User:Reversedragon/comm/SCP
sees cognitohazard that at least for him, death is a fate worse than death leads later to Foundation attempt to destroy death
a lot of the efforts going on in this reality are by SCPs? I really like that part of it
> we already controlled everything [S] fantasy Gramscianism
I have some doubts about the society models underneath this, but, honestly? I love this entry. this is so much better than a lot of them
one thing I don't like is how it feels like the people who wrote this don't know what progressivism sounds like and it feels like it's trying to construct progressivism out of the mean things people say about it turned around ironically
two mentions of the concept that mosquitoes are way worse than SCPs
Foundation tries to dissolve telepathic network which is mostly harmless
"gods" and "capitalism" put on equal footing
is there any difference between this and any other kind of martyr? think about it, every capitalist claims to be this kind of "hero"
Bellerverse
[S] SCPs referred to as wonders
[S] bogus Slavic name - Spopovich. Dmitri Arkadeyevich Strelnikov. Kolokolnikov.
Primrose - mentioned here, first introduced in 6001
SCP-001 proposals
This feels like the end of death story about the cognitohazard is a justification for this
> no gods, no masters, she replied before eating him
I think this is an example of meta-transitional realism. a very weird example the way the Sarkic tribe creates an ideology of freedom in the form of what appears to be an atheistic religion, eating the gods, eating the ancestors, becoming in control of their own humanity in a particular way religion has a different meaning in the context of a setting with a strong supernatural element. here, religion is a mystical way of understanding a process of nature, but one which is as effective as physics models, with only small errors or omissions
part 2 - [S] ancient posthumans
wait wait wait wait wait this is some prime bullshit > what anarchy wrought ... iron rule of the priestesses ... > a way to enjoin them, making decisions together as a people. everybody had a voice ... with success spread evenly, and failures dispersed equally > a way to bind them together I think I have just witnessed a solidly metaphysical, alchemical description of government. I hate it. I mean, I think the Sarkics are saying this, so it's reasonable for them to use metaphysics in the story. but as for whoever would be writing this story, what the hell. what the hell man. I think this is a strong piece of evidence that writers are approaching fantasy settings projecting certain modern ideologies onto them no matter what, and that the ideology in question is Existentialism
> anarchy ... I really doubt this word would have been brought up at all if the author was deliberately intending to advance Anarchism; in that case I suspect the word would have been "chaos" or something. this whole description reeks of intending to be a description of "democracy" as somehow distinct from "anarchy", but one which isn't Liberalism > if one disagreed he was free to walk away and this is the dead giveaway this is schizoanalysis. this is an ancient free-floating tribe outright bringing up the Escape concept seen in schizoanalysis of course people don't choose to walk away from the theorist because that turns them into separate Social-Philosophical Systems, and choppification doesn't "bind people together" this ideology is really weird. it doesn't claim to be Anarchy, it doesn't enforce ways of being in the guise of destroying "inherent crime", but it sets out to specify the way to constitute people as a Social-Philosophical System. and it accepts the consequences of basically creating a social amoeba that periodically undergoes spontaneous divisions? it's nicely consistent in unsatisfactory ways. the purely ideological layer of this story is a great example of meta-transitional realism, the creation of a hypothetical Social-Philosophical System of political processes which is questionable in its understandings or foundations but determined in its efforts toward its goals, which are generally not harmful per se, and which thus has a certain poetry to it
is this... Hannah Arendt's On Revolution? I can vaguely see the notion of free-floating factions destroying others to ultimately protect themselves, in the tradition of the Jacobins that, and the notion of French atheism or secular philosophy during the Enlightenment I think I'm onto something. this seems like a more likely origin than an intentional reference to schizoanalysis
part 3 - devouring... defectors... caused them to turn into awful nationalists?