Reversedragon: Reversedragon moved page User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-2-really to User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-2 without leaving a redirect: Misspelled title: complete name swap

2026-04-17T03:09:52Z

Reversedragon moved page User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-2-really to User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-2 without leaving a redirect: Misspelled title: complete name swap

← Older revision	Revision as of 03:09, 17 April 2026
(No difference)

Reversedragon: Reversedragon moved page User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-3 to User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-2-really without leaving a redirect: Entity number or thesis portal structure was not final: make this page 2 so the chronological order is less confusing

2026-04-17T03:08:24Z

Reversedragon moved page User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-3 to User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-2-really without leaving a redirect: Entity number or thesis portal structure was not final: make this page 2 so the chronological order is less confusing

← Older revision	Revision as of 03:08, 17 April 2026
(No difference)

Reversedragon: Banning Brians via Hays code

2026-03-09T21:21:58Z

Banning Brians via Hays code

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:21, 9 March 2026
Line 8:		Line 8:

	{{li\|I=S1/PT\|Q=618}}Hays code (1934 - 1968) [https://www.britannica.com/art/Hays-Code]		{{li\|I=S1/PT\|Q=618}}Hays code (1934 - 1968) [https://www.britannica.com/art/Hays-Code]
	{{li\|I=S1/PT\|class=field_horror\|Q=618}}banning Brians via Hays code / banning through the Hays Code talking animals that, despite animation hyperboles, read as {{censor\|zoophilia}} -> thanks Family Guy analysis for my new euphemism for this

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Anarchism generates Identitarian fascism		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Anarchism generates Identitarian fascism

Reversedragon: proofread / All anti-leftists are fascists

2026-03-04T23:27:14Z

proofread / All anti-leftists are fascists

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:27, 4 March 2026
Line 8:		Line 8:

	{{li\|I=S1/PT\|Q=618}}Hays code (1934 - 1968) [https://www.britannica.com/art/Hays-Code]		{{li\|I=S1/PT\|Q=618}}Hays code (1934 - 1968) [https://www.britannica.com/art/Hays-Code]
	{{li\|I=S1/PT\|class=field_horror\|Q=618}}banning Brians via Hays code / banning talking animals that despite animation hyperboles read as zoophilia ~~with the Hays code~~ -> thanks Family Guy analysis for my new euphemism for this		{{li\|I=S1/PT\|class=field_horror\|Q=618}}banning Brians via Hays code / banning through the Hays Code talking animals that, despite animation hyperboles, read as {{censor\|zoophilia}} -> thanks Family Guy analysis for my new euphemism for this

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Anarchism generates Identitarian fascism		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Anarchism generates Identitarian fascism
Line 15:		Line 15:
	{{li\|I=Z1/PT\|Q=618}}Trotsky video: world's policeman / "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you" {{YouTube\|176KRhEAgUs}}		{{li\|I=Z1/PT\|Q=618}}Trotsky video: world's policeman / "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you" {{YouTube\|176KRhEAgUs}}
	{{li\|I=S2/PT\|dimension=F2\|Q=618}}Stalin believed that if you oppose The Left you're a fascist {{YouTube\|C_wWvpXZTTg}} -> not even true. Stalin spoke a lot about "the bourgeoisie" but he knew that process existed on a separate plane below the development of bourgeois chunks into Liberal-republicanism or fascism, and because he understood that he knew Liberal-republicanism doesn't immediately develop into fascism. despite the way that practically, 66 years later a lot of republics do just polarize straight into fascists and non-fascists. molecular division of countries into parallel Social-Philosphical Systems stuck under a republic is something I say, not something Stalin said.		{{li\|I=S2/PT\|dimension=F2\|Q=618}}Stalin believed that if you oppose The Left you're a fascist {{YouTube\|C_wWvpXZTTg}} -> not even true. Stalin spoke a lot about "the bourgeoisie" but he knew that process existed on a separate plane below the development of bourgeois chunks into Liberal-republicanism or fascism, and because he understood that he knew Liberal-republicanism doesn't immediately develop into fascism. despite the way that practically, 66 years later a lot of republics do just polarize straight into fascists and non-fascists. molecular division of countries into parallel Social-Philosphical Systems stuck under a republic is something I say, not something Stalin said.
	{{li\|I=S2/PT\|Q=618}}All anti-leftists are fascists {{YouTube\|C_wWvpXZTTg}} -> should be untrue but is backhandedly true for the wrong reasons, just because Liberal-republican countries naturally homogenize such that non-fascists and fascists neatly sort into piles and one day everyone in the "right" pile just happens to be one.		{{li\|I=S2/PT\|Q=618}}All anti-leftists are fascists {{YouTube\|C_wWvpXZTTg}} -> should be untrue but is backhandedly true for the wrong reasons, just because Liberal-republican countries naturally homogenize such that non-fascists and fascists neatly sort into piles and one day everyone in the "right" pile just happens to be one.<br/>
	{{li\|I=S2/PT\|Q=618}}Menshevism is a bigger and bigger government / Socialism is a bigger and bigger government (PragerU) {{YouTube\|C_wWvpXZTTg}} -> they say the right things with the wrong words. it's really strange how they sometimes have their facts right, like knowing Nazi Germany was more "biological" and fascist Italy was more based on culture. the dumb thing is the more they say this, they won't necessarily generate Tories and they ~~_will_~~ generate anarchists who are strictly against Menshevism and republican government and yet do believe in anarchism and don't believe in Toryism.		truth value: true inside United States, false inside France.
	{{li\|I=S2/PT\|Q=618}}The Left wants equity, not equality {{YouTube\|C_wWvpXZTTg}} -> true. it's a matter of attempting to feel around and find Materialism instead of just believe in Idealism, but doing it kind of clumsily. people begin to realize, forced by the brutal realities of structural racism, that doing "tent of freedom poles" based on Idealism just leads to all their allies getting killed and Tories having an inherent advantage in elections and "systemic phenomena" alike, so they have to do it based on Materialism or something resembling Materialism if they even want any people left alive to vote. then they move to these really confused concepts that when big fast-growing chunks are crowding out small chunks that it's because the big chunks chose to do it and are maliciously "greedy", while in my opinion the true cause of the conflict is that interactions between separate chunks are an undesigned process that never contains any volition; consciously choosing how chunk interactions actually go is impossible, and even choosing how the internal behavior of a chunk goes as an individual is fraught because all the individuals inside the chunk are going through these undesigned unchosen types of interactions between each other too. can some individual Bob Stills choose who actually becomes president? he can't, that is the product of undesigned un-chosen interactions between millions of individuals. and every single thing "a culture" or "a community" does functions similarly to that kind of presidential election event. but there is hope because absolute determinism does not apply, local relativistic determinism applies. individuals can make decisions based on their own internal content, even if the choices are limited, and the right collection of people will retermine a positive result. so in a way you can get to any positive result which is not ruled out as materially possible but it's just about figuring out the correct way to spatially order people to achieve that result, and how to order people to want to order people better, which is hard. "communities" are a fundamentally mathematical thing. it's not shameful, it's not depressing, and we don't need a bunch of vibrant spiritual metaphors to explain why people are connected.		{{li\|I=S2/PT\|Q=618}}Menshevism is a bigger and bigger government / Socialism is a bigger and bigger government (PragerU) {{YouTube\|C_wWvpXZTTg}} -> they say the right things with the wrong words. it's really strange how they sometimes have their facts right, like knowing Nazi Germany was more "biological" and fascist Italy was more based on culture. the dumb thing is the more they say this, they won't necessarily generate Tories and they {{em\|will}} generate anarchists who are strictly against Menshevism and republican government and yet do believe in anarchism and don't believe in Toryism.
			{{li\|I=S2/PT\|Q=618}}The Left wants equity, not equality {{YouTube\|C_wWvpXZTTg}} -> true. it's a matter of attempting to feel around and find Materialism instead of just believe in Idealism, but doing it kind of clumsily. people begin to realize, forced by the brutal realities of [[E:structural racism\|structural racism]], that doing "[[E:tent of freedom poles\|tent of freedom poles]]" based on Idealism just leads to all their allies getting killed and Tories having an inherent advantage in elections and "systemic phenomena" alike, so they have to do it based on Materialism or something resembling Materialism if they even want any people left alive to vote. then they move to these really confused concepts that when big fast-growing chunks are crowding out small chunks that it's because the big chunks chose to do it and are maliciously "greedy", while in my opinion the true cause of the conflict is that interactions between separate chunks are an undesigned process that never contains any volition; consciously choosing how chunk interactions actually go is impossible, and even choosing how the internal behavior of a chunk goes as an individual is fraught because all the individuals inside the chunk are going through these undesigned unchosen types of interactions between each other too. can some individual Bob Stills choose who actually becomes president? he can't, that is the product of undesigned un-chosen interactions between millions of individuals. and every single thing "a culture" or "a community" does functions similarly to that kind of presidential election event. but there is hope because absolute determinism does not apply, local relativistic determinism applies. individuals can make decisions based on their own internal content, even if the choices are limited, and the right collection of people will retermine a positive result. so in a way you can get to any positive result which is not ruled out as materially possible but it's just about figuring out the correct way to spatially order people to achieve that result, and how to order people to want to order people better, which is hard. "communities" are a fundamentally mathematical thing. it's not shameful, it's not depressing, and we don't need a bunch of vibrant spiritual metaphors to explain why people are connected.

	{{li\|I=S1/LR\|Q=618}}Hobbes vs Rosseau [https://fiveable.me/key-terms/introduction-humanities/hobbes-vs-rousseau] -> you think this issue is simple, but people really present this problem in such a strawman of how to actually apply it. you'll see it totally slanted like nobody could reasonably take the side of Hobbes and reasonable people could only believe in Rousseau, when if you look into what the statements are actually saying at all you'll see that none of the descriptions of Rousseau really mean anything and they require like twenty levels of definitions of definitions of definitions to make sense. what is direct democracy? how is a social contract formed by free individuals? what is nurturing through society? are social contracts of free individuals singular or [[E:separable multiplicity\|plural]]? "legitimate political authority" is the only thing that makes some kind of sense, because you can tie that to the idea of nation-states that remain stable and don't simply dissolve because everybody in them hates the current structure. but even there there are cracks in that because a population can sometimes dissolve on grounds that are strictly cultural incompatibilities and have nothing to do with central political authority itself — is "legitimate political authority" impossible in a sheer collection of mismatched countable cultures that doesn't want to be a population? are these cultural incompatibilities inherently political even though they aren't part of a government or State? if so, is that to say that tolerance itself is a social contract, and it is not exercising "empathy and compassion" to make people tolerate each other when they don't want to? there are whole scales of society not covered in this particular opposition of Hobbes vs Rousseau that threaten to unravel both of them but much more Rousseau.<br />		{{li\|I=S1/LR\|Q=618}}Hobbes vs Rosseau [https://fiveable.me/key-terms/introduction-humanities/hobbes-vs-rousseau] -> you think this issue is simple, but people really present this problem in such a strawman of how to actually apply it. you'll see it totally slanted like nobody could reasonably take the side of Hobbes and reasonable people could only believe in Rousseau, when if you look into what the statements are actually saying at all you'll see that none of the descriptions of Rousseau really mean anything and they require like twenty levels of definitions of definitions of definitions to make sense. what is direct democracy? how is a social contract formed by free individuals? what is nurturing through society? are social contracts of free individuals singular or [[E:separable multiplicity\|plural]]? "legitimate political authority" is the only thing that makes some kind of sense, because you can tie that to the idea of nation-states that remain stable and don't simply dissolve because everybody in them hates the current structure. but even there there are cracks in that because a population can sometimes dissolve on grounds that are strictly cultural incompatibilities and have nothing to do with central political authority itself — is "legitimate political authority" impossible in a sheer collection of mismatched countable cultures that doesn't want to be a population? are these cultural incompatibilities inherently political even though they aren't part of a government or State? if so, is that to say that tolerance itself is a social contract, and it is not exercising "empathy and compassion" to make people tolerate each other when they don't want to? there are whole scales of society not covered in this particular opposition of Hobbes vs Rousseau that threaten to unravel both of them but much more Rousseau.<br />

Reversedragon: Hays code / Fionna and Cake will age badly - created 2026-01-01T17:26:41H

2026-03-02T10:32:20Z

Hays code / Fionna and Cake will age badly - created 2026-01-01T17:26:41H

Show changes

Reversedragon: edit section link

2026-03-02T08:17:11Z

edit section link

New page

<h2 id="section-proposed3"><span class="mw-headline">Unsorted Items (page 3)</span> {{editsection|User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-3}}</h2>

<noinclude>Page left over from when the server was down, approximately between pages 1 and 2.

{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean reset">

</ol><noinclude>

[[Category:First nine thousand (RD)]]</noinclude>

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:21, 9 March 2026
Line 8:		Line 8:

	{{li\|I=S1/PT\|Q=618}}Hays code (1934 - 1968) [https://www.britannica.com/art/Hays-Code]		{{li\|I=S1/PT\|Q=618}}Hays code (1934 - 1968) [https://www.britannica.com/art/Hays-Code]
	{{li\|I=S1/PT\|class=field_horror\|Q=618}}banning Brians via Hays code / banning through the Hays Code talking animals that, despite animation hyperboles, read as {{censor\|zoophilia}} -> thanks Family Guy analysis for my new euphemism for this

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Anarchism generates Identitarian fascism		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Anarchism generates Identitarian fascism