User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-3 - Revision history

Reversedragon: game console plurality

2026-09-06T22:35:28Z

game console plurality

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:35, 6 September 2026
Line 550:		Line 550:

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Arguments about immortality are a deepity compared to arguments about the maintenance of First-World conditions -> First World people are entirely mortal, First World countries are destructible, and yet they can go on and on and on and on anyway at great expense to other populations. this is a much more profound question than how bad it is for a fictional being to drain other things to achieve an immortality that is impossible or how to prevent that		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Arguments about immortality are a deepity compared to arguments about the maintenance of First-World conditions -> First World people are entirely mortal, First World countries are destructible, and yet they can go on and on and on and on anyway at great expense to other populations. this is a much more profound question than how bad it is for a fictional being to drain other things to achieve an immortality that is impossible or how to prevent that

	{{li\|I=S1/Fy\|Q=618}}game console plurality / console war (First World) -> this is one of the craziest case studies in how economics really works on the ground, and due to all the information it provides about the connection between economic phenomena and national culture, perhaps one of the most important case studies

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=MX onto IV\|Q=618}}disproving particular Trotskyist model using Trotskyist history -> whether you're able to do this is the true crash course in what "cultural relativism" and "country characteristics" mean<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=MX onto IV\|Q=618}}disproving particular Trotskyist model using Trotskyist history -> whether you're able to do this is the true crash course in what "cultural relativism" and "country characteristics" mean<br/>

Reversedragon: The material resolves the immaterial

2026-09-06T04:05:23Z

The material resolves the immaterial

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:05, 6 September 2026
Line 542:		Line 542:
	the portrayal of the proposition on the show is a little lame. but distilled down to its essentials it's actually not that bad. console RPGs in general are often based on medieval fantasy stories which are often based on history books. so the line through from Japanese history to console RPGs is straighter than you'd think. Pokémon Conquest / Pokémon × Nobunaga's Ambition is an awfully telling bit of evidence in this, in that it was strangely easy to just transplant Pokémon into the timeline of feudal Japan and use them as units.<br/>		the portrayal of the proposition on the show is a little lame. but distilled down to its essentials it's actually not that bad. console RPGs in general are often based on medieval fantasy stories which are often based on history books. so the line through from Japanese history to console RPGs is straighter than you'd think. Pokémon Conquest / Pokémon × Nobunaga's Ambition is an awfully telling bit of evidence in this, in that it was strangely easy to just transplant Pokémon into the timeline of feudal Japan and use them as units.<br/>
	another point of evidence is examining the portrayal of the relationship between Japan and China in {{film\|Drawn Together}} and then in {{game\|Pokémon}}. in {{film\|Drawn Together}} we see the United States exploiting China and Vietnam, we see Ling-Ling being a tryhard with the vague implication he is striving to be read as Japanese instead of Chinese or at least that he is like one of those really competitive parents you still find in China. in Pokémon there is like this comical avoidance of bringing up China in a serious way until gen 8 when the Silk Road Pokémon finally appear. fans are convinced that this is because Game Freak wants to avoid the games being banned or edited for China. which, it probably wouldn't be censorship. I wish censorship was split into two words so that one of them was in reference to Ideals and tradition and one of them was in reference to social-scientific facts and updating incorrect information. it's probably the most appropriate that {{i\|censorship}} gets the tradition one because the concept of censors dates back to ancient Rome and what did they really know scientifically back then. there was a bit of time where {{i\|revisionism}} would have been an appropriate word but that one has really slid and taken on entirely different meanings within Marxism. uh who's the person who updates the actual facts for government but who doesn't do original research. theorist? director? librarian? archivist? historian? I'm gonna come up with another word so it's possible to stop calling factual corrections censorship. I swear that when stuff got censored in {{book\|1984}} it wasn't even getting censored and it was the other word. that's the crazy thing, that Orwell's book about censorship isn't even about censorship.		another point of evidence is examining the portrayal of the relationship between Japan and China in {{film\|Drawn Together}} and then in {{game\|Pokémon}}. in {{film\|Drawn Together}} we see the United States exploiting China and Vietnam, we see Ling-Ling being a tryhard with the vague implication he is striving to be read as Japanese instead of Chinese or at least that he is like one of those really competitive parents you still find in China. in Pokémon there is like this comical avoidance of bringing up China in a serious way until gen 8 when the Silk Road Pokémon finally appear. fans are convinced that this is because Game Freak wants to avoid the games being banned or edited for China. which, it probably wouldn't be censorship. I wish censorship was split into two words so that one of them was in reference to Ideals and tradition and one of them was in reference to social-scientific facts and updating incorrect information. it's probably the most appropriate that {{i\|censorship}} gets the tradition one because the concept of censors dates back to ancient Rome and what did they really know scientifically back then. there was a bit of time where {{i\|revisionism}} would have been an appropriate word but that one has really slid and taken on entirely different meanings within Marxism. uh who's the person who updates the actual facts for government but who doesn't do original research. theorist? director? librarian? archivist? historian? I'm gonna come up with another word so it's possible to stop calling factual corrections censorship. I swear that when stuff got censored in {{book\|1984}} it wasn't even getting censored and it was the other word. that's the crazy thing, that Orwell's book about censorship isn't even about censorship.

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=MX, ML\|Q=618}}The material resolves the immaterial / The immaterial resolves in the material / The material calculates the immaterial / Whenever any two groups of people come together to argue over something strictly immaterial which is not simply a fuzzy description of the material, the immaterial is more or less completely arbitrary and the interaction of strictly-immaterial concepts relies on interactions between strictly-material things to decide what its resolution is going to be -> this is basically what Marx did to Hegel but said much more clearly. I might change it to crimson if I find a Marx or Engels quote, etc, that matches it close enough

	~~{{li\|I=S1/LLM\|Q=618}}weak-to-strong generalization -> it doesn't work because LLMs aren't practicing intelligence~~

	{{li\|I=F2/W\|Q=618}}Mx. Stills can choose students' vote (who students vote for; exmat) / If some arbitrary individual Bob Stills or Bobbie Stills is a teacher, and they and the school board go to school and teach some particular curriculum, grade school teacher Mr. or Ms. Stills can choose who all their students will eventually vote for (teacher Mx. Stills; existential materialism) -> nearly everybody in the United States gets this one wrong.

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}The German language was unintentionally designed to promote Marxism (was accidentally designed; linguistics) / Because the development of written German texts went through various stages as texts were distributed to people of different social classes, noun capitalization spread across speakers of the language as each social class began to become aware of its existence as a class until every identifiable social class was capitalized, leading in turn to the majority of all German nouns being capitalized in modern times, but still leaving behind a rather obvious history of the existence of various social classes fossilized into the overall corpus of older German texts; this is to suggest that for a German speaker such as Marx and Engels or even Trotsky and Luxemburg, etc., the act of conceptualizing statements in the German language makes the presence of social classes and class processes more immediately obvious than the act of conceptualizing statements in other languages [https://deutsch.wtf/german-nouns-capitalised/#the-fascinating-history-behind-capitalised-nouns] -> there is nothing special about languages that inherently changes the way you think {{em\|except}} the tiny rituals that ride along with speaking language like having the option to use deliberately gender-neutral words or marking social classes every single time you say a sentence.<br/>
	this is ultimately why I designed color swatches and the experimental in-text highlighter system for this wiki, so that just by writing sentences you can start tagging nouns by their approximate class association and start to really think about what each class of people is doing each day within the overall structure of society and historical processes. I made it based on factions rather than classes per-se as a matter of phenomenology and epistemological caution, so things don't get labeled with the {{em\|wrong}} class too quickly as that can be [[E:attributing minority identity to the bourgeoisie\|very damaging]], but yeah, tagging things red, orange, or blue is supposed to help get you thinking about what ideologies come from what classes by starting at the more general point of what ideologies are most worker-friendly, the distinction between red, orange, mauve, and violet versus blue, with strawberry kind of oscillating in the middle. you can go further into believable arguments that only crimson is actually any good while orange and strawberry are just nothing and mauve and violet vary in quality from good to bad (on violet a lot of the "dumb" propositions are just purely experiments that I don't defend as truth, but I might improperly think a couple of them are more likely than they are, and then they're wrong), but again, I didn't want to make the swatch system take a hard position on that too quickly.

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Anarchemistry is a blue-anarchist concept because of how closely associated it is with "regulating the power of capitalists"		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Anarchemistry is a blue-anarchist concept because of how closely associated it is with "regulating the power of capitalists"
Line 561:		Line 552:

	{{li\|I=S1/Fy\|Q=618}}game console plurality / console war (First World) -> this is one of the craziest case studies in how economics really works on the ground, and due to all the information it provides about the connection between economic phenomena and national culture, perhaps one of the most important case studies		{{li\|I=S1/Fy\|Q=618}}game console plurality / console war (First World) -> this is one of the craziest case studies in how economics really works on the ground, and due to all the information it provides about the connection between economic phenomena and national culture, perhaps one of the most important case studies

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Menshevism is now nailed to AI / Social-democracy generally relies on capitalism existing, and taxing capitalism, but one of the limits of capitalism is that its [[E:mode of production (meta-Marxism)\|core purpose]] is to add new people to a population as a population grows, and to do this, it has to keep adding more and more categories of products to society, which it has to do to prevent the population as a whole from losing interest in buying more products and thus preventing corporation growth and preventing employment and preventing income and house-buying and affording children and population growth, but unfortunately, First-World economies are now maxing out on the sheer number of categories of products they can get investors for or make Third-World factories produce without people realizing that countries have so many unnecessary products it's beginning to become tacky and annoying, and this has caused an explosion in First-World corporations putting all their money into LLMs because they are one of the only things that is genuinely new and that society doesn't have, in turn meaning that a lot of economic production is going to just become making LLMs, that a lot of corporate income is going to be based on LLMs, and that social-democratic policies for nationalized health care and housing are going to come from taxing LLMs, meaning that everyone is essentially forced to use and live with LLMs just so everyone can have health care and housing and the country can still continue to operate on capitalism; this is to imply that unequivocally negative uses of LLMs, like in creating intelligent unmanned bomber planes to attack Palestine, are almost necessarily required to exist just because a country wants to have both universal health care and housing and also have capitalism
	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Menshevism is now nailed to expensive health care -> if LLMs are defeated, whatever brings the most income will become the new foundation of society. it could be the process of continuously producing rare and expensive pharmaceuticals and new types of surgeries, to the benefit of people's physical health but to the dismay of right-Liberal economists who want to believe actual health care prices could be made less expensive<br/>
	I swear that macroeconomics is a great new untapped subgenre of science fiction because you could get the craziest predictions about the future of society just out of the consequences of how economic phenomena actually connect materially and what widespread socio-cultural consequences are inevitably going to come out of them. crimson or sky, people say culture doesn't come from the economy, but it depends on how large a scale you're defining "culture". on a scale of national phenomena it almost definitely does

	{{li\|I=M3/MX\|tradition=MX onto LR\|Q=618}}If gold is actually better than fiat currency, then why are there multiple national currencies? -> these things seem unrelated at first but actually have everything to do with each other. the supply of a valuable item is inherently related to whether people can be pushed into using or selling a completely different item. when one valuable resource is split in two, it effectively both avoids going through an undesirable value ceiling where [[E:dragon process (meta-Marxism)\|relatively few people have it]] and it's a severe status symbol, and also avoids going through a value floor where there is too much of it for it to be meaningfully valuable. the solution of staving off inflation by splitting currency in two sounds insane, but it's actually quite logical when you think about the fact that one of the purposes of currency is to divide human activity into finite slots and divide society into particular areas of products and corporations. one of the best ways to keep video game consoles from becoming too abundant to drive interest in new games was to create multiple console brands. one of the best ways to keep people from realizing Bitcoin wasn't going to work out was to divide it into multiple currencies. this could be true of all national currencies in general. plurality in a pool of objects dividing that pool in two

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=MX onto IV\|Q=618}}disproving particular Trotskyist model using Trotskyist history -> whether you're able to do this is the true crash course in what "cultural relativism" and "country characteristics" mean<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=MX onto IV\|Q=618}}disproving particular Trotskyist model using Trotskyist history -> whether you're able to do this is the true crash course in what "cultural relativism" and "country characteristics" mean<br/>
Line 747:		Line 732:

	{{li\|I=S2/PT\|Q=618}}Mass shooters were created by the government (conspiracy theory)		{{li\|I=S2/PT\|Q=618}}Mass shooters were created by the government (conspiracy theory)

	{{li\|I=S2/PT\|tradition=MX onto PT\|Q=618}}Tories insist you vote Republican (United States / Tories want you to vote Republican only (United States) / Tories and right-Liberals are never actually going to believe that center-Liberals and Menshevik types support "Our Democracy" or "United States democracy"; they believe only the Republican party to be the actual United States

	{{li\|I=S2/PT\|Q=618}}China can't innovate / Why can't China innovate? (rhetorical question) -> this was a particular article I saw once, so it's important to find actual articles explaining this proposition		{{li\|I=S2/PT\|Q=618}}China can't innovate / Why can't China innovate? (rhetorical question) -> this was a particular article I saw once, so it's important to find actual articles explaining this proposition

Reversedragon: black livingness

2026-08-09T01:12:29Z

black livingness

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:12, 9 August 2026
Line 403:		Line 403:
	when they say "reification" they seem to mean White people realizing a particular structure of French towns over here and Black Lived Experience that's suffering over there; just that it's a real system that exists on the ground and not just a "narrative" in people's heads, which would otherwise be super appealing to frame it as so I guess they have to say "reified" to clarify that you can't just Reject Narratives to escape. (they did say "narratives" though after also saying "embodied" and "reified" a bunch? unnecessarily mixed messages there.)<br/>		when they say "reification" they seem to mean White people realizing a particular structure of French towns over here and Black Lived Experience that's suffering over there; just that it's a real system that exists on the ground and not just a "narrative" in people's heads, which would otherwise be super appealing to frame it as so I guess they have to say "reified" to clarify that you can't just Reject Narratives to escape. (they did say "narratives" though after also saying "embodied" and "reified" a bunch? unnecessarily mixed messages there.)<br/>
	okay, yeah, geographies is about the totally different conditions in the French town and the colony proper. and also about how radios break up the normal relationship between Europe and the colonies and make the division between the two populations more important than actual geography. apparently.		okay, yeah, geographies is about the totally different conditions in the French town and the colony proper. and also about how radios break up the normal relationship between Europe and the colonies and make the division between the two populations more important than actual geography. apparently.

	~~{{li\|I=S1/ES\|Q=618}}black livingness -> synonym, add to "lived experience"<br/>~~
	~~gosh academics come up with the funniest words, gotta add this one~~

	{{li\|I=S2/AC\|Q=618}}a socialist regime, a regime which is completely orientated toward the people as a whole and based on the principle that man is the most precious of all possessions (Fanon) [https://marxist.com/frantz-fanon-s-wretched-of-the-earth-a-marxist-critique.htm] -> the commentator says that Fanon is 'bafflingly inconsistent'. but I feel like the problem is right in here somewhere. he defines "socialism" as "man is the most precious of all possessions". which really sounds like the same thing as [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition\|Existentialism]] to me, not like Marxism. sure, China and New Democracy exist and countries like that talk about 'the people', but they don't talk about 'man' in a general sense, they always try these weird little strategies of claiming that academics are actually workers and stuff. Deng Xiaoping Thought doesn't abandon class analysis and try to posit some kind of universal The Subject that all people in a country are. but this mention of 'man' and the concept that 'the class struggle has become less important' said out loud seems like Fanon is sliding into some kind of Enlightenment Liberalism or something which is all about tent of freedom poles and defining people as these identical bags of freedoms even though not everybody can use them. as well as that phrase 'redistribution of wealth'. maybe he's talking about something kind of like "Black Economic Empowerment" where whole plots of land were handed over, I'm not sure. but my diagnosis from just these quotes is he is hiding Existentialism or Menshevism inside the word "socialism". he's just twisting "socialism" over into the category Stalin called "reformism".		{{li\|I=S2/AC\|Q=618}}a socialist regime, a regime which is completely orientated toward the people as a whole and based on the principle that man is the most precious of all possessions (Fanon) [https://marxist.com/frantz-fanon-s-wretched-of-the-earth-a-marxist-critique.htm] -> the commentator says that Fanon is 'bafflingly inconsistent'. but I feel like the problem is right in here somewhere. he defines "socialism" as "man is the most precious of all possessions". which really sounds like the same thing as [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition\|Existentialism]] to me, not like Marxism. sure, China and New Democracy exist and countries like that talk about 'the people', but they don't talk about 'man' in a general sense, they always try these weird little strategies of claiming that academics are actually workers and stuff. Deng Xiaoping Thought doesn't abandon class analysis and try to posit some kind of universal The Subject that all people in a country are. but this mention of 'man' and the concept that 'the class struggle has become less important' said out loud seems like Fanon is sliding into some kind of Enlightenment Liberalism or something which is all about tent of freedom poles and defining people as these identical bags of freedoms even though not everybody can use them. as well as that phrase 'redistribution of wealth'. maybe he's talking about something kind of like "Black Economic Empowerment" where whole plots of land were handed over, I'm not sure. but my diagnosis from just these quotes is he is hiding Existentialism or Menshevism inside the word "socialism". he's just twisting "socialism" over into the category Stalin called "reformism".

Reversedragon: All philosophy is subjective

2026-06-12T03:52:24Z

All philosophy is subjective

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:52, 12 June 2026
Line 972:		Line 972:

	{{li\|I=S2/ES\|tradition=unknown\|Q=618}}The parasite fears the visionary / Lacking its own ingenuity, the parasite fears the visionary. What it cannot plagiarize, it seeks to censor. What it cannot regulate, it seeks to ban (Andrew Ryan) -> brought up in the context of small businesses supposedly "regulating" big businesses		{{li\|I=S2/ES\|tradition=unknown\|Q=618}}The parasite fears the visionary / Lacking its own ingenuity, the parasite fears the visionary. What it cannot plagiarize, it seeks to censor. What it cannot regulate, it seeks to ban (Andrew Ryan) -> brought up in the context of small businesses supposedly "regulating" big businesses

	{{li\|I=S2/ES\|tradition=ES, MX\|Q=618}}All philosophy is subjective / Because every philosophical text is an opinion piece, no philosophy is actually objective and all philosophy is subjective until it eventually turns into scientific models and applied science -> I don't think this is very controversial. there are ways to spin this that absolutely twist me in knots (please throw all post-structuralism in the trash) and there are also ways to play it that are more reasonable.

	{{li\|I=M3/MX\|tradition=MX\|Q=618}}What exactly are socially reactionary capitalists in reaction against? / If reactionary right-Liberals seek to dismantle Menshevism (in their own country) and Bolshevism (in other countries) because they are in reaction against various countries' capable proletarian subpopulations, then what exactly are people who are socially conservative or reactionary in reaction against? -> it's super easy to disprove right-Liberalism and argue for Communism on the basis of objective observation and Materialist philosophy, but it's never easy to actually face the kinds of reactionaries the United States is full of because they always start arguing about stuff where the actual "correct" literature is absolutely nebulous and squishy and it's unclear what anybody is truly arguing about.		{{li\|I=M3/MX\|tradition=MX\|Q=618}}What exactly are socially reactionary capitalists in reaction against? / If reactionary right-Liberals seek to dismantle Menshevism (in their own country) and Bolshevism (in other countries) because they are in reaction against various countries' capable proletarian subpopulations, then what exactly are people who are socially conservative or reactionary in reaction against? -> it's super easy to disprove right-Liberalism and argue for Communism on the basis of objective observation and Materialist philosophy, but it's never easy to actually face the kinds of reactionaries the United States is full of because they always start arguing about stuff where the actual "correct" literature is absolutely nebulous and squishy and it's unclear what anybody is truly arguing about.

Reversedragon: If speech isn't offensive, you can never prove it deserves free speech protections

2026-06-07T10:26:55Z

If speech isn't offensive, you can never prove it deserves free speech protections

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:26, 7 June 2026
Line 959:		Line 959:

	{{li\|I=Z1/LR\|tradition=LR, PT\|Q=618}}Mimi and Eunice [https://mimiandeunice.com/] -> there are a lot more TERF comics on here than I remember. oh well, they do get a lot better when you swap out the third panel for one of the other comics		{{li\|I=Z1/LR\|tradition=LR, PT\|Q=618}}Mimi and Eunice [https://mimiandeunice.com/] -> there are a lot more TERF comics on here than I remember. oh well, they do get a lot better when you swap out the third panel for one of the other comics

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}If speech isn't offensive, you can never prove it deserves free speech protections -> it's weird how most of the time free speech discussions revolve around speech that outright offends somebody, and how when something is offensive it always seems to have a slam dunk case to prove it's okay. people who don't really like South Park suddenly got behind it when it was slamming Trump. Drawn Together got to air basically because it was offensive, while many other things that are similar to other things get hit with lawsuits, and few of them ever get an adequate defense.

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}TV channels with total free speech are generally safer than social platforms with total free speech -> I think this is true, at least mostly, but it's worth asking why. I feel like to some extent something that's an entire business like an animation studio or a room of TV executives has an incentive to think about what is worth creating — what actually has a point to keep putting out week after week, and what betrays the overall goal of the organization. the same isn't really true for arbitrary individual human beings, who will never have a Spanishness Office inside them that's inherently accountable to outside forces.

	{{li\|I=S2/ES\|Q=618}}If the earth was populated by immortals, capitalism would be okay -> this is a weird consequence of the way I argue about chunk competition. I've created a scenario where in conditions not very similar to reality my arguments might not hold up any more, and you could only really get through it with anarchist arguments that Domination is bad because {{em\|it just is}} {{censor\|dammit}}.		{{li\|I=S2/ES\|Q=618}}If the earth was populated by immortals, capitalism would be okay -> this is a weird consequence of the way I argue about chunk competition. I've created a scenario where in conditions not very similar to reality my arguments might not hold up any more, and you could only really get through it with anarchist arguments that Domination is bad because {{em\|it just is}} {{censor\|dammit}}.

Reversedragon: Trans people are not an ideology

2026-05-19T10:19:47Z

Trans people are not an ideology

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:19, 19 May 2026
Line 53:		Line 53:

	{{li\|I=S1/ES\|Q=618}}reality-breaking anticommunism / description of Marxism so bad the author can't be right about anything else -> I think this is what propelled me to put together meta-Marxism. in general, you can genuinely judge how true to reality an ideology or model of reality is by how well it models and predicts other ideologies or models of reality. the first step for me was realizing this was true about Lacanianism. then I realized it was true between mainstream Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism, most of all from the Trotskyist direction but also from the other direction. then I fully noticed it was true of everyone who supports Liberal-republicanism and I was depressed but also my mind was blown. it took a while for me to stop holding it against people when, you know, my realization of how doomed everyone was had separated me from basically everybody. but I think it was a necessary realization.		{{li\|I=S1/ES\|Q=618}}reality-breaking anticommunism / description of Marxism so bad the author can't be right about anything else -> I think this is what propelled me to put together meta-Marxism. in general, you can genuinely judge how true to reality an ideology or model of reality is by how well it models and predicts other ideologies or models of reality. the first step for me was realizing this was true about Lacanianism. then I realized it was true between mainstream Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism, most of all from the Trotskyist direction but also from the other direction. then I fully noticed it was true of everyone who supports Liberal-republicanism and I was depressed but also my mind was blown. it took a while for me to stop holding it against people when, you know, my realization of how doomed everyone was had separated me from basically everybody. but I think it was a necessary realization.

	{{li\|I=S2/ES/LGBT\|Q=618}}Trans people are not an ideology -> I don't think that's possible. mainly because trans people are under attack so often that they inevitably have to generate a bunch of theory about themselves to combat the misinformation. isn't queer theory an ideology? (one that accepts the existence of trans people but then takes an ideological stance around them anyway.) arguably, supporting capitalism or supporting Deng Xiaoping Thought are ideologies. so everybody has a political ideology. {{YouTube\|_GBUArD51KY}}

	{{li\|I=S2/MX/DG/A\|tradition=MX onto DG\|Q=55,16\|Q2=5516}}Moderation is a form of extremism / Because individuals vary greatly, their normal healthy states of being are in effect naturally "extreme" relative to each other, and thus any attempt to regulate an overall population's "extreme" behavior by bringing down "moderation" on every single individual one-by-one is in effect an attempt to intolerantly force a specific way of being on large numbers of people, and through the sheer quantity of that action it becomes extreme -> this sounds like something a schizoanalyst would say but at the very least it's more correct than [[E:Fukuyama's dialectic\|what Mr. Jiang says]].

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=MX\|Q=618}}Communist revolution restores the proletariat / Mainstream Marxism-Leninism is the only form of Communist revolution in all practical terms because no country which needs to turn into a workers' state will ever have a significant proletariat; only countries where the proletariat either hardly exists or is actively getting disbanded and eliminated are likely to form a workers' state -> I feel like Mr. Jiang needed to be told this when he was so bizarrely glued to classical Menshevism and thinks Lenin is evil because he wasn't a Menshevik (no joke). {{YouTube\|QtqfIjK1GAc}}		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=MX\|Q=618}}Communist revolution restores the proletariat / Mainstream Marxism-Leninism is the only form of Communist revolution in all practical terms because no country which needs to turn into a workers' state will ever have a significant proletariat; only countries where the proletariat either hardly exists or is actively getting disbanded and eliminated are likely to form a workers' state -> I feel like Mr. Jiang needed to be told this when he was so bizarrely glued to classical Menshevism and thinks Lenin is evil because he wasn't a Menshevik (no joke). {{YouTube\|QtqfIjK1GAc}}

Reversedragon: The CPC periodically audits university professors' houses every three months to demonstrate dominance

2026-05-19T07:48:00Z

The CPC periodically audits university professors' houses every three months to demonstrate dominance

Show changes

Reversedragon: anticommunist book featuring Stalin

2026-05-18T02:12:32Z

anticommunist book featuring Stalin

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:12, 18 May 2026
Line 61:		Line 61:

	{{li\|I=S2/LR\|tradition=MX onto LR\|Q=618}}Capitalism comes from the belief that mutual aid cannot bring freedom / The post-structuralist Ideal that people delivering things to each other can never be freedom without the ability to disconnect relationships for other relationships because all relationships inherently contain the potential for domination can generate capitalism and entire capitalist countries -> I think based on this there is an argument that Gramscianism is actually post-structualist and blue. it depends on how heavily people cling to perfection and being connected to the perfect people versus to actually uniting different groups of people together to try to form a solid proletarian subpopulation. I do know that the strawberry swatch has become more tightly associated with using existing forms of production to defend national borders, while the concept of kicking people out of or putting them into an amorphous mass of 'good people' is a really Liberal-republican way of thinking especially when there is no physical Lattice of proletarian allies that is understood in molecularized terms.		{{li\|I=S2/LR\|tradition=MX onto LR\|Q=618}}Capitalism comes from the belief that mutual aid cannot bring freedom / The post-structuralist Ideal that people delivering things to each other can never be freedom without the ability to disconnect relationships for other relationships because all relationships inherently contain the potential for domination can generate capitalism and entire capitalist countries -> I think based on this there is an argument that Gramscianism is actually post-structualist and blue. it depends on how heavily people cling to perfection and being connected to the perfect people versus to actually uniting different groups of people together to try to form a solid proletarian subpopulation. I do know that the strawberry swatch has become more tightly associated with using existing forms of production to defend national borders, while the concept of kicking people out of or putting them into an amorphous mass of 'good people' is a really Liberal-republican way of thinking especially when there is no physical Lattice of proletarian allies that is understood in molecularized terms.

	{{li\|I=S2/ES\|tradition=LR, ES\|Q=618}}anticommunist book featuring Stalin / anticommunist book making statement about Stalin / book with anticommunist leanings unexpectedly making statement about Stalin -> even after you exclude every book that is actually intended to be about the USSR or Stalin such as {{book\|Animal Farm}}, you'd be surprised how many of these there are.<br/>
	I was just reading an ordinary newspaper comic strip collection and guess what, that was technically an 'anticommunist book featuring Stalin'. when I saw Stalin come up by name I just, my brain had one of those windows task manager freezes for a moment, and then after it unfroze I decided it was funnier than the rest of the book and all I could visualize for the next few minutes was doing one of those edits where you take arbitrary comic strip frames and put them together or Dinosaur-Comics edits where you keep reusing the same strip and putting in new dialogue, and just make a bunch more strips of them talking about Stalin. I liked the idea of turning that into a video, starting out with a simple comic dub and then getting progressively weirder with edits of it and elaborations on it to the point it was just on entirely another plane from where the original strip had started. this is my sense of humor. one of the funniest things to me is making edits of anticommunists talking about Communism but actually getting it right or at least {{em\|kind of}} not getting it wrong; sometimes the voice clips videos give you are hard to work with to make the most accurate statements, or are easier to edit into something being said ironically than into something being said totally seriously. I do want to see if I can finish that video from yesterday of Mr. Jiang giving an actually not crazy summary of China. because like with PragerU, an actually lucid Jiang video would be much more unexpected than a crazy one.

	{{li\|I=S1/ES\|Q=618}}Fukuyama's dialectic / Hegelian dialectic (Fukuyama) {{YouTube\|AEPSUC-UQ5k}} -> this is the questionable concept that Ideas evolve through destroying their opponent Ideas and then specifically integrating "the best" parts of them, which is bound to be subjective and shaped by the priorities of the [[:Category:Bauplan ontologies\|physical elements (class structures)]] that make up the winning Social-Philosophical System; it comes with the inherent connotation that whatever Idea popped out after digestion really is "the correct Idea" instead of one that is being arbitrarily adapted to a given Social-Philosophical-Material System.		{{li\|I=S1/ES\|Q=618}}Fukuyama's dialectic / Hegelian dialectic (Fukuyama) {{YouTube\|AEPSUC-UQ5k}} -> this is the questionable concept that Ideas evolve through destroying their opponent Ideas and then specifically integrating "the best" parts of them, which is bound to be subjective and shaped by the priorities of the [[:Category:Bauplan ontologies\|physical elements (class structures)]] that make up the winning Social-Philosophical System; it comes with the inherent connotation that whatever Idea popped out after digestion really is "the correct Idea" instead of one that is being arbitrarily adapted to a given Social-Philosophical-Material System.

Reversedragon: It is possible to build a model of reason specifically based on the concept of people seeking Freedom from Domination (Habermas)

2026-05-14T01:37:17Z

It is possible to build a model of reason specifically based on the concept of people seeking Freedom from Domination (Habermas)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:37, 14 May 2026
Line 552:		Line 552:

	{{li\|I=S2/ES\|tradition=HM\|Q=618}}Society is made of language (Habermas) / Language is a foundational component of society, to the point a theory of language can be inserted into Marxism; it is implied this will be inserted in the context of societal systems or psychology [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Communicative_Action] -> "don't do this to me," I say to myself every time I have to read just about anything about critical theory and what critical-theorists believe.		{{li\|I=S2/ES\|tradition=HM\|Q=618}}Society is made of language (Habermas) / Language is a foundational component of society, to the point a theory of language can be inserted into Marxism; it is implied this will be inserted in the context of societal systems or psychology [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Communicative_Action] -> "don't do this to me," I say to myself every time I have to read just about anything about critical theory and what critical-theorists believe.

	{{li\|I=S2/A\|tradition=HM\|Q=618}}It is possible to build a model of reason specifically based on the concept of people seeking Freedom from Domination (Habermas) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Communicative_Action] -> this is weirdly Kantian. it's trying to be new but it feels like it's just formalizing Kant's weird concept that intuition is the same thing is logic just because we decided to apply it to morality

	{{li\|I=S2/STM\|tradition=STM / formal logic, HAS / analytic philosophy\|Q=618}}True and False are artifacts of the existence of propositions / True and False are byproducts of the existence of reason and do not originally exist in nature before there is a person or instrument to create ontological models of nature (Rorty) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Rorty] -> this is fine. this is just an acknowledgement that systems of logic are something that have to be created and have made-up rules in order to function for interpreting the world. which is accurate. anyone who's ever seen Gödel's incompleteness theorem will realize it has to be the case on some level that logic or reasoning is made up in order to be designed for its task.

	{{li\|I=S1/ES\|tradition=\|Q=618}}postanalytic philosophy [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postanalytic_philosophy] -> a lot of Wikipedia articles on philosophy just feel like garbage — by no fault of the people writing them, it's just that the stuff they have to read and cover is garbage — but this seems like a legitimate category		{{li\|I=S1/ES\|tradition=\|Q=618}}postanalytic philosophy [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postanalytic_philosophy] -> a lot of Wikipedia articles on philosophy just feel like garbage — by no fault of the people writing them, it's just that the stuff they have to read and cover is garbage — but this seems like a legitimate category

Reversedragon: Every human activity which is not productized is violent

2026-05-11T06:00:37Z

Every human activity which is not productized is violent

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:00, 11 May 2026
Line 1,161:		Line 1,161:
	</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">People who move to the Second World have disgracefully strawberried anarchism (derived anarchist claim) -> here "strawberried" is a verb meaning "to desert a revolution to move to a place of safety underneath imperialist armies etc". I sort of get this impression from real anarchist writings but, it doesn't make logical sense to me with the idea that freedom of association and voluntary participation are core values. to a (meta-)Marxist, the notion of people compromising on their values and leaving to survive being a historical process that can happen to Marxist states and anarchist societies in different ways makes a lot of sense. but is there any way for anarchists to meaningfully construct that within their own theories?<br/>		</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">People who move to the Second World have disgracefully strawberried anarchism (derived anarchist claim) -> here "strawberried" is a verb meaning "to desert a revolution to move to a place of safety underneath imperialist armies etc". I sort of get this impression from real anarchist writings but, it doesn't make logical sense to me with the idea that freedom of association and voluntary participation are core values. to a (meta-)Marxist, the notion of people compromising on their values and leaving to survive being a historical process that can happen to Marxist states and anarchist societies in different ways makes a lot of sense. but is there any way for anarchists to meaningfully construct that within their own theories?<br/>
	I guess logically they're going to somehow try to claim that if you literally side with imperialism that as an individual you are standing behind figures of "domination" and that in particular is the bad thing to do. but there my main problem is, so why don't anarchists think Trotsky siding with Liberal-republican countries was a bad thing? those are the loci of Domination. he sided with them. why isn't it logically better {{em\|within anarchism}} if Trotsky commits to staying in the Soviet Union but somehow building Trotskyism, and thus not aiding Domination? the facts are on the table. even if you hate historical materialism and seeing countries as countable objects the facts are still right there on the table that having Trotskyism-in-one-country would be less bad than trying to push for anarchism at all costs but never getting it and only actually getting Domination and death.		I guess logically they're going to somehow try to claim that if you literally side with imperialism that as an individual you are standing behind figures of "domination" and that in particular is the bad thing to do. but there my main problem is, so why don't anarchists think Trotsky siding with Liberal-republican countries was a bad thing? those are the loci of Domination. he sided with them. why isn't it logically better {{em\|within anarchism}} if Trotsky commits to staying in the Soviet Union but somehow building Trotskyism, and thus not aiding Domination? the facts are on the table. even if you hate historical materialism and seeing countries as countable objects the facts are still right there on the table that having Trotskyism-in-one-country would be less bad than trying to push for anarchism at all costs but never getting it and only actually getting Domination and death.

	</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto A, MX onto Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Fan game development is an anarchist secret operation -> this proposition is for the purpose of discussions on whether to disallow linking to fan game project pages under the project rule that anarchist secret operations shouldn't be documented. I feel like linking YouTube videos of fan games is probably okay but I am unclear whether linking project pages or wikis or basically first-hand sources is bad.

	</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto LR" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Every human activity which is illegal is unspeakable -> if you think this isn't true, think about what emotion you feel when you hear something is currently illegal in a Communist country even for a temporary time and re-evaluate what you already believe "regulating" things does to them.<br/>
	this doesn't have a lot of direct applicability to most issues in the United States — homosexuality being one of the really notable exceptions. what it's actually useful for is probing larger discussions around whether Kantianism and Liberal-republicanism actually make any sense.

	</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="LR, PT" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Every human activity which is not productized is violent -> don't let people get away with talking about "originality" and "plagiarism" and "integrity" and "infringement" casually. hiding under all that is a really nasty claim that every act of creating art that doesn't become a business and turn the creator into a business owner must be destroying society.

	</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto LR" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Liberal-republicanism is an attempt to improperly carry out Deng Xiaoping processes on individuals rather than countries -> this sounds insane but follow along with me. Deng Xiaoping processes involve materially defending a populational border by filling up a population with businesses and extensive party structure as solidly as possible, so that it can't be taken over by filling it up with foreign businesses nor upset by installing individual foreign officials. escape-route Existentialism, where supposedly everyone gains Freedom from all the connections between things shifting around and changing constantly, believes that drawing a firm territory line around every individual and saying it can never be crossed is the way to peace in much the way that China becoming impregnable against outside attacks is the way to peace. there is one big problem with this: the supposed firm boundaries are terribly, horribly unstable. they can crumble at any moment, they can fail to protect individuals at any moment, chunk competition can resume at any moment. Deng Xiaoping Thought and post-structuralist Existentialism are both attempts at ending chunk competition of a very specific type — the chunk competition between nations and the chunk competition between individuals respectively — but their effectiveness at their task is wildly different. the former has been relatively successful, the latter has been a disaster.		</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto LR" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Liberal-republicanism is an attempt to improperly carry out Deng Xiaoping processes on individuals rather than countries -> this sounds insane but follow along with me. Deng Xiaoping processes involve materially defending a populational border by filling up a population with businesses and extensive party structure as solidly as possible, so that it can't be taken over by filling it up with foreign businesses nor upset by installing individual foreign officials. escape-route Existentialism, where supposedly everyone gains Freedom from all the connections between things shifting around and changing constantly, believes that drawing a firm territory line around every individual and saying it can never be crossed is the way to peace in much the way that China becoming impregnable against outside attacks is the way to peace. there is one big problem with this: the supposed firm boundaries are terribly, horribly unstable. they can crumble at any moment, they can fail to protect individuals at any moment, chunk competition can resume at any moment. Deng Xiaoping Thought and post-structuralist Existentialism are both attempts at ending chunk competition of a very specific type — the chunk competition between nations and the chunk competition between individuals respectively — but their effectiveness at their task is wildly different. the former has been relatively successful, the latter has been a disaster.
Line 1,179:		Line 1,172:
	</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto DX" value="618" data-dimension="M3">What mode of production does the People's Republic of China have? -> you know meta-Marxism is getting serious when it steps out of making up new terms to describe observations phenomenologically and actually starts using the correct words and making new claims about what they practically mean in the real world.		</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto DX" value="618" data-dimension="M3">What mode of production does the People's Republic of China have? -> you know meta-Marxism is getting serious when it steps out of making up new terms to describe observations phenomenologically and actually starts using the correct words and making new claims about what they practically mean in the real world.

	</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">A mode of production contains a particular economic base / A mode of production is wholly or partially composed of a particular economic base -> setting down some clear definitions of concepts whether the concepts themselves might be a bit vague.		</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">A mode of production is partly defined by how new people are integrated into a population after birth or migration -> this wasn't necessary to point out in the time of Marx, but when critical theory has taken over and tried to replace Marxism and made everything about "prejudice" while a bunch of other people are trying to stop new developments for the purpose of stopping 'prejudice' and 'greed', it's now critical to inform everybody that far from "empathy" coming naturally, one of the only factors keeping people everywhere from being wildly "prejudiced" at the drop of a hat is the ability to put people into a capitalist structure of workers or businesses. abolish capitalism naïvely and like, no women will have jobs any more and White people will start claiming that because their small, local "Commmunity" is already complete there's no space left over for Black people or Mexicans. there's a decent argument that one of the major mistakes of the Soviet Union was taking away swaths of corporate development or development into cities that people ideologically believed to be excessive and in need of regulation and bam, suddenly everything got worse for women because with little exaggeration cities were the only thing making it better.<br/>
			A mode of production contains a particular economic base + ?? = this.
	</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">A mode of production is partly defined by how new people are integrated into a population after birth or migration -> this wasn't necessary to point out in the time of Marx, but when critical theory has taken over and tried to replace Marxism and made everything about "prejudice" while a bunch of other people are trying to stop new developments for the purpose of stopping 'prejudice' and 'greed', it's now critical to inform everybody that far from "empathy" coming naturally, one of the only factors keeping people everywhere from being wildly "prejudiced" at the drop of a hat is the ability to put people into a capitalist structure of workers or businesses. abolish capitalism naïvely and like, no women will have jobs any more and White people will start claiming that because their small, local "Commmunity" is already complete there's no space left over for Black people or Mexicans. there's a decent argument that one of the major mistakes of the Soviet Union was taking away swaths of corporate development or development into cities that people ideologically believed to be excessive and in need of regulation and bam, suddenly everything got worse for women because with little exaggeration cities were the only thing making it better.

	</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="IK, ES, LR" value="618" data-dimension="S">Kantianization / Kantianizing (parallel to "Zinovievizing") -> a generalized process where a bunch of people attempting to form a countable culture all get together and form a State that they [[E:leaping State process (meta-Marxism)\|leap over]] anybody somehow captured into the same population with them. may be considered synonymous with [[E:democulture (meta-Marxism)\|democulture]], or just a subcategory of possible kinds of democulture.		</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="IK, ES, LR" value="618" data-dimension="S">Kantianization / Kantianizing (parallel to "Zinovievizing") -> a generalized process where a bunch of people attempting to form a countable culture all get together and form a State that they [[E:leaping State process (meta-Marxism)\|leap over]] anybody somehow captured into the same population with them. may be considered synonymous with [[E:democulture (meta-Marxism)\|democulture]], or just a subcategory of possible kinds of democulture.

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:35, 6 September 2026
Line 550:		Line 550:

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Arguments about immortality are a deepity compared to arguments about the maintenance of First-World conditions -> First World people are entirely mortal, First World countries are destructible, and yet they can go on and on and on and on anyway at great expense to other populations. this is a much more profound question than how bad it is for a fictional being to drain other things to achieve an immortality that is impossible or how to prevent that		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Arguments about immortality are a deepity compared to arguments about the maintenance of First-World conditions -> First World people are entirely mortal, First World countries are destructible, and yet they can go on and on and on and on anyway at great expense to other populations. this is a much more profound question than how bad it is for a fictional being to drain other things to achieve an immortality that is impossible or how to prevent that

	{{li\|I=S1/Fy\|Q=618}}game console plurality / console war (First World) -> this is one of the craziest case studies in how economics really works on the ground, and due to all the information it provides about the connection between economic phenomena and national culture, perhaps one of the most important case studies

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=MX onto IV\|Q=618}}disproving particular Trotskyist model using Trotskyist history -> whether you're able to do this is the true crash course in what "cultural relativism" and "country characteristics" mean<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=MX onto IV\|Q=618}}disproving particular Trotskyist model using Trotskyist history -> whether you're able to do this is the true crash course in what "cultural relativism" and "country characteristics" mean<br/>

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:05, 6 September 2026
Line 542:		Line 542:
	the portrayal of the proposition on the show is a little lame. but distilled down to its essentials it's actually not that bad. console RPGs in general are often based on medieval fantasy stories which are often based on history books. so the line through from Japanese history to console RPGs is straighter than you'd think. Pokémon Conquest / Pokémon × Nobunaga's Ambition is an awfully telling bit of evidence in this, in that it was strangely easy to just transplant Pokémon into the timeline of feudal Japan and use them as units.<br/>		the portrayal of the proposition on the show is a little lame. but distilled down to its essentials it's actually not that bad. console RPGs in general are often based on medieval fantasy stories which are often based on history books. so the line through from Japanese history to console RPGs is straighter than you'd think. Pokémon Conquest / Pokémon × Nobunaga's Ambition is an awfully telling bit of evidence in this, in that it was strangely easy to just transplant Pokémon into the timeline of feudal Japan and use them as units.<br/>
	another point of evidence is examining the portrayal of the relationship between Japan and China in {{film\|Drawn Together}} and then in {{game\|Pokémon}}. in {{film\|Drawn Together}} we see the United States exploiting China and Vietnam, we see Ling-Ling being a tryhard with the vague implication he is striving to be read as Japanese instead of Chinese or at least that he is like one of those really competitive parents you still find in China. in Pokémon there is like this comical avoidance of bringing up China in a serious way until gen 8 when the Silk Road Pokémon finally appear. fans are convinced that this is because Game Freak wants to avoid the games being banned or edited for China. which, it probably wouldn't be censorship. I wish censorship was split into two words so that one of them was in reference to Ideals and tradition and one of them was in reference to social-scientific facts and updating incorrect information. it's probably the most appropriate that {{i\|censorship}} gets the tradition one because the concept of censors dates back to ancient Rome and what did they really know scientifically back then. there was a bit of time where {{i\|revisionism}} would have been an appropriate word but that one has really slid and taken on entirely different meanings within Marxism. uh who's the person who updates the actual facts for government but who doesn't do original research. theorist? director? librarian? archivist? historian? I'm gonna come up with another word so it's possible to stop calling factual corrections censorship. I swear that when stuff got censored in {{book\|1984}} it wasn't even getting censored and it was the other word. that's the crazy thing, that Orwell's book about censorship isn't even about censorship.		another point of evidence is examining the portrayal of the relationship between Japan and China in {{film\|Drawn Together}} and then in {{game\|Pokémon}}. in {{film\|Drawn Together}} we see the United States exploiting China and Vietnam, we see Ling-Ling being a tryhard with the vague implication he is striving to be read as Japanese instead of Chinese or at least that he is like one of those really competitive parents you still find in China. in Pokémon there is like this comical avoidance of bringing up China in a serious way until gen 8 when the Silk Road Pokémon finally appear. fans are convinced that this is because Game Freak wants to avoid the games being banned or edited for China. which, it probably wouldn't be censorship. I wish censorship was split into two words so that one of them was in reference to Ideals and tradition and one of them was in reference to social-scientific facts and updating incorrect information. it's probably the most appropriate that {{i\|censorship}} gets the tradition one because the concept of censors dates back to ancient Rome and what did they really know scientifically back then. there was a bit of time where {{i\|revisionism}} would have been an appropriate word but that one has really slid and taken on entirely different meanings within Marxism. uh who's the person who updates the actual facts for government but who doesn't do original research. theorist? director? librarian? archivist? historian? I'm gonna come up with another word so it's possible to stop calling factual corrections censorship. I swear that when stuff got censored in {{book\|1984}} it wasn't even getting censored and it was the other word. that's the crazy thing, that Orwell's book about censorship isn't even about censorship.

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=MX, ML\|Q=618}}The material resolves the immaterial / The immaterial resolves in the material / The material calculates the immaterial / Whenever any two groups of people come together to argue over something strictly immaterial which is not simply a fuzzy description of the material, the immaterial is more or less completely arbitrary and the interaction of strictly-immaterial concepts relies on interactions between strictly-material things to decide what its resolution is going to be -> this is basically what Marx did to Hegel but said much more clearly. I might change it to crimson if I find a Marx or Engels quote, etc, that matches it close enough

	~~{{li\|I=S1/LLM\|Q=618}}weak-to-strong generalization -> it doesn't work because LLMs aren't practicing intelligence~~

	{{li\|I=F2/W\|Q=618}}Mx. Stills can choose students' vote (who students vote for; exmat) / If some arbitrary individual Bob Stills or Bobbie Stills is a teacher, and they and the school board go to school and teach some particular curriculum, grade school teacher Mr. or Ms. Stills can choose who all their students will eventually vote for (teacher Mx. Stills; existential materialism) -> nearly everybody in the United States gets this one wrong.

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}The German language was unintentionally designed to promote Marxism (was accidentally designed; linguistics) / Because the development of written German texts went through various stages as texts were distributed to people of different social classes, noun capitalization spread across speakers of the language as each social class began to become aware of its existence as a class until every identifiable social class was capitalized, leading in turn to the majority of all German nouns being capitalized in modern times, but still leaving behind a rather obvious history of the existence of various social classes fossilized into the overall corpus of older German texts; this is to suggest that for a German speaker such as Marx and Engels or even Trotsky and Luxemburg, etc., the act of conceptualizing statements in the German language makes the presence of social classes and class processes more immediately obvious than the act of conceptualizing statements in other languages [https://deutsch.wtf/german-nouns-capitalised/#the-fascinating-history-behind-capitalised-nouns] -> there is nothing special about languages that inherently changes the way you think {{em\|except}} the tiny rituals that ride along with speaking language like having the option to use deliberately gender-neutral words or marking social classes every single time you say a sentence.<br/>
	this is ultimately why I designed color swatches and the experimental in-text highlighter system for this wiki, so that just by writing sentences you can start tagging nouns by their approximate class association and start to really think about what each class of people is doing each day within the overall structure of society and historical processes. I made it based on factions rather than classes per-se as a matter of phenomenology and epistemological caution, so things don't get labeled with the {{em\|wrong}} class too quickly as that can be [[E:attributing minority identity to the bourgeoisie\|very damaging]], but yeah, tagging things red, orange, or blue is supposed to help get you thinking about what ideologies come from what classes by starting at the more general point of what ideologies are most worker-friendly, the distinction between red, orange, mauve, and violet versus blue, with strawberry kind of oscillating in the middle. you can go further into believable arguments that only crimson is actually any good while orange and strawberry are just nothing and mauve and violet vary in quality from good to bad (on violet a lot of the "dumb" propositions are just purely experiments that I don't defend as truth, but I might improperly think a couple of them are more likely than they are, and then they're wrong), but again, I didn't want to make the swatch system take a hard position on that too quickly.

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Anarchemistry is a blue-anarchist concept because of how closely associated it is with "regulating the power of capitalists"		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Anarchemistry is a blue-anarchist concept because of how closely associated it is with "regulating the power of capitalists"
Line 561:		Line 552:

	{{li\|I=S1/Fy\|Q=618}}game console plurality / console war (First World) -> this is one of the craziest case studies in how economics really works on the ground, and due to all the information it provides about the connection between economic phenomena and national culture, perhaps one of the most important case studies		{{li\|I=S1/Fy\|Q=618}}game console plurality / console war (First World) -> this is one of the craziest case studies in how economics really works on the ground, and due to all the information it provides about the connection between economic phenomena and national culture, perhaps one of the most important case studies

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Menshevism is now nailed to AI / Social-democracy generally relies on capitalism existing, and taxing capitalism, but one of the limits of capitalism is that its [[E:mode of production (meta-Marxism)\|core purpose]] is to add new people to a population as a population grows, and to do this, it has to keep adding more and more categories of products to society, which it has to do to prevent the population as a whole from losing interest in buying more products and thus preventing corporation growth and preventing employment and preventing income and house-buying and affording children and population growth, but unfortunately, First-World economies are now maxing out on the sheer number of categories of products they can get investors for or make Third-World factories produce without people realizing that countries have so many unnecessary products it's beginning to become tacky and annoying, and this has caused an explosion in First-World corporations putting all their money into LLMs because they are one of the only things that is genuinely new and that society doesn't have, in turn meaning that a lot of economic production is going to just become making LLMs, that a lot of corporate income is going to be based on LLMs, and that social-democratic policies for nationalized health care and housing are going to come from taxing LLMs, meaning that everyone is essentially forced to use and live with LLMs just so everyone can have health care and housing and the country can still continue to operate on capitalism; this is to imply that unequivocally negative uses of LLMs, like in creating intelligent unmanned bomber planes to attack Palestine, are almost necessarily required to exist just because a country wants to have both universal health care and housing and also have capitalism
	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Menshevism is now nailed to expensive health care -> if LLMs are defeated, whatever brings the most income will become the new foundation of society. it could be the process of continuously producing rare and expensive pharmaceuticals and new types of surgeries, to the benefit of people's physical health but to the dismay of right-Liberal economists who want to believe actual health care prices could be made less expensive<br/>
	I swear that macroeconomics is a great new untapped subgenre of science fiction because you could get the craziest predictions about the future of society just out of the consequences of how economic phenomena actually connect materially and what widespread socio-cultural consequences are inevitably going to come out of them. crimson or sky, people say culture doesn't come from the economy, but it depends on how large a scale you're defining "culture". on a scale of national phenomena it almost definitely does

	{{li\|I=M3/MX\|tradition=MX onto LR\|Q=618}}If gold is actually better than fiat currency, then why are there multiple national currencies? -> these things seem unrelated at first but actually have everything to do with each other. the supply of a valuable item is inherently related to whether people can be pushed into using or selling a completely different item. when one valuable resource is split in two, it effectively both avoids going through an undesirable value ceiling where [[E:dragon process (meta-Marxism)\|relatively few people have it]] and it's a severe status symbol, and also avoids going through a value floor where there is too much of it for it to be meaningfully valuable. the solution of staving off inflation by splitting currency in two sounds insane, but it's actually quite logical when you think about the fact that one of the purposes of currency is to divide human activity into finite slots and divide society into particular areas of products and corporations. one of the best ways to keep video game consoles from becoming too abundant to drive interest in new games was to create multiple console brands. one of the best ways to keep people from realizing Bitcoin wasn't going to work out was to divide it into multiple currencies. this could be true of all national currencies in general. plurality in a pool of objects dividing that pool in two

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=MX onto IV\|Q=618}}disproving particular Trotskyist model using Trotskyist history -> whether you're able to do this is the true crash course in what "cultural relativism" and "country characteristics" mean<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=MX onto IV\|Q=618}}disproving particular Trotskyist model using Trotskyist history -> whether you're able to do this is the true crash course in what "cultural relativism" and "country characteristics" mean<br/>
Line 747:		Line 732:

	{{li\|I=S2/PT\|Q=618}}Mass shooters were created by the government (conspiracy theory)		{{li\|I=S2/PT\|Q=618}}Mass shooters were created by the government (conspiracy theory)

	{{li\|I=S2/PT\|tradition=MX onto PT\|Q=618}}Tories insist you vote Republican (United States / Tories want you to vote Republican only (United States) / Tories and right-Liberals are never actually going to believe that center-Liberals and Menshevik types support "Our Democracy" or "United States democracy"; they believe only the Republican party to be the actual United States

	{{li\|I=S2/PT\|Q=618}}China can't innovate / Why can't China innovate? (rhetorical question) -> this was a particular article I saw once, so it's important to find actual articles explaining this proposition		{{li\|I=S2/PT\|Q=618}}China can't innovate / Why can't China innovate? (rhetorical question) -> this was a particular article I saw once, so it's important to find actual articles explaining this proposition

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:52, 12 June 2026
Line 972:		Line 972:

	{{li\|I=S2/ES\|tradition=unknown\|Q=618}}The parasite fears the visionary / Lacking its own ingenuity, the parasite fears the visionary. What it cannot plagiarize, it seeks to censor. What it cannot regulate, it seeks to ban (Andrew Ryan) -> brought up in the context of small businesses supposedly "regulating" big businesses		{{li\|I=S2/ES\|tradition=unknown\|Q=618}}The parasite fears the visionary / Lacking its own ingenuity, the parasite fears the visionary. What it cannot plagiarize, it seeks to censor. What it cannot regulate, it seeks to ban (Andrew Ryan) -> brought up in the context of small businesses supposedly "regulating" big businesses

	{{li\|I=S2/ES\|tradition=ES, MX\|Q=618}}All philosophy is subjective / Because every philosophical text is an opinion piece, no philosophy is actually objective and all philosophy is subjective until it eventually turns into scientific models and applied science -> I don't think this is very controversial. there are ways to spin this that absolutely twist me in knots (please throw all post-structuralism in the trash) and there are also ways to play it that are more reasonable.

	{{li\|I=M3/MX\|tradition=MX\|Q=618}}What exactly are socially reactionary capitalists in reaction against? / If reactionary right-Liberals seek to dismantle Menshevism (in their own country) and Bolshevism (in other countries) because they are in reaction against various countries' capable proletarian subpopulations, then what exactly are people who are socially conservative or reactionary in reaction against? -> it's super easy to disprove right-Liberalism and argue for Communism on the basis of objective observation and Materialist philosophy, but it's never easy to actually face the kinds of reactionaries the United States is full of because they always start arguing about stuff where the actual "correct" literature is absolutely nebulous and squishy and it's unclear what anybody is truly arguing about.		{{li\|I=M3/MX\|tradition=MX\|Q=618}}What exactly are socially reactionary capitalists in reaction against? / If reactionary right-Liberals seek to dismantle Menshevism (in their own country) and Bolshevism (in other countries) because they are in reaction against various countries' capable proletarian subpopulations, then what exactly are people who are socially conservative or reactionary in reaction against? -> it's super easy to disprove right-Liberalism and argue for Communism on the basis of objective observation and Materialist philosophy, but it's never easy to actually face the kinds of reactionaries the United States is full of because they always start arguing about stuff where the actual "correct" literature is absolutely nebulous and squishy and it's unclear what anybody is truly arguing about.

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:26, 7 June 2026
Line 959:		Line 959:

	{{li\|I=Z1/LR\|tradition=LR, PT\|Q=618}}Mimi and Eunice [https://mimiandeunice.com/] -> there are a lot more TERF comics on here than I remember. oh well, they do get a lot better when you swap out the third panel for one of the other comics		{{li\|I=Z1/LR\|tradition=LR, PT\|Q=618}}Mimi and Eunice [https://mimiandeunice.com/] -> there are a lot more TERF comics on here than I remember. oh well, they do get a lot better when you swap out the third panel for one of the other comics

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}If speech isn't offensive, you can never prove it deserves free speech protections -> it's weird how most of the time free speech discussions revolve around speech that outright offends somebody, and how when something is offensive it always seems to have a slam dunk case to prove it's okay. people who don't really like South Park suddenly got behind it when it was slamming Trump. Drawn Together got to air basically because it was offensive, while many other things that are similar to other things get hit with lawsuits, and few of them ever get an adequate defense.

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}TV channels with total free speech are generally safer than social platforms with total free speech -> I think this is true, at least mostly, but it's worth asking why. I feel like to some extent something that's an entire business like an animation studio or a room of TV executives has an incentive to think about what is worth creating — what actually has a point to keep putting out week after week, and what betrays the overall goal of the organization. the same isn't really true for arbitrary individual human beings, who will never have a Spanishness Office inside them that's inherently accountable to outside forces.

	{{li\|I=S2/ES\|Q=618}}If the earth was populated by immortals, capitalism would be okay -> this is a weird consequence of the way I argue about chunk competition. I've created a scenario where in conditions not very similar to reality my arguments might not hold up any more, and you could only really get through it with anarchist arguments that Domination is bad because {{em\|it just is}} {{censor\|dammit}}.		{{li\|I=S2/ES\|Q=618}}If the earth was populated by immortals, capitalism would be okay -> this is a weird consequence of the way I argue about chunk competition. I've created a scenario where in conditions not very similar to reality my arguments might not hold up any more, and you could only really get through it with anarchist arguments that Domination is bad because {{em\|it just is}} {{censor\|dammit}}.

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:19, 19 May 2026
Line 53:		Line 53:

	{{li\|I=S1/ES\|Q=618}}reality-breaking anticommunism / description of Marxism so bad the author can't be right about anything else -> I think this is what propelled me to put together meta-Marxism. in general, you can genuinely judge how true to reality an ideology or model of reality is by how well it models and predicts other ideologies or models of reality. the first step for me was realizing this was true about Lacanianism. then I realized it was true between mainstream Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism, most of all from the Trotskyist direction but also from the other direction. then I fully noticed it was true of everyone who supports Liberal-republicanism and I was depressed but also my mind was blown. it took a while for me to stop holding it against people when, you know, my realization of how doomed everyone was had separated me from basically everybody. but I think it was a necessary realization.		{{li\|I=S1/ES\|Q=618}}reality-breaking anticommunism / description of Marxism so bad the author can't be right about anything else -> I think this is what propelled me to put together meta-Marxism. in general, you can genuinely judge how true to reality an ideology or model of reality is by how well it models and predicts other ideologies or models of reality. the first step for me was realizing this was true about Lacanianism. then I realized it was true between mainstream Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism, most of all from the Trotskyist direction but also from the other direction. then I fully noticed it was true of everyone who supports Liberal-republicanism and I was depressed but also my mind was blown. it took a while for me to stop holding it against people when, you know, my realization of how doomed everyone was had separated me from basically everybody. but I think it was a necessary realization.

	{{li\|I=S2/ES/LGBT\|Q=618}}Trans people are not an ideology -> I don't think that's possible. mainly because trans people are under attack so often that they inevitably have to generate a bunch of theory about themselves to combat the misinformation. isn't queer theory an ideology? (one that accepts the existence of trans people but then takes an ideological stance around them anyway.) arguably, supporting capitalism or supporting Deng Xiaoping Thought are ideologies. so everybody has a political ideology. {{YouTube\|_GBUArD51KY}}

	{{li\|I=S2/MX/DG/A\|tradition=MX onto DG\|Q=55,16\|Q2=5516}}Moderation is a form of extremism / Because individuals vary greatly, their normal healthy states of being are in effect naturally "extreme" relative to each other, and thus any attempt to regulate an overall population's "extreme" behavior by bringing down "moderation" on every single individual one-by-one is in effect an attempt to intolerantly force a specific way of being on large numbers of people, and through the sheer quantity of that action it becomes extreme -> this sounds like something a schizoanalyst would say but at the very least it's more correct than [[E:Fukuyama's dialectic\|what Mr. Jiang says]].

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=MX\|Q=618}}Communist revolution restores the proletariat / Mainstream Marxism-Leninism is the only form of Communist revolution in all practical terms because no country which needs to turn into a workers' state will ever have a significant proletariat; only countries where the proletariat either hardly exists or is actively getting disbanded and eliminated are likely to form a workers' state -> I feel like Mr. Jiang needed to be told this when he was so bizarrely glued to classical Menshevism and thinks Lenin is evil because he wasn't a Menshevik (no joke). {{YouTube\|QtqfIjK1GAc}}		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=MX\|Q=618}}Communist revolution restores the proletariat / Mainstream Marxism-Leninism is the only form of Communist revolution in all practical terms because no country which needs to turn into a workers' state will ever have a significant proletariat; only countries where the proletariat either hardly exists or is actively getting disbanded and eliminated are likely to form a workers' state -> I feel like Mr. Jiang needed to be told this when he was so bizarrely glued to classical Menshevism and thinks Lenin is evil because he wasn't a Menshevik (no joke). {{YouTube\|QtqfIjK1GAc}}