User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4

Unsorted Items (page 4) [edit]

Ace Attorney is a series about Liberal-republicans fighting brown anarchists -> there is a really solid theme of direct oppression running through the first game, where various people hire somebody to do harm to somebody that they think is violating the established local rules of their career or business — in effect, businesses or Artisanal practices acting like tiny governments.
the moment the Steel Samurai came up I couldn't help but think, this character must be very thematic. he has a color timer on him for no reason, which connects him to Ultraman series. but Ultraman series is futuristic. while Steel Samurai is deliberately medieval; it's based in these principles of feudal orders with emperors, dukes or counts, and knights. I think that contrast is intentional and meant to frame Ace Attorney as feeling like it doesn't take place in 2001 because the characters' values are stuck hundreds of years before. now, you could have gotten that much from a magazine article; it's well known that the games are based on something called the ritsuryō system. [1] but when you get into the subtext of that is when things get really interesting. the ritsuryō system as a whole dates back to about the year 700; this places the characters' values approximately 1300 years before the game was made. 1300 years ago there was no United States. there was no global empire in its modern form (although Greek Egypt happened in about 300, so imperial colonies were already invented in more of a feudal form). Liberal-republicanism being an empire did not exist yet. Liberal-republicanism did not exist yet. we have to appreciate how different the world was in 300 — the whole dynamic of the United States and Japan and Germany and China fighting as powerful republics didn't yet exist. so then, what is the significance of Phoenix Wright and Edgeworth coming in and applying these very Kantian or Liberal-republican values to a world which is stuck in the 700s? it's a symbolic transition to Liberalism — they are taking feudalism and attempting to transition it to Liberal-republicanism. but more than that. because all the characters have to be superficially modern to make the setting truly feel shocking, all the peripheral characters live in capitalism. they exist within corporations and skilled practices and "Careerism". the peripheral characters may come out of something of a self-selected sample of people who have been near crimes, being detectives and witnesses and criminals, etc, but within them, you see a very clear theme pop up of almost all the lawbreakers suspect or not clearly trying to enforce particular rules themselves instead of letting the overarching republic do it. each lawbreaker, whether it's Redd White ~~pronounced redacted~~ or von Karma ~~pronounced redacted~~, always has a particular notion of what order and justice are; the most offensive thing to them is not getting to perform direct oppression and having someone else "hierarchically" meddle in their affairs. this weirdly positions the criminals of the Ace Attorney series as some kind of anarchism. definitely not one of the best kinds of anarchism, it goes without saying that most charcoal anarchists would hate it. but that by itself isn't to say it isn't an anarchism. blue anarchism almost certainly exists. orange anarchism may exist. brown anarchism may exist. so the only question that remains is what kind of anarchism Wright and Edgeworth are fighting.
Ace Attorney but in the context of a Communist party or Communist International -> I was watching these games for other reasons, and in my mind, they had nothing to do with Communism. until Mia had to go and say 'once you see through one lie the whole thing falls apart'. that really got my mind gears turning because I started imagining a fictionalized version of the Moscow Trials which was in over-the-top Ace Attorney format. which is just, a vastly more historically accurate way to adapt that event than the ominous trial of doom trope you see in works like The Twilight Zone; Trotsky himself is almost as weird as an Ace Attorney character, and even among the people they actually dragged in, the arguments or narratives were just about as bad as some of the witnesses give in Ace Attorney games. like, Trotskyites are giving Larry Butz level of testimony, persuade me otherwise.
then my mind started to wander to other possible angles, like a party meeting over an issue but being really divided on it and they start having a heated argument and banging on their desks. 'Left Opposition versus Right Opposition' kind of thing. that has so much comedy potential. and it could be a bit legitimately educational too. I kinda love the idea of these somewhat self-contained scenarios where a party is meeting over strategy on how to get through a particular problem in a particular country's revolution and there is a lot of tension because bad things happen to the working class when you get it wrong and they're going back and forth in these heated arguments to try to prove or disprove something. it almost sounds more interesting than Ace Attorney in some ways because like, you don't just have the fake opposition of the prosecutors and defense attorneys, you have more of a radial opposition of various factions and between different meetings the two sides could be anybody. it has a certain meta-Marxist appeal to it, in a weird way.
Ace Attorney + Leninist variant of fictional place = this.
If the value of money is culturally fabricated ("made up"), but anarchism can realize itself through a sea of individuals spontaneously deciding to create a different kind of society, then anarchism is a cultural fabrication and everybody is free to spontaneously decide not to follow anarchism and follow whatever ostensibly more oppressive system they want to (meta-Marxism onto post-structuralism)
today I was "thinking"... / 'today I was thinking—' 'stop that' / 'today I was thinking—' 'you?! I can't believe it' -> the motif of somebody cutting off a statement where somebody was thinking about some specific thing and focusing on the concept of "thinking".
Eren Yeager / nazi Eren Yeager (in context of imagining different versions of the story based around different ideologies)
Dengist Eren Yeager / Eren Yeager if Attack on Titan was Western-Marxist (strawberry Marxist, Gramscian, Dengist / Deng Xiaoping Thought) -> so, Attack on Titan has a dumb premise. it reads like a campfire horror story told by nazis in very little irony. but it is really funny to imagine some of the same central themes being used in an approximately Marxist work. like, instead of it being a nazi campfire story the titans are trying to scale a "Berlin wall", or penetrate China or North Korea to take them back for Liberal-republicanism, the titans are hiding out on Taiwan, the titans are sealing people into Cuba and not letting them leave. there obviously wouldn't be a focus on the concept of the big antagonist monsters being 'impure' or 'diseased', that element of it probably wouldn't exist. it would just be kaiju trying to break into the country and do something horrifying. it's gotta be a little over the top. it's gotta be about turning them all into kaiju for some nefarious but useful purpose, like, I dunno, the kaiju feed off negativity and if they all turn into kaiju and fight each other the whole population of kaiju becomes stronger. everyone is horrified about the invasion and it brings them all together.
anarchist Eren Yeager / Eren Yeager if Attack on Titan was anarchist -> this is why I am having an increasingly hard time telling the difference between Deng Xiaoping Thought and anarchisms. like, once again, anarchism succeeds when you build a wall around it — probably metaphorically — and wait for the outside to tire itself out. I can't tell the difference between Gramscian Eren Yeager and anarchist Eren Yeager.
oh god when I just go saying ideologies in a sentence of course my brain is going to shout "Trotskyist Eren Yeager". I don't know what that means. I don't know what that means at all. I dunno, like, the enemies are more like Reptilians or Yeerks and they're hiding out in the central government and nobody wants to believe it so the anti-alien squads are like trying to team up across regions? I tried.
'pataphysical reduction / 'pata-reducing (by analogy to beta-reducing) -> the motif of taking something expressed wholly in abstract Ideals and reducing it down to material models based on the way Ideals already interact with each other, or explaining something material to someone starting at the level of abstract Ideals. the term "reduction" is used in the sense of evaluating a function call down to a computation, as is done in lambda calculus; it is not used in the sense of the popular misconception about science that scientists want to eliminate sideways relationships from models. they don't, if you've ever heard of special relativity.
this is the real power of wave-machine logic like the logic system used on this wiki; it can start at totally phenomenological models and dig down to find material models.
Sociality distorts human beings' view of material reality -> anarchists are going to get so upset if you try to argue this at them. they'll try to argue that reality is whatever comes naturally to living things, and different states of natural for each living species must naturally want to go together, blah blah blah. [*] but they're all privileged. they haven't experienced a state of truly being fenced out of society by thousands and millions of people that all simultaneously agree they don't like you (probably without having met you or having much of any idea what they're doing). they especially haven't experienced it owing to the existence of anarchism, because anarchism already selected for people like them. but they should wise up to the fact that anarchism doesn't really pass the veil of ignorance with flying colors. it's quite easy to end up on the wrong side of "community" where you simply have nobody and nothing and also everyone assumes you must be a bad person just because you haven't claimed an exclusive spot in Community that supposedly you only have to be nice to people to get and follow morality though in reality it's much more difficult and complicated and trivial to simply be born wrong and fail to survive the ecological parameters of the 'community-icene'. I think that as a period of biological life the Anthropocene truly began at tribal society, not at industrial society. it was the ability to form entire ecosystems made of nothing but humans that changed things, but if anarchists are correct that the natural state of humans and human psychology is in tribes then all the current destruction of the environment ultimately came from the characteristics of tribes. tribal populations are not wholly innocent for all the horrors of global empire and ecological destruction if at the end of the day we're all still tribes and they're the only ones trying to disclaim that there are bad things about that. really, as crazy as it sounds, they might be accidentally benefiting from a corrupt system that has killed great numbers of people. of course, if humans don't have a seemingly eternal resting state of being in tribes that we have no choice but to return to which in turn implies we are currently tribes in denial and will still be tribes for the next hundred thousand years, then tribal populations carry no blame for what industrial societies have done.
(* why didn't they say that about workers' states and the healthy state of the Soviet Union versus the very disordered states that occurred at every moment after tearing it apart? they have even less excuse than Trotskyists. Trotskyists wilfully wanting to overwrite another Marxism with their own Marxism is at least logical even if it's terrible.)
"Indigenous people" marks a statement as racist / Saying "indigenous people" marks a sentence as containing racial stereotypes [2]
Mentioning ethnic groups is racist / Mentioning an ethnic group without mentioning a specific individual marks a sentence as containing potentially-harmful racial stereotypes -> this is what you have to believe for the above statement to be true. like, if "indigenous people" marks a racial stereotype, then saying a more specific group of people like "Inuit" should equally mark a racial stereotype — how does the person you're talking to know that you're giving correct information about all Inuit people and not just saying something false? but if this is true, you couldn't go to Congress and say "Black people" or "Mexican immigrants" for any legitimate purpose without mentioning individuals that supposedly make the example truer. does it actually make statements more accurate to include specific individuals? I feel like it adds nothing but also subtracts nothing.
this is a really weird criterion for judging whether statements are accurate. I know where it comes from, it comes from people trying to judge everything through positivism and claim that Lived Experiences are a pathway to truth while a lack of Lived Experiences is a pathway to falsity. it's still really weird. it doesn't seem to accomplish the thing it sets out to accomplish at all, and just seems to make all statements said about any group of people more worthy of doubting. "White people have the colonizer attitude"? maybe not!! Ben was doing that, but did you ask Carla?? "Black people experience structural racism"? maybe not!! you didn't mention an individual so in theory you might be racist for even saying that.
Mentioning ethnic groups is racist + Anti-essentialism is a pathway to truth = Pointing out racism is racist.
Referring to Communists without mentioning a specific individual is unacceptably prejudiced / If mentioning ethnic groups without mentioning a specific individual is racist, which is to imply that talking about groups of people in the abstract rather than as a particular countable number of concrete objects is racist, then mentioning "Communists" or "Cubans" or "people who support Stalin" without naming a specific individual for evaluation is equally prejudiced; every time somebody has said "tankies" or "totalitarians" or "Stalinist(s)" outside a particular context has been an unacceptably prejudiced statement -> this is another loophole in this. god I love it when really bad propositions break open so bad they wrap around to supporting Communism
"Social construct" is a social construct / Most of the time anarchists talk about social constructs they are trying to imply that things that are undesigned or that come out of interacting elements are deliberately engineered Ideals, but because this overall way of thinking is Idealist, it is also fair to say that anarchists are not working with a model that is well checked against reality and their theory of a given "social construct" being "constructed" is equally as made up as the "social construct" is if not more [3] -> sounds like a deepity until you realize what it's really saying and then your mind is blown
this is how you get out of what I referred to in another entry as "Gerson Boom BS". you realize what Idealism is and how it obscures whatever non-Idealist relationships between things may exist