Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q53,83: Difference between revisions
copy markup from 9k/Q32,95 |
m The goal of Marxism is to unify all applied Materialisms / Anticommunism belies Habermas |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean"> | <noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean"> | ||
{{li|start=y|I=S2/ML|tradition=|Q=53,83|Q2=5383|h4= Gay movements are against the proletariat }} ({{TTS|tts=Soviet Union|USSR}}) / Gay movements are against the stability of the workers' state {{YouTube|BE7UPO6GGK4}} -> the core of this claim is in LGBT+ people forming {{em|movements}}, although when you see it it's not usually phrased that way. the Soviet Union didn't necessarily hate individual gay people, a better word would be "indifferent". but the thing it wasn't ready for was for people to just spontaneously group up for their own interests in a way which had nothing to do with the development of the workers' state — basically, a movement for an identity, instead of people integrating into other more official initiatives. this seems to be the source of a great split between Communism and Anarchism. anarchism loves spontaneous movements for identities and thinks of it as the more of them the better because they will inherently unite with each other. Communism thinks they are inherently suspicious in that they naturally fight against everything around them including each other, although they can sometimes be benign. in certain ways, the Communist position has surprisingly held up, at least up to the moment of outlawing homosexuality. but everyone has been so afraid to admit it's true there has effectively been this gigantic surge in thinly-veiled anarchisms just because this is apparently the more natural-and-inherent-but-wrong way for humans to conceptualize forming society, that it's always "my own friends against my own enemies" or "[[E:united nonviolence of shared oppressions|united nonviolence of shared oppressions]]" and no greater structure or pattern matters. | |||
</li></ol> | </li></ol> | ||
== | == Empirical observations == | ||
<ol class="hue clean"> | |||
{{li|start=y|I=S2/A|tradition=|Q=32,95|Q2=3295}}China detained BL writers / ([[User:RD/9k/Q32,95|9k]]) | |||
</li></ol> | </li></ol> | ||
== | == "Existentialist" explanations == | ||
<ol class="hue clean field_exstruct"> | |||
{{li|start=y|I=S2/A|tradition=|Q=36,67|Q2=3667}}Do not what others would not "unto" ([[EC:9k/RD/Q618-PeriodicTableOfRules|inverse xenon rule]]) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q36,67|9k]]) | |||
{{li|I=S2/A|Q=618|Q2=618}}Treat others as they would like to be treated ([[EC:9k/RD/Q618-PeriodicTableOfRules|platinum rule]]) / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q50,98|9k]]) | |||
{{li|start=y|I=S2/HM|tradition=|Q=618|Q2=618}}Oppression leads to resistance / where there is oppression there will be resistance; where dignity and justice are denied they will be sought (motif; incomplete thought) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q36,67|9k]]) | |||
{{li|I=F2/Aa|tradition=|Q=53,81|Q2=5381}}Outlawing gay marriage is obviously wrong -> the problem with this statement is "obviously". | |||
{{li|I=F2/Aa|tradition=|Q=53,82|Q2=5382}}We know gay marriage is a fact because Jungian repression {{YouTube|BE7UPO6GGK4}} -> again it's the line of argument that's bad. | |||
{{li|I=S1/Aa|tradition=Aa onto ML|Q=53,80|Q2=5380}}seeing Bolshevism through psychoanalysis / seeing workers' states through psychoanalysis | |||
{{li|I=F2/Aa|tradition=Aa onto ML|Q=53,84|Q2=5384}}Freudian repression can be used to identify Marxist errors / ([[User:RD/9k/Q36,67|9k]]) | |||
</li></ol> | |||
== Marxist explanations == | |||
<ol class="hue clean field_ML"> | |||
{{li|start=y|I=S2/IV|Q=36,74|Q2=3674|h4= Defeat Stalin with gender identity }} / Gender identity is proletarian but it's Stalin that divides people [https://www.leftvoice.org/toward-a-trans-trotskyism/] / Homosexuality is proletarian but it's Stalin that divides people -> I might have problems with this on a theoretical level but this is one of those propositions I nonetheless love because it comes out of nowhere and it's frankly hilarious. | |||
{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}The goal of Marxism is to unify all applied Materialisms / ({{9k|RD/Q38,59}}) -> this proposition means that if Marxism fails to explain empirical observations of history or social phenomena which are describable as material objects or processes observable from the outside, dialectical materialism falls apart. | |||
</li></ol> | </li></ol> | ||
== | == meta-Marxist analysis == | ||
<ol class="hue clean field_LGBT"> | |||
< | {{li|start=y|I=S2/HM|tradition=|Q=618|Q2=618|h4= Oppression leads to resistance }} / where there is oppression there will be resistance; where dignity and justice are denied they will be sought (motif; incomplete thought) {{Youtube|cpP1EX8kK0o}} -> my only problem with this is how you define what oppression is — or what dignity and justice are. you can't identify it just from seeing resistance ... almost any time you introduce the concept of oppression versus resistance you actually {{em|lose}} the ability to tell what's right and what's wrong.<br/> | ||
say [[User:RD/9k/Q32,95|a gay man lives in the Soviet Union in 1930]]. the government is [[E:Gay movements are against the proletariat|not in favor of autonomous gay movements]] (although 'autonomous' is the intended key word in that sentence, not 'gay'). a great number of people accept and side with the government. the gay man participates in an unauthorized movement. the public responds with resistance as if hurt. if the public produces resistance in response to someone's actions and choices, does this mean [[User:RD/9k/Q37,77|the public is oppressed]]? did the individual in fact [[E:democulture (meta-Marxism)|choose wrong]]? should he have fully sided with the central government on the position of defending the Soviet Union from division and external attack in order to not be oppressive and dominating? this particular scenario actually gets a lot easier if you know the historical context and that it's not actually scary to say the answer is "yes". but for most people looking at workers' states from the outside this scenario is really difficult, and it shows that a simple rule from anarchism / critical theory is quite unsuited for real situations. | |||
{{li|I=S2/MX/LGBT|tradition=ES, HM, A|Q=53,77|Q2=5377|h4= Gay and Stalinist are incompatible identities }} -> you could say this in two directions: gay is not allowed if you are a Stalin-follower, or Communism is not allowed if you're gay. ok, there's actually a third one too: gay and state capitalism are incompatible identities, which means that state capitalism disallows gay and gay disallows state capitalism disallows Bolshevism.<br/> | |||
</ | Gay and Stalinist are incompatible identities + Anticommunism belies Habermas = ???? | ||
{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618|h4= Anticommunism belies Habermas }} / Anticommunism is [[E:does not promote freedom (truth value)|Prejudice]] / The continued presence of anticommunism in the world shows that the world still contains some unknown kind of bigotry and all critical-theorists and anarchists will continue to be [[E:Society is the progression of moral consciousness|bigots]] as opposed to [[E:moral vanguard theory|progressives]] until they figure out what it is -> people can be anticommunist for many reasons but the fact is that today in 2026 all of those reasons [[EC:9k/RD/Q1961|hurt the Cuban population as a whole]]. even the Trotskyist reasoning that Cuba 'persecuted gay people once' (as it hasn't been doing recently). every statement that people who are anticommunist are moral is false on its face if you've been to Cuba. so the question that remains is, exactly in what way are Habermasians lying to everyone? | |||
</li></ol> | </li></ol> | ||
== Related == | |||
<!-- | |||
<ol class="hue clean terse"> | |||
</li></ol> --> | |||
== Ideology codes == | == Ideology codes == | ||
* ML | * ML | ||
* Aa / Jungian psychoanalysis | |||
* Aa onto ML | |||
Latest revision as of 06:40, 12 June 2026
Main entry
Gay movements are against the proletariat
() / Gay movements are against the stability of the workers' state [1] -> the core of this claim is in LGBT+ people forming movements, although when you see it it's not usually phrased that way. the Soviet Union didn't necessarily hate individual gay people, a better word would be "indifferent". but the thing it wasn't ready for was for people to just spontaneously group up for their own interests in a way which had nothing to do with the development of the workers' state — basically, a movement for an identity, instead of people integrating into other more official initiatives. this seems to be the source of a great split between Communism and Anarchism. anarchism loves spontaneous movements for identities and thinks of it as the more of them the better because they will inherently unite with each other. Communism thinks they are inherently suspicious in that they naturally fight against everything around them including each other, although they can sometimes be benign. in certain ways, the Communist position has surprisingly held up, at least up to the moment of outlawing homosexuality. but everyone has been so afraid to admit it's true there has effectively been this gigantic surge in thinly-veiled anarchisms just because this is apparently the more natural-and-inherent-but-wrong way for humans to conceptualize forming society, that it's always "my own friends against my own enemies" or "united nonviolence of shared oppressions" and no greater structure or pattern matters.
Empirical observations
- China detained BL writers / (9k)
"Existentialist" explanations
- Do not what others would not "unto" (inverse xenon rule) / (9k)
- Treat others as they would like to be treated (platinum rule) / (9k)
- Oppression leads to resistance / where there is oppression there will be resistance; where dignity and justice are denied they will be sought (motif; incomplete thought) / (9k)
- Outlawing gay marriage is obviously wrong -> the problem with this statement is "obviously".
- We know gay marriage is a fact because Jungian repression [2] -> again it's the line of argument that's bad.
- seeing Bolshevism through psychoanalysis / seeing workers' states through psychoanalysis
- Freudian repression can be used to identify Marxist errors / (9k)
Marxist explanations
Defeat Stalin with gender identity
/ Gender identity is proletarian but it's Stalin that divides people [3] / Homosexuality is proletarian but it's Stalin that divides people -> I might have problems with this on a theoretical level but this is one of those propositions I nonetheless love because it comes out of nowhere and it's frankly hilarious.- The goal of Marxism is to unify all applied Materialisms / (9k) -> this proposition means that if Marxism fails to explain empirical observations of history or social phenomena which are describable as material objects or processes observable from the outside, dialectical materialism falls apart.
meta-Marxist analysis
Oppression leads to resistance
/ where there is oppression there will be resistance; where dignity and justice are denied they will be sought (motif; incomplete thought) [4] -> my only problem with this is how you define what oppression is — or what dignity and justice are. you can't identify it just from seeing resistance ... almost any time you introduce the concept of oppression versus resistance you actually lose the ability to tell what's right and what's wrong.
say a gay man lives in the Soviet Union in 1930. the government is not in favor of autonomous gay movements (although 'autonomous' is the intended key word in that sentence, not 'gay'). a great number of people accept and side with the government. the gay man participates in an unauthorized movement. the public responds with resistance as if hurt. if the public produces resistance in response to someone's actions and choices, does this mean the public is oppressed? did the individual in fact choose wrong? should he have fully sided with the central government on the position of defending the Soviet Union from division and external attack in order to not be oppressive and dominating? this particular scenario actually gets a lot easier if you know the historical context and that it's not actually scary to say the answer is "yes". but for most people looking at workers' states from the outside this scenario is really difficult, and it shows that a simple rule from anarchism / critical theory is quite unsuited for real situations.
Gay and Stalinist are incompatible identities
-> you could say this in two directions: gay is not allowed if you are a Stalin-follower, or Communism is not allowed if you're gay. ok, there's actually a third one too: gay and state capitalism are incompatible identities, which means that state capitalism disallows gay and gay disallows state capitalism disallows Bolshevism.
Gay and Stalinist are incompatible identities + Anticommunism belies Habermas = ????
Anticommunism belies Habermas
/ Anticommunism is Prejudice / The continued presence of anticommunism in the world shows that the world still contains some unknown kind of bigotry and all critical-theorists and anarchists will continue to be bigots as opposed to progressives until they figure out what it is -> people can be anticommunist for many reasons but the fact is that today in 2026 all of those reasons hurt the Cuban population as a whole. even the Trotskyist reasoning that Cuba 'persecuted gay people once' (as it hasn't been doing recently). every statement that people who are anticommunist are moral is false on its face if you've been to Cuba. so the question that remains is, exactly in what way are Habermasians lying to everyone?
Related
Ideology codes
- ML
- Aa / Jungian psychoanalysis
- Aa onto ML