every single {{em\|philosophy}} that tries to explain the creation of society {{em\|even in tribal societies}}, {{em\|at all}}, as an individual or intelligent choice is just a mythology we tell ourselves that doesn't get at the actual causes.

	</li><li value="5598" class="number_empty">??		</li><li value="5598" class="number_empty">??
	</li><li value="5599" class="number_empty">??		</li><li value="5599" class="number_empty">??

Reversedragon: Anarchy is not anhierarchy (false)

2026-04-06T21:06:59Z

Anarchy is not anhierarchy (false)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:06, 6 April 2026
Line 64:		Line 64:
	</li><li class="number_empty" value="5049" data-dimension="S">??		</li><li class="number_empty" value="5049" data-dimension="S">??

	</~~li><li class~~=~~"field_exstruct" data-qid~~="50,50~~" value~~="5050~~" data-dimension="Z0">~~vote -> a single show of support or non-support		{{li\|I=Z0/LR/STM\|tradition=STM onto LR\|Q=50,50\|Q2=5050}}vote -> a single show of support or non-support
	~~</li><~~li ~~class~~=~~"field_geo" data-qid~~="50,51~~" value~~="5051~~" data-dimension="Z0">~~denial ball / [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackballing black ball] / black cube -> ball used as veto in anonymous ball vote. sometimes balls are the same color and put on opposite sides of the anonymous box.		{{li\|I=Z0/LR/STM\|Q=50,51\|Q2=5051}}denial ball / [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackballing black ball] / black cube -> ball used as veto in anonymous ball vote. sometimes balls are the same color and put on opposite sides of the anonymous box.
	~~</li><~~li ~~class~~=~~"field_geo" data-qid~~="50,52~~" value~~="5052~~" data-dimension="Z0">~~approval ball / white ball -> ball used in hopes of collecting a unanimous vote		{{li\|I=Z0/LR/STM\|Q=50,52\|Q2=5052}}approval ball / white ball -> ball used in hopes of collecting a unanimous vote
	~~</li><~~li ~~class~~=~~"field_geo" data-qid~~="50,53~~" value~~="5053~~" data-dimension="Z0">~~ballot		{{li\|I=Z0/LR/STM\|Q=50,53\|Q2=5053}}ballot

	</li~~><li class~~=~~"number_empty" data-qid~~="50,54~~" value~~="5054~~" data-dimension="S">??~~		{{li\|I=F2/A\|Q=50,54\|Q2=5054}}Anarchy is not anhierarchy / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q50,54\|9k]])

	</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="50,55" value="5055" data-dimension="S2">Differing ideologies should be resolved with ethics / people having different ideologies should be studied and resolved with ethics / ([[User:RD/9k/Q50,55\|9k]])		</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="50,55" value="5055" data-dimension="S2">Differing ideologies should be resolved with ethics / people having different ideologies should be studied and resolved with ethics / ([[User:RD/9k/Q50,55\|9k]])

Reversedragon: I think therefore I'm trans

2026-04-05T10:36:05Z

I think therefore I'm trans

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:36, 5 April 2026
Line 56:		Line 56:
	</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="50,44" value="5044" data-dimension="S2">It's possible to have political positions without it being a team sport (Liberal-republicanism, Liberalism onto Trotskyism) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q50,44\|9k]])		</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="50,44" value="5044" data-dimension="S2">It's possible to have political positions without it being a team sport (Liberal-republicanism, Liberalism onto Trotskyism) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q50,44\|9k]])

	~~</li><~~li ~~class~~=~~"field_exstruct" data-qid~~="50,45~~" value~~="5045~~" data-dimension="S2">~~Transgender people think therefore transgender people are -> this is the crux of my problem with current theories on gender identity. this Cartesian construction was overturned for crusty old White men within their own philosophers' groups so it seems strange we should be using it for anyone else.<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/ES\|Q=50,45\|Q2=5045}}I think therefore I'm trans / Transgender people think therefore transgender people are / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q5045\|9k]])<br/>
	"I think, therefore I am" + gender identity = this.		"I think, therefore I am" + gender identity = this.

Reversedragon: Liberty is the foundation of all else

2026-03-31T21:27:59Z

Liberty is the foundation of all else

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:27, 31 March 2026
Line 151:		Line 151:
	</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="5097" data-dimension="S2">Nothing is more important than free will / No standard can be more important than free will / Every other ethical value is subordinate to free will -> if we assume Rothenberg and Žižek's texts describe anarchism, then I swear this is what they're saying. no squashing The Subject. don't be afraid to act. so, what? you're going to ignore the entire process of Marxism building up a system for making the smallest number of unethical actions that's possible, all to regain the single ethical value of Freedom? what is it even worth at that point? it's even weirder when Rothenberg is like obsessed with voting blocs and the concept that countries can never be a whole and rejects the suggestion that an oppressive government could turn everybody beneath it democratic (which is exactly what happens), but then this whole anarchist secret operation thing is also okay for some reason. nothing about that makes sense. if you can just reason your way out of creating Bolshevism because it's "inherently" oppressive, why wouldn't you do the same thing with anarchist secret operations, or on the other hand, if you recognize that anarchist secret operations are necessary to create Freedom, why wouldn't you say the same thing for workers' states? why wouldn't you just interpret workers' states <em>through</em> your weird Heideggerian framework and say, ok, I don't believe that any of Marxism is correct but I still have to acknowledge that workers' states are legitimate because those groups of people formed them spontaneously out of necessity. I think anarchism is full of special pleading that anarchism is inherently better just because it's anarchism. and I think in a sense you really can't expect anything else, because this is how all ideologies actually work. anarchists cluster together, Communist allies cluster together, Tories cluster together, as if they were ethnicities or some other demographic, then they protect each other and determine their ideology as a group.		</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="5097" data-dimension="S2">Nothing is more important than free will / No standard can be more important than free will / Every other ethical value is subordinate to free will -> if we assume Rothenberg and Žižek's texts describe anarchism, then I swear this is what they're saying. no squashing The Subject. don't be afraid to act. so, what? you're going to ignore the entire process of Marxism building up a system for making the smallest number of unethical actions that's possible, all to regain the single ethical value of Freedom? what is it even worth at that point? it's even weirder when Rothenberg is like obsessed with voting blocs and the concept that countries can never be a whole and rejects the suggestion that an oppressive government could turn everybody beneath it democratic (which is exactly what happens), but then this whole anarchist secret operation thing is also okay for some reason. nothing about that makes sense. if you can just reason your way out of creating Bolshevism because it's "inherently" oppressive, why wouldn't you do the same thing with anarchist secret operations, or on the other hand, if you recognize that anarchist secret operations are necessary to create Freedom, why wouldn't you say the same thing for workers' states? why wouldn't you just interpret workers' states <em>through</em> your weird Heideggerian framework and say, ok, I don't believe that any of Marxism is correct but I still have to acknowledge that workers' states are legitimate because those groups of people formed them spontaneously out of necessity. I think anarchism is full of special pleading that anarchism is inherently better just because it's anarchism. and I think in a sense you really can't expect anything else, because this is how all ideologies actually work. anarchists cluster together, Communist allies cluster together, Tories cluster together, as if they were ethnicities or some other demographic, then they protect each other and determine their ideology as a group.

	</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="IK" data-qid="50,98" value="5098" data-dimension="S2">categorical imperative (statement about ethics versus goals) / Act to treat people as ends in themselves, and not as means / Act to treat other people as a parallel to yourself, with their own inner lives, needs, and goals / ([[~~User~~:RD/~~9k/Q5099~~\|9k]])<br/>		</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="IK" data-qid="50,98" value="5098" data-dimension="S2">categorical imperative (statement about ethics versus goals) / Act to treat people as ends in themselves, and not as means / Act to treat other people as a parallel to yourself, with their own inner lives, needs, and goals / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q50,98\|9k]])<br/>
	categorical imperative + ?? = The Subject		categorical imperative + ?? = The Subject
	</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="IK" data-qid="50,99" value="5099" data-dimension="Z">Kantianism / ([[User:RD/9k/Q5099\|9k]])		</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="IK" data-qid="50,99" value="5099" data-dimension="Z">Kantianism / ([[User:RD/9k/Q5099\|9k]])
Line 265:		Line 265:
	</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5169" data-dimension="S2">The easiest way to obey a constitution is not to have a society		</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5169" data-dimension="S2">The easiest way to obey a constitution is not to have a society

	</~~li><li class~~=~~"number_empty" value~~="5170~~" data~~-~~dimension="S"~~>??		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=MX onto LR\|Q=51,70\|Q2=5170}}All political ideologies can be defined in terms of how they define the concept of freedom (meta-Marxism) / freedom and existential-materialist prediction (motif) -> I hate that this is how real-world politics always seems to work but the closer I look at it the more it's hard to deny this is technically true
	</~~li><li class~~=~~"number_empty" value~~="5171~~" data~~-~~dimension="S"~~>??		{{li\|I=S2/LR\|tradition=LR\|Q=51,71\|Q2=5171}}Liberty is freedom from constraint / Liberty is the ability to choose the means and ends of one's activities; this is to imply that liberty is individual self-determination in which individuals can choose their own path without constraint; this is to imply that liberty is disposing of one particular protected domain independent of all else (property) as long as it does not violate the law (Hayek) -> Q51,71 implies but does not state Q51,73
	</~~li><li class~~=~~"number_empty" value~~="5172~~" data~~-~~dimension="S"~~>??		{{li\|I=S2/LR\|tradition=LR\|Q=51,72\|Q2=5172}}Liberty must be restricted to not impede on other people's liberty -> this one really gives me pause. I feel like this conclusion is doing a lot of heavy lifting. doesn't it inherently require the creation of a class of people that all live the same way? there's no other way to regulate people if you don't first make them predictable by proposing a particular way for every single person to have Freedom without treading over other people's Freedom, which you can then require them to do in order for them to control themselves without external regulation. I feel like this creates petty production all by itself even without capitalism already existing
	</li~~><li class="number_empty" value~~=~~"5173" data-dimension="S">??~~		{{li\|I=S2/LR\|tradition=LR\|Q=51,73\|Q2=5173}}Political and social liberty depend on economic liberty -> wait this is backhandedly true. it defines both the dictatorship of the proletariat and the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. beautiful
	</~~li><li class~~=~~"number_empty" value~~=~~"5174" data-dimension~~=~~"S">??~~
	~~</li><li class="number_empty" value="5175" data~~-~~dimension="S"~~>??

	{{li\|I=S2/ES\|tradition=ES, LR\|Q=51,76\|Q2=5176}}The United States destroying other countries' governments is a revolution<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/LR\|tradition=LR\|Q=51,74\|Q2=5174}}positive freedom
			{{li\|I=S2/LR\|tradition=LR\|Q=51,75\|Q2=5175}}negative freedom / liberty (the absence of restriction)
			{{li\|I=S2/LR\|tradition=ES, LR\|Q=51,76\|Q2=5176}}Liberty is the foundation of all else (John Locke)

			{{li\|I=S2/ES\|tradition=ES, LR\|Q=51,77\|Q2=5177}}The United States destroying other countries' governments is a revolution<br/>
	The United States destroying other countries' governments is a revolution + ?? = color revolution.		The United States destroying other countries' governments is a revolution + ?? = color revolution.

	~~</li><li class="number_empty" value="5177" data-dimension="S">??~~
	</li><li class="number_empty" value="5178" data-dimension="S">??		</li><li class="number_empty" value="5178" data-dimension="S">??
	</li><li class="number_empty" value="5179" data-dimension="S">??		</li><li class="number_empty" value="5179" data-dimension="S">??

Reversedragon: typos

2026-03-27T04:22:05Z

typos

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:22, 27 March 2026
Line 285:		Line 285:
	{{li\|I=S1/MX\|tradition=MX onto ES\|Q=51,82\|Q2=5182}}as smart as a glass of water -> appears in: {{book\|MDem}} 5.3.		{{li\|I=S1/MX\|tradition=MX onto ES\|Q=51,82\|Q2=5182}}as smart as a glass of water -> appears in: {{book\|MDem}} 5.3.

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=MX onto ~~ESQ~~=51,83\|Q2=5183}}Post-structuralism makes democratic representatives impossible / In a fully post-structuralist civilization democratic representatives are impossible because people can always decide not to align with them or let them do anything<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=MX onto ES\|Q=51,83\|Q2=5183}}Post-structuralism makes democratic representatives impossible / In a fully post-structuralist civilization democratic representatives are impossible because people can always decide not to align with them or let them do anything<br/>
	#NotMyPresident + duplexed a million times = Post-structuralism makes democratic representatives impossible		<nowiki>#</nowiki>NotMyPresident + duplexed a million times = Post-structuralism makes democratic representatives impossible

	{{li\|I=S1/ES\|Q=51,84\|Q2=5184}}post-structuralist civilization / post-structuralist society -> the motif of a physical, material group of people which has no outer shape or form and whose only definitive structure is links between individuals constantly changing. the Existentialist-(Post)Structuralist tradition is the shovel dream of this kind of physical society, which to some extent already exists beneath Liberal-republicanism as the "shape" that capitalism has.		{{li\|I=S1/ES\|Q=51,84\|Q2=5184}}post-structuralist civilization / post-structuralist society -> the motif of a physical, material group of people which has no outer shape or form and whose only definitive structure is links between individuals constantly changing. the Existentialist-(Post)Structuralist tradition is the shovel dream of this kind of physical society, which to some extent already exists beneath Liberal-republicanism as the "shape" that capitalism has.

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:57, 23 April 2026
Line 303:		Line 303:
	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=MX onto ES\|Q=51,90\|Q2=5190}}Post-structuralist anarchism led to the YouTube algorithm -> when you think about it, "Algorithms" are almost tailor-made to mess with post-structuralist anarchists. they let you act individually. they let you withdraw from people with awful views that you don't like. they let you sort around and reward people who supposedly are free from "domination" (like "colonialism", I'm starting to hate that word for how much a typical use of it vulgarizes the concept it's talking about). they let you withdraw from the rest of society as much as you want.		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=MX onto ES\|Q=51,90\|Q2=5190}}Post-structuralist anarchism led to the YouTube algorithm -> when you think about it, "Algorithms" are almost tailor-made to mess with post-structuralist anarchists. they let you act individually. they let you withdraw from people with awful views that you don't like. they let you sort around and reward people who supposedly are free from "domination" (like "colonialism", I'm starting to hate that word for how much a typical use of it vulgarizes the concept it's talking about). they let you withdraw from the rest of society as much as you want.

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=MX onto ES\|Q=51,91\|Q2=5191}}Post-structuralist anarchists effectively hate China ~~-> another proposition that's a bit of a troll but I do think it's true. post-structuralist anarchism is sometimes~~ (~~apparently not always~~) defined as this sort of absolute-maxing-out of critical theory and the motif I dubbed "anarculture". this kind of anarchist believes both that we must purge everyone of all forms of culture and society that potentially contain biases and domination, and also that this is impossible so in a way we just have to stop trying. this may sound really stupid but practically, it still could lead to an anarchism if everybody basically just shuts off their brains and assembles into a society stochastically, in a very picky and mercurial way, purely based on their emotions and whatever they subjectively think is "freedom"; it's literally anti-Enlightenment and irrational, but not necessarily in a bad way because it at least makes sense mathematically. so, on with "trolling" anarchists. this kind of post-structuralist anarchist says that it isn't entirely possible to get rid of ideology, which I think is true; everyone sorting into red or orange or blue Social-Philosophical Systems is just going to happen. but they say that once you don't immediately participate in it it's okay to stop thinking about it. that logically means that you're still going to be part of an ideological faction whether you like it or not, and that faction as a whole material group of people can stochastically go brutalize other factions whether you like it or not, including destroying the governments of other countries and turning them into neocolonies. thus, assuming they do not live in China, post-structuralist anarchists effectively hate China.<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=MX onto ES\|Q=51,91\|Q2=5191}}Post-structuralist anarchists effectively hate China / ([[User:RD/9k/Q33,89\|9k]])
	to be fair to anarchists: I am not adding a Z Item or ideology code for "post-structuralist anarchism" at this time because I know for sure I do not fully understand it. a motif Item? maybe; I have to collect these first impressions somewhere.

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=51,92\|Q2=5192}}The purpose of Marxism is actually to defeat post-structuralism / The purpose of Marxism is actually to defeat Blobonomics -> so often it's not the owners that are actually causing the problems, it's everyone's commitment to the notion of structures being temporary and constantly being fixed not by any sort of knowledge or analysis but by breakages, swapping, "lines of flight" to other structures. physical post-structuralism has the power to take anyone who desires to form an organization and turn that person into an isolated shop. it's bad news.		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=51,92\|Q2=5192}}The purpose of Marxism is actually to defeat post-structuralism / The purpose of Marxism is actually to defeat Blobonomics -> so often it's not the owners that are actually causing the problems, it's everyone's commitment to the notion of structures being temporary and constantly being fixed not by any sort of knowledge or analysis but by breakages, swapping, "lines of flight" to other structures. physical post-structuralism has the power to take anyone who desires to form an organization and turn that person into an isolated shop. it's bad news.
Line 890:		Line 889:

	</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES, A" data-qid="56,42" value="5642" data-dimension="S2">Human moralities are a fundamental layer of material reality / ([[User:RD/9k/Q36,67\|9k]])		</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES, A" data-qid="56,42" value="5642" data-dimension="S2">Human moralities are a fundamental layer of material reality / ([[User:RD/9k/Q36,67\|9k]])
	</li~~><li class~~=~~"field_anarchy" data-tradition="~~MX ~~onto~~ A~~" data-qid~~="56,43~~" value~~=~~"5643" data-dimension="S2">~~Anarchism is partly defined by the claim that progress can only be described through the sheer assertion of human moralities as a fundamental layer of material reality ~~-> this seems common to both charcoal anarchism and blue anarchism, as well as to some forms of Western Marxism. and as far as I know, it's absent from Stalin's Marxism. <s>as it ought to be!<~~/~~s><br~~/>
	I have never liked this concept. it sounds great if the only thing you ever talk about in the entire world is Palestine. but it doesn't sound great as soon as you actually have to accommodate multiple countries and all the different political factions in those countries, which all have their own strictly conflicting moralities that then all have to be acknowledged as fundamentally important and fundamentally okay. whether you call it "ethics" or try to make it objective doesn't matter, because somebody can do objective ethics in China and somebody can do objective ethics in the United States and their conclusions could strictly conflict such that there's absolutely no intuitive way to be "considerately and sensitively inclusive" of both ethics theorists or both countable cultures at once — there's no answer! it's not only the case that "is models can't directly generate ought models". whenever you even have to comprehend another person or group of people at all you always have to start at an "is" model, unavoidably, always creating that gap of being at an "is" model and unable to create an "ought" model no matter how hard you try to start at "ought" models. people outright use the word "phenomenology" to promote studying people descriptively, and then they don't realize that that in itself is already destroying the ability to have any ought models. one of the only ways out is to realize that ought models don't truly exist and {{em\|only is models have ever existed}}. a whole lot of ought models are actually just wrong is models.<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/MX/A\|Q=56,43\|Q2=56,43}}Anarchism is partly defined by the claim that progress can only be described through the sheer assertion of human moralities as a fundamental layer of material reality / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q3300\|9k]])
	perhaps there is always just a tiny wedge way off in the corner of that first decision that arbitrarily selects what is models are the ones worth using and acting on. I don't think that's a big deal, as long as we can get the corner wedge as small as possible. a human being is a limited instrument when it comes to the problem of movement building, so we work within its limits. we don't have the choice to be ends instead of means at the moment the larger populational scale exists. a population doesn't have a brain. it doesn't have empathy. it can't even make decisions as much as mindlessly physically {{em\|behave}}, radially outward, under relativistic determinism. Liberal-republicanism has shown that everyone becomes a means of a major Liberal-republican party as a material object and isn't an end any more. the big problem is that everyone continues to believe that populations can treat individuals as ends and not means, when population-objects aren't capable of that. this leads to a system where the very worst people are automatically and necessarily treated as having valid codes of morality and being ends in themselves, and everyone else is just told to tolerate everything about them and operate together with them like a happy family like nothing happened. that's blue anarchism: making everybody who is a consciousness with a code of morality all Rhizome together even if they're Hitler, and asking Hitler to explain his code of morality so it can be Considerately and Sensitively Respected. that works on Stalin. that works on Trotsky. that works especially well on Mao. that doesn't work on Hitler, and it doesn't work on Trump.

	</li><li value="5644" class="number_empty">??		</li><li value="5644" class="number_empty">??