User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand

I (R.D.) am a bit obsessive about numbers. I had a problem with the idea of Items having small numbers that at the same time were arbitrary. What would be number 10?? What would be number 1??
I considered making all the entries in this wiki take their IDs from the timestamp they were created at, but when Wikibase had no clear way of doing that and it was already installed, I decided it would be easier to do this instead: map out the first 3000-9000 Item entries to the best numbers I can think of, and then stop worrying. A little later, I'd go a step further and scrap Wikibase to make editing individual Items and downloading them as text files particularly easy in all browsers, and allow for Item identifiers to be as pronounceable as possible thanks to the ability to add commas or redirects inside the same namespace.

This is the first prototype of every Item in order. After this, I began to create specific "Ontology" Categories for particular fields and media series, and to create hue list templates to more consistently display the same proposed Item across pages. This page will not use any of the later html-saving templates in order to preserve a more basic and manual version of the hue list markup. However, some especially verbose sections of chapters, episodes, short stories, etc. have been moved to Ontology pages to make the list easier to navigate.

You should be warned that there may be a lot of particular opinions on this page. Whenever I wrote any idea down I poured out the first thoughts that came to my mind on it. I had no intention that any of these first-thoughts would be a permanent part of any of the Item pages that would not change. Some of them were meant as loose guidelines for further examining each thing and collecting research or analyses of them on their pages in a general way, but only really as a starting place. I've always had the rule that "angry" does not belong on Item pages, thus I sometimes absolutely went off here to avoid it going there. Also, you are encouraged to create alternate prototype pages scrawled on Category pages or in connection with other thesis portals — the only major rules are that all prototype notes should be archived on an early revision of their corresponding Item page (whether they are deleted or superseded in later revisions, which is fully expected), and that when somebody actually establishes a block of useful concepts within the Ontology namespace you must build off what is already there while moving existing Items only when there is some relatively important reason another Item should be using that number. If an Item is on a prototype page and has not been properly created, then it is not an issue to move things around, but you should try to keep related blocks together.

Item status: Wikibase set to be removed / Property data must be recovered first, then Wikibase extensions will be disabled / Ontology pages are now canonical Item pages
Once the items on this page have been created, it will be natural for the names and purposes of the items to evolve somewhat over time, and there is no need for anyone to worry about whether the current set of items is "following" this prototype page. Items will become grouped into specific topic-based Ontology pages such that following the list is less unwieldy, or paginated numeric lists including the actual Items by template.

Unsorted Items

• Super Smash Bros. + mainstream Marxism-Leninism = meta-Marxism
• 水滴石穿 (shuǐ dī shí chuān, Dripping water wears through stone) - this seems more applicable to quantity into quality actually. some books use it in the context of tiny wounds to an empire being an offense to justice [1]
• 狡兔三窟 (jiǎo tù sān kū, A Cunning Rabbit Has Three Burrows) [2] - this one fits
• 半途而废 (bàn tú ér fèi, Giving Up Halfway) [3]

618. artism
618. I don't practice artism / I am not an Artist because I do not practice Artism
618. Gramscianism is an anarchism / Gramscianism is an ideology based on linking individuals together into a viable civilization which can defend itself from other free-floating countable cultures ("fascisms") independently from the layers of structural boundaries or government, therefore Gramscianism is secretly an anarchism -> the other possibility is that Gramscianism is an attempted molecular Marxism which simply has not been powerful enough to achieve anything. I think out of the two I lean more toward the latter. it makes more sense logically to say that ideologies that blatantly condone some kind of state forming are tiny Marxisms than to say they would "truly" develop into anarchisms later and just don't know yet.
618. Bell games for general relativity [4] [5] [6] [7] -> these are supposed to show the difference between special and general relativity in an experiment, and maybe show where causality breaks down at the quantum scale. I like the use of relativity to probe quantum mechanics before asking questions about gravity. I'm surprised there's a decent experiment for that. I, like Hossenfelder, don't really know right now if these things successfully show anything. they're neat though.
     edit: there's a pre-print!
618. Freud against Lenin is really Freud against Freud -> I wouldn't have caught this until I saw somebody not against the Soviet Union try to use Freud. it was a bad idea, but it was illuminating. what I realized was that there is one "Jungian" way to use psychoanalysis which ostensibly uses it in service of freedom, and one "Lacanian" way to use psychoanalysis which blatantly uses it in service of creating repression. almost every argument against the Soviet Union has actually been "Jungians" fighting "Lacanians" while claiming Lacanianism is the essence of Leninism. which makes it so very ironic Lacanians try to argue basically that repression is good after they claim Bolshevism is bad. that is totally incoherent; you might as well be Stalin.
618. Stalin vs Trotsky = Jung vs Lacan / Stalin versus Trotsky equals Jung versus Lacan -> this is most likely how psychoanalysts would take all my thought experiments about Stalin and Trotsky: strain everything through psychoanalysis and insist that everybody is only a different kind of psychoanalyst. the dumb thing is that somehow, while inside the United States, this might be a totally appropriate model of what discourse looks like. not one of other countries, but probably of the United States. sometimes it's baffling how it happened. sometimes I realize that capitalism being the only real structure that exists it stands to reason this would have happened. the only thing left to say is: where's the psychoanalysis that is much better than either Jung or Lacan so I don't have to simply throw away both of them?
618. Psychoanalysis was the interpretive framework used to create Dragon Ball -> there is a lot of superficial textual evidence of this. maybe the reason it weirdly reminds me of Lacanianism is that in a sense it is Lacanianism.
618. When two people cut down each other's desires, it results in hatred, not peace -> existential materialism onto Lacanianism. what if "desires" are what we actually need? if so, calls for compromise would be wholly unethical. the more you pack repression onto someone, the more it becomes evident that nobody has to be forced to do anything nor can oppress anyone if they were simply dead. and you know what happens next — people give their opponent utter freedom from oppressing others or being oppressed in the most disturbing way possible.
618. Gay movements are against the proletariat (USSR (pronounced USSR)) / Gay movements are against the stability of the workers' state [8] -> the core of this claim is in LGBT+ people forming movements, although 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" and no greater structure or pattern matters.
618. taking indigenous land for carbon credits [9] -> I never thought about this specific possibility but knowing how cynical carbon credits are in general I am wholly unsurprised.
618. The U.S. occupying Ukraine is Marxist / It is a Marxist position to put the United States' whole budget into the military in order to send troops into Ukraine -> there are some things you have to spell out for people to actually understand where their reasoning is leading. this proposition is totally stupid, but it is one of the few ways to successfully illustrate that there is a reason for historical materialism and you can't simply throw it out.
618. Every act of assuming labor can fix anything is handing somebody a student loan -> you get degrowth when people genuinely stop paying huge amounts of money just to do whatever people tell them to do for money.
618. there's no "I" in team
618. you can't spell team without "me" -> this is supposedly a proposition that Marxists believe except that it isn't. and I am still trying to untangle that contradiction. some days I'm more confused by Marxism than I am by anarchism. I'm glad there aren't many of them.
618. you can't spell community without "out" / you can't spell community without "not" -> I am so fucking (pronounced fucking) tired of the word community and people vulgarizing every single graph of people that talks to each other at all into a "community".
618. If the United States had competent movement organizers, over two thirds of meta-Marxism wouldn't be necessary / "if we had competent organizers, over two thirds of what I'm doing wouldn't be necessary" -> every day I say to myself, I would be so happy if this one particular thing I'm working on today just wasn't even necessary because the movement was more robust than I predicted. and every day it becomes more and more apparent that I do have to do all of this.
618. Midichlorians turned animals into Pokémon (micro-organisms that turned into organelles; Star Wars term used facetiously) / Some kind of mitochondrion from space, or from the earth, got absorbed into animal cells and made them into Pokémon -> a theory that popped into my mind when somebody said that Pokémon inheriting the female parent's species was similar to mitochondria. determining an entire body plan is a whole lot for a mitochondrion to do, unless they're the entire thing that make Pokémon Pokémon.
618. Duplexing scattering yields territory dispute / Applying the duplexing function to the function of people scattering to new houses or frontier homesteads yields a war over territory -> existential-materialist claim.
     this is the level you need to be on if you want to talk to meta-Marxists about "the colonizer attitude". a chart full of what are basically lambda calculus functions and how a better collection of behavior functions is actually produced.
618. sonic event horizon / acoustic black hole -> these can form in superfluids but in viscous fluids the random motion of the particles, presumably away from flowing and toward each other, inhibits forming one. it's kind of like these experiments are saying fields have no atom-sized chemistry (obviously they don't) so things like water polarity or whatever is going on with honey sugars couldn't stop them.
     what's stunning to me is that an event horizon is enough to get Hawking radiation. you'd think from a naïve but grounded understanding of physics that the black hole stuff between the horizon and singularity has to be leading to all the weird properties, hidden variables or not. it's crazy we can see so many things about the event horizon and that black holes aren't more mysterious than they are. why is so much seemingly happening so close to the surface? ordinary stars don't work that way, they have a corona and a center. so why is the black hole so nearly an actual hollow shell. that is so strange
618. Media Representation on Sky News / hello Sky News, I'm so glad I got my colostomy bag [10] -> I just found an article on notorious Tory news outlet Sky News that was exactly in the shape of an Existentialist or Gramscian call for Media Representation. obviously there's nothing wrong with a visibility effort for stoma bags. a little unusual, but sure, getting unusual problems out there is the point isn't it. the one thing that baffles me is seeing this kind of thing on Sky News. I'm guessing it got there because it sounds like an old people problem?? it's often old people watching these things, so maybe they think any medical problem sounds enough like their own problems to not be upsetting to them. that isn't a joke; I just genuinely don't know what's a good guess.
618. Removing uncertainty takes away the need for bosses -> the corollary to realizing that "authoritarian" formations like Marxist party-nations, tightly-linked Liberal parties, corporations, established churches, and caliphates all occur in order to lead people against uncertainty. definite packed-in networks and networkists form because different networks are all competing or acting against each other. Christians are afraid of crime and rival kingdoms all mysteriously moving around outside, they form into a church. Muslims are afraid of kingdoms conquering each other, they form into a caliphate. capitalism promises "freedom", it practically creates the need for workers to cluster into large corporations so survival will be more predictable and for somebody to be at the head of that corporation predicting everything on the outside so those people can get a paycheck. a Deng Xiaoping state forms when countries have a greater need to be vigilant against war and not make stupid mistakes in their survival than the need to let individuals fight with each other and pursue totally experimental ideas and structures. it follows that when uncertainty goes away, there is a greater potential to republicanize any particular workplace, taking away particular points of authority and handing authority only to "standard procedure".
     anarchists don't like this proposition because they generally want to believe that "crabs" are created by one individual's ideas or by di- intelligent design rather than by purely unintelligent, undesigned processes that humans are merely trying to operate in.
618. Colonialism is a historical process / Exocolonialism is not a stationary period of British people standing all over India and it is a process existing across time with a source and moving parts -> technically, this must be true.
     the thing that bothers me is what people propose the process to actually be. if you define this in a way that supports historical materialism I wouldn't really be able to complain. what bothers me is when people try to define the historical process of colonialism in a way which is distinctly historical non-materialism or historical existentialism.
     if I can be brutally honest for a moment? it reeks of First World privilege for people to think that a bunch of people just standing around and willing something can get people whatever they want. if you have access to lots and lots of money that peasants would clamor over each other to have, or your gigantic continental government has access to all that money supposedly, of course you can have whatever you want. of course it will seem like anyone who does anything but beg owners of giant local-state-sized swaths of industry to pay money to support anything else when paying it would take away their ability to make more ability to help "clearly" doesn't understand history and "clearly" isn't doing anything productive. clearly, history gets less violent as all the power funnels into the United States and all the other countries lose their governments and everyone can just vote on things but they have to be White. and everybody else is stupid. everyone who's a peasant and hasn't created capitalism only has to work harder to be able to vote in about 50 years. but the cherry on top is that if the whole world knits together into Liberal-republicanism it will spend its time dividing in two and generating blood feuds just so it's supposedly "fair" and isn't "totalitarian". (sic.) all of it makes sense in its own twisted way except that. the one thing I genuinely don't get is how a system that generates blood feuds and periodic shootings is inherently fair.
618. Kimberlé Crenshaw for president / Kimberlé Crenshaw would be a better president than Barack Obama -> I'm joking, but my point is that people trying to say Obama "wasn't qualified" probably don't know what qualified means, or what educated means, or what hard work means, or what improvement means. now, if they say that Crenshaw would be a better president than Obama, not necessarily the best possible president but better, then at least you'd know they know what words mean. what's terrible is I have this sneaking suspicion they wouldn't.
618. Liberal-republicanism regulates endocolonialism / There is an endocolonialism process which operates based on different coherent subpopulations nominating experts to advise them and make their laws but then in order to achieve any unity between subpopulations whatsoever, having to fight over which political subpopulation acts as the ruling ethnic group of the empire holding empire over the other politically-defined ethnic groups, and Liberal-republicanism regulates this to keep it from turning into a permanent physical Britain-versus-India style colonialism -> if this is true, then Third World countries are predisposed to Marxism because they don't have the process of endocolonialism that First World countries have, at least not the one that leads to the creation of Liberal-republicanism.
     point in favor of this: historically, empire is the simplest way to join populations. empire joined the fracturing populations of Germany, England, China, Japan, old Korea, India, the list goes on and on. so if Liberal-republicanism is absurdly simple, too simple to possibly work, that it would devolve into humanity's simplest method of joining large populations is not surprising. none of these were colonialism yet. that only started to develop when two populations could smash into each other, like European empires and North American tribes. but what if two majority-ethnicity populations were smashing into each other and trying to expand over each other and siphon away each other's land inside a kingdom? well, then that could potentially be colonialism.
618. Liberal-republicanism cannot be decolonized / Endocolonialism cannot be removed from Liberal-republicanism as long as the latter exists -> note the "endo-". this doesn't mean reparations can't exist. reparations are in response to a past exocolonialism. endocolonialism refers to colonialism basically being identifiable inside a group solely consisting of White people, for instance, a group that's all-British, or all-Dutch, though probably not all-Irish. a group that's all-Japanese, or all-Italian, and has not yet smashed into any particular foreign country it is trying to brutalize but already contains colonialism inside it anyway. that's endocolonialism. from a Materialist point of view it's tempting to say it doesn't exist in order to say it's referring to something else that does exist. but in the end, that's meta-ontologically dishonest. if people are getting stirred up about "colonialism" they won't shut up until you tell them how to stop "colonialism". so it's more meta-ontologically sound to tell them they're talking about "endocolonialism" and that nobody actually knows what that is. also that, really, it's utterly necessary to create a historical materialism of some kind to explain endocolonialism. to explain how something entirely inside a group of White people leads to exocolonialism you very much need a theory of material cause and effect which actually shows how small scales lead up to larger scales and how surrounding patterns can change smaller scales to produce different large-scale events. "ideas, attitudes" won't cut it; you really have to know and predict what each idea produces in reality to know whether any idea will be useful.
618. The past and the future simply happen / If the past isn't horrifing, the future isn't horrifying either -> the greatest revenge against people talking about periods like WWI as if there's nothing to them and they aren't horrifying is to talk of a clearly messed-up future in the exact same tone, precisely as if it isn't horrifying, precisely as if that's just life now and as if it's perfectly normal, people are just going to deal with it. I'm surprised that half of all dystopia books aren't already written this way, considering the way every educated person reports on life in their own country. is it that dystopia is softly assumed to only happen elsewhere, even when it supposedly takes place in the author's country? is it that an instance of the United States which has fallen is considered a foreign country?
618. Liberal-republicanism and Marxism are the same / Republicanism is one big shell game where experts pretend that anyone can be in a position of power and then use the actual difficulty of becoming an expert as a lever to shame everyone for not dropping everything they're doing to become an expert and subsequently order everyone to mindlessly obey what they say or not be considered a real human with a functional adult brain -> the major flaw in center-Liberalism: if you believe in Liberal-republicanism there's no incentive to obey center-Liberals and allow any new policies to be made. any act of reactionaries obeying progressives is ceding their voice and their right to not be told who to vote for; any act of change is essentially giving up democracy and embracing colonialism.
618. Communist parties, hierarchical, are bad / Communist parties are bad because they are hierarchical -> this is contradictory because one typical point of evidence is that people can be expelled from Communist parties, but anarchisms also use expulsion in much the same way and claim it's not hierarchy any more just because it's theirs, just because anarchism is a connected whole and that supposedly can't be a hierarchy. expulsion has to either be hierarchy or not. and I think there's a better case it isn't. only in cases of imperialism where a few White people want to extend their population over the world and rule it does expulsion become a serious thing where not being in a particular country is bad. ordinary people really don't know the difference between non-colonial and colonial and almost get the two backwards so that colonial is freedom and non-colonial is empire.
618. Boundaries between the inside and outside of something can exist without being hierarchy -> this absolutely has to be true, or people organizing black graduation is a form of hierarchy, and people not being friends with nazis and excluding them from social circles is a form of hierarchy. proto-fascist Tories absolutely want to believe these two things because they have no issues with everything they see being a hierarchy as long as accusing a hierarchy of being unfair allows them to tear the thing apart. the part people are not going to like is that this means that people being sorted into nation-states with hard borders is not necessarily a form of hierarchy, and simply a form of separation. after two populations separate a new spatial slot hierarchy can form inside, but the separation is not a hierarchy, not even if The Communist Party created it. the only hierarchy is inside The Communist Party, while inclusion or exclusion is a different thing from hierarchy.
618. collective farm
618. single large farm with government tractors
618. collection of small farms
618. Joining small farms did not succeed / Stalin's government joining small farms into a corporate entity did not succeed -> I'm willing to accept that this might be true, but for utterly the wrong reasons. Existentialists really want to think that collective farms fail because Bolshevism is bad and joining things together is bad... but what if collective farms failed because small farms are bad and fundamentally will never be as good as big farms even when you connect them? that's a scary thought, because it means a whole lot of anarchist rhetoric that supposedly "helps" social-democracy has to be thrown out. but something being scary doesn't mean it isn't true.
618. Amazon is one big "collective farm" / Amazon is an entity joining many separate small entities to the same pitfalls as a collection of small farms -> I can't figure out, under capitalist logic, why collective farms are so "bad" we recreated the same thing on a gigantic scale. my best answer is that this structure is totally undesigned and arose by historical necessity when the structures people actually wanted didn't work.
618. Private equity is a modern form of collectivization (collectivisation; meta-Marxist claim)
618. Private equity isn't the problem / Small businesses blame private equity for businesses failing and getting gutted but it's really small businesses' fault -> the trap of small businesses being supposedly innocent is so hard to see through it took me weeks to realize this was a possibility.
618. Is (pronounced Is) make ours meanings reciprocally (hyper-plural phrasing, short form) / We individuals each in parallel make ours meanings reciprocally (hyper-plural phrasing, long form) / Individuals can't assign the meaning of life to themselves because everyone is always obligated to externally assign meaning to others / bridgistentialism (proposition that the meaning of life is mainly assigned by several other people) -> this popped back into my mind, out of all possible reasons, because of Deltarune. in Deltarune, it is strongly implied that a world of people generated by a "language game" (an ontology game), the world itself, can die. when you boot up Deltarune you are obligated to form some kind of reaction to that. the Deltarune characters don't get to decide what their existence means, not really, just like the playing cards don't get to decide what their existence means when there are Lightners. the real world counterpart — in my opinion — is populations. taken as a population, the Soviet Union can't make its own meaning and set an identity for itself alone because everyone else in the world is constantly assigning it meaning at the same time. whether it means anything hinges on whether other populations want to let it live and say that its life has meaning, not whether it says to itself "I have meaning and this is what it is". the same is technically true for all populations.
     I call this... uh... di-existentialism is when you duplex existentialism, not when you extend it as everyone over other people. bridgistentialism? I don't know.
618. Why is prejudice bad? -> this question may seem dumb, but it's actually a terribly important question, because if you have the wrong answer you will become an imperialist. Christianity has always said it's not about prejudice because anyone can become Christian and if they would just become Christian and simultaneously abandon all other religion and magic ritual the world could be united. Trotskyism makes essentially the same error, coercing anarchists and mainstream Marxists-Leninists into Trotskyism just because of the vacuous truth that if everyone was Trotskyist everyone would be Trotskyist. does most Liberal-republicanism or anarchism have a grounding which is any better than this? is any of it prepared for the possibility that somebody genuinely does not want to be part of a particular group of people, and all the "community" and "anti-prejudice" you can manage wouldn't be enough to fix that? "dem"-"ocracy" is just fine if people are part of the Demos in the first place, but what if they aren't? what do you do when there are multiple separate Demotes that distinctly don't want to be controlled by each other as a matter of national autonomy and self-determination?
618. A country of bourgeoisie can form a workers' state / A country full of nothing but bourgeoisie can become a workers' state -> there's a pretty decent argument this is true, thanks to North Korea. North Korea mostly only contained teeny tiny businesses that were utterly incapable of being large capitalism or really having a proletariat. and yet that didn't stop people from forming into a Marxist party-nation. they just did it anyway. you can argue North Korea is "suffering", you can argue North Korea is "poor", you can argue that forming a Marxist party-nation hasn't worked out well, but you can't argue that they didn't form one in spite of what Marxism has traditionally said. I think this leaves no excuse for First-World countries. I think all the claims that First World countries will "surely" fail just because they put the proletariat in China and India can't possibly be right.
618. Spontaneity is what makes art relatable / Spontaneity is what makes art truly relatable -> the claim that spontaneous events occurring in the lives of highly specific individuals, such as the shark not functioning in the production of Jaws, are what makes art truly resemble real life. I have to say, this is one of those propositions where my first response is simply "that's icky, I don't like it" without an actual reason, where I then have to really stop and think on what is actually wrong with it because I know "icky" is not an argument. I think one possible starting point is the proposition that art must represent its audience rather than its author. that way you rule out art getting to be racist just because a bunch of White people had unique experiences and are such good artists that are so good at being unique individuals that we don't need Media Representation — people absolutely will say this if you let them. all the spontaneity and biographical detail and seconds and minutes of irreplaceable Lived Experience you can muster means nothing if it doesn't represent the audience rather than the author.
618. Art designed by committee can't be good -> I think this is blatantly false after the success of Warriors and the sheer number of teenagers who still read it.
618. Art movements are philosophies / "Every artistic movement from the beginning of time is an attempt to smuggle more of what the artist thinks is reality into the work of art" (David Shields, Reality Hunger) [11] -> great quote until we get to Jackson Pollock. I do think artistic abstraction exists. also... it looks like this book is largely an attempt to justify fiction as memoir. I think that's dangerous when it comes to the role of fiction as "education". if a country contains 90% one ethnic group and 10% another one, you want about the top 80% of people making art that's almost totally abstracted from real life, or art simply becomes softly racist as everybody gets flooded with the experiences of one particular ethnic group. it's really much better to have White people focusing all their energy into things like Harry Potter and Warriors so there's space for minorities to write all the more biographical stories that actually manage to teach people about experiences they haven't had.
618. gunning down kulaks with machine guns / kulaks — what are you going to do with them? (censored label) -> the anticommunists said it first, not me. [12]
     I think the question to ask here on motifs like these is this. if you don't arrest the kulaks and put them in Gulag or whatever happens to them, and you insist on tent of freedom poles, what hypothetically happens? assume that whatever they did was relatively bad. they did something at least as morally questionable as casually posting on twitter that "when I say 13% of the population commits 50% of the crimes they all get so fired up but they know they're wrong and pathetic". on rare occasion there are recorded historical incidents where kulak types would shoot well-liked public officials if they had the opportunity. they're your "January-6ers". they're bad news. so what are you going to do with those? they're not going to listen to anything you say just because they want to be nice. if they could retreat to their peasant life and survive but watch 90% of society die, which in the kulaks' case they can, there's a nonzero chance they'd be the kind of person to just take that option, which we have decent reason to believe looks closer to 50% than 1%. kulaks aren't the ones dutifully paying taxes to help people exist. so what are you going to do with them?
     the typical answer you see is "community". "community, community, community", as if culture and community have the power to solve everything. but let's say that actually worked. everyone bombards the kulaks with good values. they don't behave. they don't want to contribute. they act like people trying to integrate them into a community is uncalled for. people ramp efforts to saturate everyone with Community. when the kulaks don't participate everyone just starts utterly boycotting them and going "you can't buy products from that region, that's where the kulaks live and they don't like Community, you have to buy from these good regions". they effectively isolate all the kulaks into an island and turn them into their own tiny nation that is being embargoed and starved of anything they can't create themselves. this only exacerbates tensions between the two groups of people. if people recognized as being from the kulak region go into one of the progressive cities they're going to be treated with utter prejudice. if any of the progressive regions go through a really hard time and we assume the Soviet population is anarchist instead of Communist, some people are just going to attack the kulaks and steal their stuff because they feel like that's the justified thing to do to people that have spat in their face and never helped them. the whole thing would start morphing into a warring states period or a blood feud really really quickly. you're going to be killing them or firing guns at them one day just because you belong to two incompatible populations that don't want to be part of one Community while anarchists are busy enforcing a wrong model that Community is universal and automatic. if you really want to not kill the kulaks then it's a very bad idea to be an anarchist, no matter who you are, even right this second. you have a far greater chance of an outcome where they keep their lives if you allow Bolshevism and you allow a central government to enforce laws on every population rather than making everything about the social relationships between individuals or populations, which can turn very abusive.
618. Anticommunists created early Western-Marxism / Anticommunists created the first Western-Marxism [13] -> if you remove "the first" this would become controversial, but I think with it in, it's much harder to argue against. it's like, you could say "anticommunists created the first Trotskyism" referring to essentially everybody in Trotskyism but Trotsky and a few figures you could count on your hands. "the first" Trotskyism was mostly composed of anticommunists but anyone can take it and fill it with workers (assuming they have unreal levels of skill, of course), so it's harder to categorically say that Trotskyism itself is anticommunist even despite all the times it's wrong. similarly Western-Marxism can be wrong a whole lot of the time but not necessarily always malicious.
618. Engels vulgarized Marxism into Calvinism / Engels squashed Marxism into a vulgar deterministic linear timeline of the world, which is demonstrated to some extent in Anti-Dühring / Anti-Dühring is the root of all evil [14] -> I had literally never heard this claim until today, which makes it really funny to me. I quite literally heard about Engels' work as good from mainstream Marxist-Leninists and Trotskyist pages, as a non-Communist, before I ever heard this one. I think that really goes to show what an utter bubble disconnected from ordinary people "the New Left" actually lives in. like, my whole life I've been a socially isolated nerd, but somehow I've never been as isolated in a remote ivory tower as The New Left, to the point I heard "correct" Marxism before I ever really heard of them. Richard Wolff is the only exception where I had any contact at all with anticommunist Western-Marxists and their theory. and as far as I can remember he never managed to confuse me and make me think that what he was doing was remotely the same thing as Bolshevism. I think it was always relatively intuitive to me that "Marxism" and "Western Marxism" were potentially different things. so it is particularly puzzling to me that anybody could think that early Western-Marxism is the one true Marxism. if you have the slightest bit of intuition for duplexing or meta-Marxism you'd at least realize that there isn't one true Marxism in that specific sense, and realize that instead there are always plural Marxisms. what stops us from this? is it imperialism? is it the tendency to think that because White culture is the only culture that ever existed and Marxism seeks to find the one correct model of the world, this means Western-Marxism must be the only Marxism?
     the one thing that always makes Western Marxism so complicated for me is it's the favorite Marxism for minorities to appropriate to claim that Marxism is the best theory for, and solely designed for, ridding the United States of racism. you have one faction of people which is appropriating Gramsci and Marcuse to claim that Marxism is a theory of anti-racism, and then you have one faction of people who is using the same theorists to claim almost literally that Russians are inherently bad and Bolshevism could never succeed because of bad Russian culture that isn't White culture — you see, even if Russians look White they can't possibly be White because they don't have Democracy. which is a cultural idea, not a practiced material structure that could exist within Bolshevism. they oppressed a single individual with the correct ideas instead of including him through tent of freedom poles and that means that Russians are a savage race that must be fought by real White people until they physically include White individuals with good ideas in their society. this is not neocolonialism, it's just Democracy.
618. lambda-calculus determinism / lambda-calculus style determinism / mathematical function determinism -> for some weird reason people always assume that determinism equals Calvinism, where there is one set of conditions that lead to a single ending, rather than determinism itself being the path from a million initial conditions to a million associated endings. this is the intuitive definition of determinism if you've studied enough Newtonian mechanics: if a ball and a ramp start in one particular position they end up in one particular place but it always depends on what position they started in which is not necessarily controllable by an experimenter in the context of daily life. if you start with this definition of determinism you see it is no existential threat to a bunch of individuals floating around making decisions and having some set of processes they struggle to describe and label as Free Will; if determinism is discovered and people become "robots" then no aspect of human experience has been lost.
618. Feuerbach modeled an abstract Man rather than real people / Feuerbach modeled an abstract peasant rather than a real peasant [15]
618. Stalin modeled an abstract universalized Trotsky rather than the real Trotsky -> the leap between mainstream Marxism-Leninism and meta-Marxism.
618. If nature had a legal code, it'd be exmat (pronounced exmat) / If nature had a legal code, it would be existential materialism -> the claim that "the most intuitive outcome" for a collection of individuals can only be described by the totality of possible interactions of those individuals. there is no intuitive outcome which represents "justice", as much as simply one outcome which is possible or probable based on individuals' and groups' biased personal experience. sometimes the possible outcomes contain a good or best outcome. intuition doesn't necessarily get us there.
     one way to describe human reasoning is that we all use Bayesian reasoning, but taking Bayesian reasoning and formalizing it on paper reveals the inherent problems in human reasoning rather than acting as any kind of method of doing it better.
618. Intuition is better at justice than logic / Intuition is better for understanding history than logic / The I Ching shows us that intuitiion is better for understanding conflicts in society than written law (Alan Watts) -> recorded from some kind of old TV program. [16] it's so weird and ironic that he uses China as his example because China is not really a very intuition-based country any more since about 1940. you could attribute that to central governments doing whatever they have to to encourage modernizing to compete with other countries, any number of "kingdoms" will do this. but what if you didn't. is natural law really a sensible way of looking at things when you could draw 100 Chinese people at random and there's a nonzero chance you'd only get people that say according to their intuition Communism makes the most sense? is that to say that people transitioning to a highly logical way of thinking is what's truly obvious?
     there was this one line in 1984. "there were no laws, but there were crimes". you know, you know full well that if anybody in China today read justice according to intuition like those ancient imperial judges this is exactly what people in other countries would be thinking, and they might just clamor to force the government to read justice by exactly what's written simply so that spooky scary Communism doesn't behave unpredictably. if China were to not have a constitution people would be terrified, even though reading justice according to intuition is almost exactly why that would be the case.
     human beings want their own country to be as anarchic as possible but they want other countries to be perfectly and utterly regimented like robots so they aren't left guessing what other people will do. this seems to come down to a poor ability to take situations and duplex them in order to understand what two people or structures doing the same thing will produce without one structure seeking to control the other and produce a single structure.
618. Communism hates selfishness / Marxism seeks to destroy the individual -> this is harder to mark false than you'd think it is, thanks to Trotsky.
618. History is Geist understanding itself (Hegel) -> this is why the proposition "heaven existing before mind is an illusion" is important. the claim that religion exists to explain the proper way for nations and history to go together has been around for a while. but if you don't think culture can exist before minds, you'll find the concept of people belonging to Geist rather than to populations really weird.
618. Heaven is the illusion culture exists before mind / Heaven is the illusion that culture exists before brains exist -> this is what goes through my mind when I listen to NDE stories. [17] the human mind is wired to perceive existence as existence in culture, as well as existence within an inner experience. when people are all alone they will start making up people out of boredom (getting lost in mental "roleplaying" or insert fics, writing fiction in general, talking to chatbots, etc) or hallucinating people (hearing the voice of God, etc). when people are dying and having to comprehend the existence of no people whatsoever and also no physical body imminently, there's almost nothing they can do but perceive the universe as their own inner experience having existed before and after they existed and other people having existed way before them and after them. which, to be fair, other people generally did exist before you existed, and will often exist after you existed, the only thing is that they won't be angels or weird entities, they're just people.
     the thing that made me stop considering the possibility of an afterlife was just thinking about how previous civilizations had existed and ancient Egyptians had a particular afterlife in mind and probably their own NDEs but for some reason nobody pictures that now or has NDEs about that now and it's very weird that people's internal image of the afterlife would have changed so drastically that we don't even really necessarily know now what the most vivid images of the afterlife would have looked like to them. what's potentially a whole different afterlife just, vanished. of course, maybe if you were an ancient Egyptian exactly what you would have seen in an NDE is returning to earth and flying over it, simply seeing an afterlife where earth continues without you and the soul you have supposedly become coexists invisibly on that same earth. maybe the origins of the ba story are something like that. I don't really know
618. History is matter understanding itself (Marx)
618. Engels was a positivist -> this is almost backwards. almost everyone who tries to object to Marxism on grounds of "subjectivity" is generally trying to reduce all perception of reality to Lived Experiences and constellations of perceptions, and sometimes to try to take that and twist it to argue that people can never know whether they are committing prejudices and subsequently that anybody has the right to beat them over the head for it because there's no other way anybody would receive that information. the more you drill into anarchism and everyday Gramscianism the more you see that the conceptualization of reality as Lived Experience is inseparable from the claim that people can only exist inside culture — if fundamentally you are not allowed to make mistakes, then you are required to be part of a cultural group of people that somehow already knows the answers and has fed you the right answers, but if this is the case, nobody is allowed to perceive reality except as a whole countable culture object where all the individuals perceive at once and if individuals perceive something the group doesn't they simply aren't allowed to know that. if the claim that only cultures exist and individuals that perceive observed laws of physics as individuals don't exist isn't positivist, then I don't know what is.
618. Jews are too materialist / Christians think about greater ideals than immediate material life and the self and Jews don't (Jewish people, atheists, Communists, "The Left", insert any number of people thought of as "infidels"; Feuerbach) -> this feels like one of many instances of human beings perceiving their own individual animal as The Subject and all other individuals and ethnic groups as robots that have to be strictly controlled and constantly held to higher standards than the self.
     policy note: proposition labels like this are okay because it is obvious the insult hurled at "Jews" isn't really much of an insult or accusation and it is easy to argue this "selfish" way of thinking is thinking sensibly.
618. Modern horror stories are too high-concept / Modern horror stories are too abstract and subversive when simple folklore stories were good enough -> I think this is a product of what is basically white-bread horror stories. white-bread fantasy stories can very easily come across as inadequate, but in contrast, white-bread horror stories can often be surprisingly well done. this would be partly due to the fact horror stories work well with a limited cast of characters or a limited amount of character writing, and don't really require much talking about "various cultures" or world history; you can write a horror story based on nothing but really really abstract concepts. horror stories just allow a big population of boring White people to actually create something good with relatively few consequences brought by the marginalization of other populations from their writer "community".
618. Unifying as demographics does not keep people from uniting into the human race [18] -> well. it's about half true.
618. Power and privilege are tenets of critical race theory [19] -> there are times where having the color swatches to hint at how true or false the propositions might be is very important.
618. LGBT+ tradition (arts, nonfiction works describing identities, etc) / LGBTQIA+ tradition -> the concept of a philosophical tradition of queer culture and queer art which includes but is absolutely not limited to academic queer theory. this Item exists basically so queer art can have a unique color swatch.
618. the spoon is solid until you know it's simulated / the spoon can be bent only when you know it's a simulation [20] -> this is a statement about shovel dreams, is what this is. I've... always had a bit of a problem with the concept you can just change the virtual shovel and the shovel goes away. clearly it makes sense for gender but when you write a whole poststructuralist text detached from that context it starts to make a whole lot less sense.
618. isekai story as queer metaphor -> has been applied to Wizard of Oz as well as The Matrix. [21]
     should there be a swatch for queer culture? even just on the "elements" layer of the stylesheet? I feel like all the propositions about queer identity which are distinctly neutral are a bit insulted by always being shown in blue or sometimes in charcoal when I've also started casting that very negatively. I don't think the association with Existentialism or anarchism means it's bad to be LGBT+ or to create things that primarily revolve around that — it's not bad to create a gay nightclub or a lesbian romance book or a circle of Deltarune fans just because those things "aren't Marxist" or whatever. this can get a little confusing because while it's pretty obvious to say it's not against Marxism to be Chinese or North Korean, LGBT+ identity has always been very political and has always been this weird sort of tiny national identity inherently created through the practice of anarchism, as if just like you need to read a Liberal-republican civics book to successfully be United-States you have to read an anarchist civics book to successfully be LGBT+. I think a philosophical tradition code is appropriate to reconcile this weird blend of identity and culture which is fine and intertwined politics.
618. The Matrix created a rift between Black people and trans people [22] -> this was brought up by anarchist types but I feel like the significance of it is different from what they imply it is. I think this is evidence that Media Representation doesn't necessarily bring people together as much as brings some people together and creates new forms of alienation for others.
618. The internet fueled transgender rights movements by immediately connecting transgender people's Lived Experiences across space [23] -> this is simultaneously depressingly anarchist and very cool. it's this kind of idea that led me to the Lattice model
     which provides a little insight into exactly why this movie is co-opted by reactionaries. they're getting Latticed together way across space in secret underground passages, "just like" transgender people. and yeah, that makes it quite hypocritical they so often try to act like trans people Latticing together is some kind of virus brainwashing people and corrupting the nation. you'd think that if that were true the exact same thing would be true for them.
618. Gender concepts don't have to refer to anything physical as much as to themselves (Baudrillard, Stryker) [24] -> this is one of the connecting threads between existentialism and structuralist linguistics, thus leading into the later periods of the Existentialist-Structuralist transition.
     note: I think this one is neat. it's one of those things that's broadly right even if it's right for slightly incorrect reasons. the action of populations against each other sorts individuals into genders, racial groupings, and so forth; under the model of structuralist linguistics you see the words man and woman or masculine and feminine shift in relation to each other as the populations shift. so... I give this one a pass. it isn't wrong. it at least isn't wrong.
618. duplexing (meta-Marxism) -> duplexing is the operation of taking one particular model of something and copying it so that two separate, different instances of the same thing are operating in parallel and interacting with each other. say we have psychoanalysis as the model of a mind. when we duplex psychoanalysis, there are two minds operating independently, each of them receiving models of society from their father and their sister and their teacher. if each individual has a drastically different father and teacher, not to mention a different personality, when the two people meet each other they're each inevitably going to tell each other their model of the world is the only right one, and get into a fight. Lacanian discipline doesn't sound so good now, does it? now let's say we take Stalin's Marxism and duplex it. two different countries unite the proletariat and form Marxist parties and become workers' states. however, if the two countries have totally different ideas of what is in favor of the proletariat in any particular country, each country's party will become incapable of contributing to freeing the world proletariat.
618. fake-out token protagonist / disposable Black protagonist (character from a minority demographic relative to the country of the author who wrote the work, that becomes a character used in marketing but if advertised as the protagonist never becomes the protagonist) -> the motif of shows, movies, and so forth baiting the audience with a Media Representation character who will seemingly become a central character or protagonist but then doesn't.
618. Menshevism is just a bad Marxism / Social-democracy is just a bad Marxism -> it's long been an orthodoxy in Marxism to believe this, but I have come to doubt whether it's actually true. personally, I wouldn't replace the concept of trying to unite The Lefts into one thing with some kind of sectarian Marxist party, but I do think we need to conceptualize what movement would be capable of uniting everyone in some different way than has been done in Third World countries, so that you basically swap out "social democracy" for something else but beyond that everything is similar. Marcuse had some thoughts. I think they're wrong. I also have doubts about letting anarchism do it because I think you'd just get a whole charcoal transition process that never turns red, or the diehard attempt to create one.
618. Marxism is just a bad anarchism / Marxism is just a really bad anarchism / Marxism is nothing more than a bad anarchism -> I swear that every single time an educated person in the United States tolerates Marxism without being a Marxist it comes down to this. most of the time the only way that Marxism gets in is by somehow justifying itself through the language of prejudices, for instance prejudices against Third World countries, or prejudices against the homeless. and basically every instance of making everything about prejudices seems to boil down to anarchism. in particular, the concept that societies develop properly specifically when we "include people" in "community" and there is nothing more to history than basically individuals being nice or being mean and ethnic groups behaving good or behaving bad through individuals' capability of di- intelligent design.
618. Trotskyism is just a bad attempt at Stalin's Marxism -> I think there's real evidence for this one. I think that for specific enough versions of this proposition this is just a fact.
618. Stalin's Marxism is just a bad attempt at Trotskyism -> the claim that mainstream Marxist-Leninists have actually been trying to discover Trotskyism and if you put enough of the two together they will both eventually align onto Trotskyism. I think this has been shown to be false, largely because people drop out of Trotskyism almost quicker than it can build up while with Stalin's Marxism populations remain dedicated to workers' states for life.
618. Social-democracy is just a bad anarchism -> even if you accept "Menshevism is just a bad Marxism" this becomes logically true in a transitive way if you accept "Marxism is just a bad anarchism".
618. To touch grass is to see reality with a different perspective
618. Disabled people can't touch grass -> I'd argue this is false because most of the time what this really means is to do a grounding exercise, anywhere from taking a walk (very able-bodied activity) to sitting in your yard, doing a mindfulness process, staring into your desk water fountain, drawing a picture, putting on a video of a cat or a birdfeeder or a waterfall. it's definitely easiest to do this kind of thing if you can actually walk, and harder if you are trapped in the same space for long periods of time. it would be feeding into ableist narratives to say it's equally as hard or as easy. so the way I want people to think of this proposition is this: every reactionary that can walk to a town park and can definitely put on a video of a waterfall but bothers to spend time getting angry about how The Left "is destroying this country" or get absorbed in conspiracy theories about how the only reason capitalism isn't inherently bringing everyone together and preventing wars is it's been infested by Satan (people really say that) has no excuse. disabled people can touch grass... so why can't they?
618. Duginist consciousness-raising / Alexander Dugin consciousness raising effort -> the motif of reactionaries trying to act like issues that are mostly only used to support empire or marginalize minorities are terribly sensitive issues that everyone needs to empathize with, because every human individual should and you are a terrible human being if you don't. the example that came to mind was MrEnter going on about 9/11 or how psychologically terrible it is to keep people inside with Covid, but Dugin's book was full of this same theme.
     I'm on the fence as to whether Richard Dawkins did this or not. the way he appropriated feminist language usage was weird and funny, but I feel like it was overall neither good nor bad, and not as bad as any of the things which would qualify for this.
618. Black people are more racist than White people -> only true if you have a highly specific definition of racism that isn't the one people actually use. and quite honestly by that definition there are going to be some churches that are more racist and exclusionary on the pure basis of building Community
618. Constitutions stand in the way of creating totalitarianism -> yes and no. constitutions are an act of essentializing an ethnic group. this stands in the way of historical materialist analysis of ethnic groups. but in terms of changing a country for the better, it only has the power to treat people with bigotry and grind them into the dust for not being the perfect picture of an ethnic group; it doesn't have the power to diagnose material problems and fix them. is that authoritarian? for some reason many people don't believe it is. the concept of totalitarianism is backwards. any definition of a republic bosses people around and threatens to kick them out of society for not living up to its ideals. Marxism is the system that's honest about that.
618. Community and totalitarianism are the same thing -> most people are not ready for this proposition, but it makes a whole lot more sense than what anyone usually says.
618. An Indian tribe is a totalitarian dictatorship if it doesn't have a constitution or elected bureaucrats -> few people would say this, yet they make the same error on workers' states after barely even thinking about it.
618. The size of businesses has nothing to do with race -> everybody believes this, but in the end, a bunch of teeny businesses who have all read Settlers only generate so many tax dollars, and they can only pay so much in reparations.
618. Is the number five smaller than a breadbox? -> demonstrates the need for non-binary truth values. the answer isn't yes or no. it isn't even "40% true". the only good answer is "not applicable", "category error", "this is not a physical object" as totally distinct from false.
618. di- intelligent design -> intelligent design: the only thing where when you duplex it it doesn't get more accurate and only deceives people more effectively
618. Concepts are not inherently useless just because they are non-Marxist -> technically true. very much technically true. sometimes abused such that people never stop and question the foundations of non-Marxist models and simply start saying everyone should essentially teach every anarchist text and function as anarchists just so anarchists will operate together with "Marxists" in protests. at a certain point in that process anarchists simply have control and you don't.
618. Freedom doesn't need to be natural / Freedom can be important even if it doesn't exist in nature / The abstract concept of freedom can be important and useful even if it does not exist in nature outside the context of some particular but unspecified human society -> I need to retrieve exactly what text this came from. I think it was one of the basic theorists like Marx, Engels, or Lenin but I do not remember.
     here are my thoughts on this: abstract concepts don't have to exist in nature to be useful. but freedom is in entirely another category from something like, say, irrational numbers or topological spaces. you can learn tons and tons of math and it could be all of it is only useful to creating a workers' state and bringing people together and none of it is harmful. but if you have the wrong model of freedom it could lead you to destroy society, divide populations from each other, or even start a war. I'm not confident there is no model of freedom which is safe. all I know on that is that everyone in the United States always uses the bad ones, even anarchists use bad ones, and I am really tired of those.
618. If free will doesn't exist, what did Trotsky exercise? -> in the United States and sometimes in Britain, Trotsky is the prototypical example of why "freedom", "dialogue" or "debate", and "pluralism" are supposedly important, and why supposedly "letting factions turn into a totalitarian state" is bad. I think it's no exaggeration to say he has fully been integrated and appropriated into Liberal-republicanism right next to Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and John Stuart Mill. this makes about as much sense as Christians reading off versions of Jewish scripture copied in by Jewish Christians and appropriated by the Roman Empire — maybe it did at one point in history, but it makes no sense today. the crux of that entire appropriation process lies in the concept of Freedom. Trotsky can be appropriated by right-Liberalism because he supposedly demonstrates what it means to be free, and to exert one's will to become free. and what do we call that? it would seem to be one of the most clear-cut demonstrations of whether "free will" does or doesn't exist. if you do believe Free Will exists, you'll say Trotsky turned away from the Soviet Union because he has Free Will, partly defined as the physical and psychological autonomy from the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. if you don't believe Free Will exists, you'll have a much longer and surely much more interesting account of exactly why Trotsky didn't turn around and reintegrate himself with the only country and political faction that had ever suited him.
     I remember some Marxist text saying "freedom can be important even if it doesn't exist in nature". and ever since then I've been doubting that claim, going, okay, but if we assume nature doesn't refer to wolf packs and it refers to things like geological processes, chemical reactions, Newtonian mechanics, and general relativity, isn't it important to know what freedom really is or fails to be as it fails to exist within the whole universe? if we don't answer that question it's super easy to turn freedom around against the world proletariat and use it as a weapon to lead everyone into "undialectical idealism". this is how the Cold War, or the first phase of the forever cold war, was won. the major tactic has been to take these very particular constructs like "freedom" and "community", which are each described with models that are probably wrong, and unite all the bourgeoisie around them and then unite everyone else to the bourgeoisie around Freedom and Community specifically because they want Freedom and Community. the French Revolution didn't just happen once, it's a nasty process that regenerates itself over and over far beyond the point it's harmful.
618. Creativity is an act of destruction
618. Coming together with nonbinary people in Community and sharing Lived Experiences will surely help you know whether you're nonbinary [25] -> I used to believe this but now I have a lot of trouble with it. the way every single person on earth has treated me, and to be fair, the way I've always been an inherently unlikeable loser rather than the kind of perfect person anarchists expect to see so how can they be any other way, every single thing I learn I can only learn in maximum isolation with minimum emotion. every single thing I learn and begin to feel confident in is something I read in a reference book or conclude after a very careful critical attempt to make five contradictory books make sense. so... I certainly am not one to say that any queer identities don't exist — I mean, there are mountains of webpages about them by now and very few of them are incoherent. but there's a problem. I can't be the only person in the world who is disconnected from gender and heteronormativity but just, has nothing at all to do with any LGBT+ "community" nor movement constantly trying to claim it's only a "community" just because it thinks that's inherently legitimate because if people Exist Loudly Enough then Tent of Freedom Poles. none of this weird squishy "community" business has ever worked for me, so the more everyone insists it's the only way to understand anything and keeps gaslighting everyone else about that the more I feel almost a bit disgusted and feel the urge to deconstruct all of it. I am definitely not queer because of any "community". I can only be queer because of undirected graphs and game theory and mathematics.
618. Fan fics should be judged as reviews / Fan fiction should be judged like a book review / Fan fiction should be judged as if it's a book review -> the most "brilliant" fan works will be the ones that make true statements about the original series and its writing decisions. the least good ones will not be judged as such on skill as much as on ideas.
618. Standards function in plurality / There can be no standardization without parallel standards -> the XKCD comic about standards is not in line with reality. the real measure of the success of a standard is simply whether the content of every standard lines up and matches to the point the existence of different standards no longer matters.
     propositions that strongly imply this could be true: A) cultural relativism, the creation of any particular kind of progress in a countable culture is possible but relative to the needs of that culture B) historical materialism, the concept that there will keep being multiple parallel countries but they all share a palette of developmental processes
618. Is gender identity a cultural phenomenon? / Is transgenderism a cultural phenomenon? (academic phrasing) -> while looking for the definition of "transgenderism" I found this phrasing, and. what? [26] my issue with this isn't really that you're not allowed to call any and all material parts of a country "culture"; you look at something like the Workers' Party of Korea and they'll be saying "culture" but they actually mean the structure and activities of the population, where the whole population with all its moving parts is a countable culture. instead, I think my issue is that you can't just take parts of an individual and say that's culture because an individual isn't really a countable culture — not truly. things an individual is wholly imagining, like if you have Susie Deltarune standing in the supply closet perceiving a card soldier that is entirely in her mind versus in her hand or in the closet, are culture. but Susie being a Monster or being a girl are not culture. I'd add that this is because I think transgender identity is partly material, but I don't even think that matters at all for this discussion, I think the Susie example nails it pretty well. you have to have this minimum amount of choice (insert Deltarune joke here) in what you are or what identity group you are standing in for something to be culture. you take Trotsky and him identifying as a Trotskyist might fairly be called culture because he chose to be there. but having a gender identity is mostly not chosen, it's only the last bit of uncertainty in what group of people they want to hang around that people have to choose to collapse.
618. The quantum scale must be smaller than spacetime -> sounds... broadly correct? like, why is it possible mathematically to split the movement of light and stop time. the mathematics could be faulty but overall they've been predictive.
618. wishy-washy boneless mediocrities, weedy pallid fence sitters
618. inherently suspicious proposition / I'm not a pedophile (motif) -> this statement is very interesting as a proposition because if anyone says it, they instantly become suspicious. under the rules of formal logic the proposition is probably true, there could be a 95-99.9% chance on it being true. but if anyone says it it is never evaluated literally. it's always evaluated as a signifier, and always taken in context to guess its likely meaning. one of the most likely assumptions is some kind of psychotic person who had a probability of being a pedophile once and feels constantly judged by everyone on the topic. the mere possibility there is still a contradiction going on in there between being one and not will be enough to scare people off. when particular possibilities exist they're simply too dangerous to not assume to be true. I think this is how racism actually functions these days. it's actually people hating poor people and anarchists rather than an ethnic group. the problem is, how do you persuade people not to hate anarchists when, depending on the anarchism, anarchists are actually raiding retail stores, making sure books and movies are only available unlawfully, and not respecting the concepts of money and labor? it's hard not to descend into a world where people scan for the slightest trace of a signifier of anarchism to immediately oppress.
618. The CPC made Uyghurs build Chinese mosques - I had a lot of suspicion about whether this claim made any sense. my first thought was, could it be that some Uyghurs opted to build these and others got mad? then today I learned there is another group of muslims called the Hui people who build Chinese-style buildings and I was like, oh.... that makes too much sense. [27] this is probably some kind of conflict between separate Muslim ethnic groups conflicting over which one is really Muslim, and accusing each other of siding with the central government to oppress each other. because that's just kind of how religion goes. in Iraq and Afghanistan when invasions destabilized the country they split into religious sects fighting each other and the sects would side with imperial powers to oppress each other. even in the UK religious sects leveraged the monarchy to oppress each other and for Protestants to try to eliminate Catholics from Ireland and take their land. religion just does this, uses any center of power as a fulcrum to eliminate other religions.
618. Uyghurs should escape to the United states [28] - regardless of how badly they're being oppressed in China that sounds like a terrible idea. the united states is on a terrible downward spiral for human rights, so like.... no, don't move to the United States for human rights, you'll only be disappointed. do people even know how this population treats any and all minorities ever? this is the kind of stuff that biases me against thinking all the claims about Uyghur oppression are actually real, because I'd believe it a lot quicker if the people writing it knew so much about oppression in the united states they were like, oh, wait, we should be recommending against relocating minorities there because it's just as bad as China or at least we have some idea what the exact comparison of magnitude is instead of assuming the US can just magically choose to have no oppression tomorrow. buddy, half the united states has no control over the other half of the united states. you are confiding in the wrong country if you find that possible
618. Sociality is not inherently good / People taking care of each other is not inherently good / People forming together for each other's survival and care is not necessarily good -> if a group of Tories isn't educated but forms together into a cultural "community" of Tories that all help each other out and manage to create profitable businesses and form family units or churches and survive, can you really make them get educated? you can't. the top argument for education has always been that it helps people survive and helps people form societies, but that doesn't prevent people forming totally bigoted societies that become a problem specifically because people help each other and exhibit pro-social behavior.
     let's make it really simple: a group of cats that doesn't understand the benefits of getting along with other cats forms into ShadowClan. it's not like the first arc of Warriors, and the ShadowClan cats help each other out in order to survive. then they casually treat the other clans in awful ways and try to take over their territories. are "society", "community", and so-called "social-ism" inherently good things, or are they instead potentially bad things that blind everyone to the real way pluralities of societies function against each other?
618. State education is Lacanian discipline -> this is basically assumed in any non-Marxist theory that thinks having classes about the history of racism will fix everyone's problems. the first question anyone should ask when somebody doesn't believe in historical materialism and calls it "predicting history" is: okay, if history classes aren't about predicting what general things could happen in the future then what is the purpose of teaching history classes? out in the real world, it might take you a while to genuinely get a straight answer. but I feel like what is waiting at the bottom of that conversation is this. people think of all behavior in terms of bad things your father or your sister or your classmates or your teacher told you not to do. accordingly they think all behaviors identified as good or bad can be taught this way, in a kind of rote memorization of what's good and bad. of course, there are deep flaws in this. what if people think speaking Spanish is a bad behavior, or "looking gay"? there is no real distinction between behaviors that are prohibited because they are actually bad and behaviors that are prohibited purely to make people obey some arbitrary cultural standard that everyone was arbitrarily taught, and if somebody is even once scolded for a behavior that isn't actually harmful that person will get deeply upset and start to drift out of society and turn against every group of people that scolded them improperly. and unfortunately, reactionaries are always the people most able to productively apply this finding. every single time you scold a single Tory-leaning White person for something which is ultimately neutral you'll get hundreds of thousands of Tories standing up to you on what you "did" to the Tory subpopulation.
     I have always leaned toward the idea that a lot of Tories would be much better at learning historical materialism than they would be at learning "diversity and inclusion" or "anti-racism". if you teach people about whole countries and to portray whole countries correctly as a material process, or to think about subpopulations inside their own country similarly, they'll eventually understand how to give realistic portrayals of people from other populations. if you just pound them over the head with "bad bad bad" for every single tiny mistake they will have a hard time learning the correct picture that's far far bigger and more complex than any of the individual scoldings. it's like seeing somebody not understand general relativity and scolding them for not being able to give an entire presentation about how the scale of photons leads up to time and why single-variable equations may be bad for modeling the universe "because everybody should know that". especially when there is such a contradiction between nice words like "sensitivity" and "inclusion" and the crude, almost barbaric methods of enforcing them that are not at all based in Lived Experience or empathy and as far as I can tell can't teach them.
618. why do you call it a nothingburger?? -> so, this one YouTube creator from Iraq had been learning English for years and years, but then one day found out about the expression "nothingburger" and totally lost it like this was the funniest thing ever. I can't blame him. "nothingburger" is a genuinely weird expression, and I'd probably feel the same way if I hadn't grown up with it.
     the thing a lot of people fail to think about is that this exists for every language. Chinese has weirdly succinct idioms and proverbs, leading to "long time no see". English has "nothingburger".
     Last Unicorn effect + languages are always plural = why do you call it a nothingburger??
618. Historical periods are like decades / Historical periods are collections of arbitrary events in sequence with no particular underlying logic unifying them together -> I think this is actually provably false, because it genuinely does not explain things like why multiple countries would have "three kingdoms periods" instead of two kingdoms periods or five kingdoms periods or any other number or not divide at all. everyone knows the Han dynasty is a historical period; nobody would argue with you about that. but if the Han dynasty was just a cluster of decades then why did it break into exactly three warring states at the time it did?
     I swear that a Let's Play of Dynasty Warriors or Nobunaga's Ambition disproves Rothenberg's book. the argument really is that bad. really, I feel like if you read enough books within Warriors it shows that this model is wrong, because everyone writing even a fake history book knows that historical periods are not just collections of arbitrary events and instead they contain causality inside them.
618. The Cretaceous was a historical period / The Cretaceous period is a historical period -> this seems like hair-splitting and arguing about words until you look at the implications of it and then you see that whether this proposition is strictly true or not it is very important.
618. Land Before Time is not before time / Land Before Time is not prehistoric because there is no such thing as prehistory / Ice Age depicts a historical period / Ice Age depicts a particular biome in a particular geological age inhabited by particular animal populations, therefore regardless of its ecological accuracy it depicts a historical period, either a real one or an imagined one strongly based on real ones / Land Before Time depicts a particular biome in a particular geological age, therefore it depicts a historical period / Land Before Time and Ice Age are technically historical fiction -> this is quite easy to argue if you think history is nothing more than a series of events and not something which can be predicted. if that's the case, then why does history have to be about humans? if history is just a series of events, then why can't history be about dinosaurs? you can't argue it's because history has to be written down, because the overall distribution of dinosaur populations across continents and across time is recorded in columns of rock, and palaeontologists read this written history as if it were some kind of hidden, fragmented ancient text. is the Cretaceous period a historical period? is the recent ice age a historical period? if history is nothing more than a bunch of events happening in sequence it's hard to argue they aren't.
     of course, if you look at things this way you can immediately see that the historical record in the geological strata is explained by material processes, namely evolutionary processes. it's almost harder to deny general-sense historical materialism than it is to accept it.
618. God speaks to everyone / Every single interaction "with God" is an interaction with the same god -> this is certainly a more logically coherent way to interpret religion than to call trans people Satan. but to me it still comes across as intellectually dishonest. how do you have any idea this is true?
618. unown's existential crisis - unown thought to be particles of the universe or cells of arceus, but can't comprehend what they're good for as individuals. one of the most accidentally insightful things Pokémon ever said
618. Every nation is an ethnic group / An ethnic group is an arrangement of one or more countable groups of people each graphed together around shared social relationships and culture, and every consistent group of people which stays together for a long time will become some kind of ethnic group -> this is one of my single biggest problems with anarchism. anarchism finds the concept of ethnic groups yucky, and in order to try to get rid of racism keeps trying to act like it's totally artificial. but most anarchist theory which isn't totally unconvincing is based on tribal societies. and what are tribal societies if not ethnic groups? Black versus White might not be a necessary ethnic grouping, but when you form people into a tribe of anarchists or the Democrat nation that is going to become an ethnic group. Marxists are not afraid of the fact that a revolution or re-forming of a society creates an ethnic group. they just say, here is the Ukrainian SSR and here is the Lithuanian SSR and they are not enemies, and call it a day. anarchists seem to find this almost some kind of inconceivable injustice. it's like they think that all individuals on earth naturally want to form together into bigger populations but they don't want to acknowledge that there is anything that binds particular people together against outside threat or against having to be in a group they don't want to be in, when there totally is. everybody could just not be racist and people would still want to form into specific groups for particular reasons, not to just form together with any group of people at random. this is the basic origin of ethnic groups. that people are fundamentally plural based on having stronger links to some people than other people that divide them into separate graphs. this plurality doesn't prevent forming ethnic groups into larger ethnic groups or forming very large ethnic groups like a huge area of Russians, but you have to acknowledge that it's there. every successful group of people that becomes a country for any significant period of time is basically an ethnic group going by the simplest and most inclusive, non-judgemental definition of what an ethnic group is. for any group of people to have freedom or independence there has to be an ethnic group, and it's the graph connections inside the ethnic group that create a country, not the definition of an area of land or some long line called the national border.
     it follows from this claim that smaller groups of people which do not easily form into a larger ethnic group organically will not do well at forming a country, or a "democracy". only correct arrangement of cultures into cultures into cultures actually promotes a healthy ethnic group which in turn promotes a healthy republic.
618. The proletariat has three scales / There are three scales of the proletariat / There are three scales at which the proletariat is divided: the corporate scale, the scale of countable cultures, and the republican scale
     this statement is false if there is a distinct fourth or fifth scale which is fully separate from either of these. for instance, I find religion hard to separate from countable cultures, I think those are the same thing, and I find political factions hard to separate from countable cultures. countable cultures can overlap or contain each other but that alone doesn't mean there is another countable scale. the republican scale is an entire nation-state such as "the United States" or "China". during events like the Trotskyite conspiracy the national scale will be challenged but a full nation-state is not created yet, so it's the countable culture scale.
618. The proletariat is identical with cultures (pronounced cultures) / The proletariat is identical with countable cultures (cultures, countable culture-populations; meta-Marxism) -> the claim that Marxists have been interpreting what the proletariat is slightly incorrectly, because while many people assume the proletariat merely emerges inside existing populations, the reality hypothesized here is that the proletariat is populations. the proletariat is the state of the people of a population being graphed together into a population, with the plurality and physical gaps between populations being part of the definition of what the proletariat is — or to be more precise, what proletariats are. Liberal-republicans get horrified by Bolshevism because they think that when all the people in a country are graphed together things are going backward, but they don't realize that if you remove the bourgeoisie, people graphed into Lithuania and graphed into Estonia and graphed into Russia is exactly the kind of structure that remains, the 14 separate republics each graphed together into a single population and government are a large part of what the proletariat is; the only thing missing from that definition is the potential for any particular proletariat to split into smaller proletariats at any time for a complicated variety of reasons.
     there is a particular reason people haven't discovered this. people want to think of the proletariat as a simple collection of millions of tiny objects called proletarians, when they don't realize that what they're really looking for is the whole group of proletarians being one big object yet one object which does not cover the world. Lenin got this correct, by mobilizing the proletariat with people of different classes and movements to all form a nation-wide movement. this is one example of correctly understanding the proletariat as the overall population of Georgia, etc., when it is in its purest form. what causes huge problems is when individual countries break into multiple proletariats. practically speaking, they will behave like they are different countries even though there is no mechanism for them to operate as different countries and even if they are horribly scattered so one "country" is mixed into every fifty people of another "country".
     anarchists have this very wrong idea that culture-populations are natural (so far so good) but also that culture-populations naturally want to merge together and coexist, and a lack of Freedom is the only thing preventing this. this is wrong. there can be two Iroquois tribes with all the freedom in the world and one day people in one tribe can just start killing people in the other. the tribes don't actually coexist until they solidly form a combined structure capable of regulating them which they are obligated to be part of and can't secede from. the moment two countable cultures don't effectively reciprocally own each other and they gain freedom they have the capacity to kill. you absolutely can't conceptualize colonialism and "bad governments" as a matter of freedom, it just doesn't work that way. the worst thing is that at the republican scale it's sometimes hard to even force populations to reciprocally own each other. sometimes populations are simply big enough and self-sufficient enough they'll tear away from you and out of the reciprocal ownership. so, the ideal scenario is that Ukraine agrees to reciprocal ownership with the Soviet Union, but if Ukraine tears out of its own will to support some reactionary group of people, then people have not naturally merged together and anarchism is false. it doesn't mean anarchism is true. it means something more like that anarchism is false but fascism is true. a group of human beings joined around culture and poetry and hope hard enough simply cannot be controlled and will fight you to the death, and at least win its own life if it has strong enough structures and tight enough internal links. this is people's genuine free will, not a corruption of it. so inasmuch as free will exists at all the only good answer is that free will is bad. freedom is one big nothing burger that goes many roads but ends up nowhere, and free will is bad because it is anti-science and anti-reality. free will is Susie sitting in the middle of her decrepit room hallucinating Image_Friend.
618. Homelessness is not a proletarian issue / Homelessness is fundamentally an issue created and faced by the bourgeoisie which is only handed down to the proletariat -> this is going to deeply confuse and maybe upset some people, until they understand the rather complicated model I'm trying to describe and begin calmly evaluating the whole model as accurate or inaccurate. so, here goes. homelessness results from a low availability of houses. a low availability of houses results directly from people not having the income to pay for houses. you can blame landlords, but you don't have control over their minds or how they behave; the baseline state is that nobody has any power to stop landlords. in the age of capitalism, people can accumulate power over landlords when they have the power to produce an income, and otherwise they lose power quickly. whether people have the power to produce an income largely depends on bad decisions by the bourgeoisie. the bourgeoisie are always making various bad decisions like abolishing corporate departments and laying off hundreds of people, chopping up big businesses into small businesses, opening teeny tiny businesses that will die in a year, making their corporation entirely about a particular circle of White people that won't let in Black people and acting still like whatever a corporation does or does not do is a matter of Freedom, requiring unrealistic amounts of experience for an entry level job, hiring only overqualified people and softly extinguishing the proletariat rather than figuring out how to put everyone to work, and so on, and so forth, not to mention the people who end up pushed out of capitalism by all these bad decisions and are forced to create new tiny businesses and become owners just because the existing corporations wouldn't let them in — these people are a little less bad but they can make plenty of harmful mistakes too. capitalism is so broken now that the whole thing has been slowly dissolving into just the bourgeoisie versus the bourgeoisie. one side of it is the bourgeoisie who make terrible decisions and refuse to analyze and direct populational development with science. one side of it is the bourgeoisie who have been manufactured by these terrible decisions and have little chance of ever becoming workers again unless we fix the overall science and bad decisions crisis. the blue bourgeoisie, and the strawberry bourgeoisie. it isn't really about actual class divisions now. it's about uniting all the strawberry-tinted people and keeping them as tightly connected as possible just so they can survive and stand up to the people who keep them all from surviving, just so the strawberry-tinted people won't watch their teeny businesses crumble or so they can get apartments, just so people can ever have the faintest hope of having a reform movement or a "democratic" anything. homelessness is not a proletarian issue any more, it's just strawberry. it's just strawberry and crimson against blue and brown.
618. John Egbert is obviously White [29] -> despite this topic seeming uninteresting it's actually really interesting because it feeds into the question of what does and doesn't count as Media Representation of some particular ethnic group. how much unlike a particular ethnic group can a character look and still be Media Representation? people go around trying to teach the concept of Media Representation with phrases like "brown kids on screen" but realistically a whole lot of actual instances of Media Representation will just be voice actors and things that people would recognize as representing particular histories but which may not seem inherently linked to a particular appearance. this is true for both positive and negative "representations".
618. Goku is obviously Japanese / Goku is obviously an abstraction of the people of Japan based on the language of the show and the people animating it
618. Goku is obviously Chinese / Goku is obviously an abstraction of the people of ancient China based on who wrote Journey to the West and the vague "everyman" positioning of its characters
618. Goku is obviously Imperial-Japanese / Goku is obviously an abstraction of the people of Imperial Japan, specifically the people who supported it and in his case the one person who might have defected from it -> I think this is the most correct answer looking at the way characters are positioned relative to each other in the narrative.
618. Vegeta is obviously Imperial-Japanese
618. Vegeta is a reactionary / Vegeta is obviously an abstraction of the concept of reactionaries in situations such as the Russian Empire or Imperial Japan
618. Anarchism can be disproven in toki pona / It is possible to create a coherent logical proof against anarchism from beginning to end in toki pona, which may not be a fully sound and future-proof scientific hypothesis that wins a medal or anything, yet will be hard enough to argue with that at least a few people will look at it and say it is probably correct, ideally including one anarchist from any version of anarchism who does not need to be from the anarchism being argued against -> this one is going to be fun because effectively the proposition pages existing with proper localizations on them can prove it true. proving this statement true doesn't achieve a lot, but it would be really fun. it's like any weird mathematics conjecture. you can take a statement and show it must be technically true regardless of how relevant it is to reality. but depending on how good the foundations of the proof are it could maybe achieve at least a small amount of relevance to reality too.
618. Education is a conflict of interest -> why is it people are so obsessed with reactionaries and "the masses"? here's the real reason. all true facts come out of observations. every person you talk to can provide observations. uneducated people are not required, but are certainly very common; the key isn't that the people you talk to are ridiculously unaware but simply in talking to as many people as possible to get as much information as possible. it is true that a lot of times observations have to be processed to find what is really going on ­— that's true for galaxy pictures and it's true for people. that said, the more observations you can collect from people of any educational level the easier it will be to sort through all those observations and ultimately come up with good models of society rather than bad ones. good hypotheses and models don't inherently come from going to college and reading a lot of books or doing a lot of practice problems, even if that helps. good models come from real-world data, not from your head. and yet.... we seem to have a serious crisis of people not realizing the simple fact that models come from data and thinking that "education" (improving your own head) inherently leads to discoveries by itself. I feel like in a better world we'd teach every single "progressive" degree and several others about Gödel's incompleteness theorem, maybe you'd even learn it in high school. we'd teach high school students that only observations can actually lead to knowledge, not logic or reasoning. funny enough I think that might knock more people out of religion than something like teaching evolution, just because people would actually realize that things they see when all alone probably aren't real.
618. Endocolonialism doesn't exist / If colonialism is the process of majority population A inside country C oppressing country D, it cannot exist inside country C, and can only meaningfully exist when population A and country D crash into each other -> I said or implied this in early MDem drafts, but after a lot of thinking I don't think it's true. it somewhat depends on how you define this damn (pronounced damn) arbitrary linguistic token "colonialism". if you define the string of characters "colonialism" to mean whatever generates exocolonialism, then naturally there is no option for endocolonialism to not exist because there have to be material factors that create exocolonialism for it to even happen. we also have to be clear on the messy definition of all things that could potentially be endocolonialism: if populations A and B exist inside country C and population A is absolutely trying to eliminate population B but that "other" racism has no effect on country C expanding into country D and creating a colony over country D, then the oppression of population B is irrelevant to the question of whether endocolonialism "exists". the question of whether endocolonialism exists is the question of whether the process of population A oppressing country D can begin inside country C. logically speaking, even if we get rid of the problem word "colonialism", there are going to be processes inside population A that lead it to expand over country D. what trips people up is that these processes can begin before country A even has any idea country D exists; the processes that generate ultimately oppressing country D have nothing to do with hating country D. simply saying this very credible possibility makes postcolonial theorists furious. they really hate you if you ever suggest that something material unrelated to country D could be generating the oppression of country D. and I think part of why is that they've pinned all their education money and learning-effort on thinking that the endocolonialism process exists as one particular process and they aren't just giving a bad explanation of some totally other process that explains it better. we're at a stage in human history where education itself is creating conflicts of interest and people can no longer be unbiased because their whole education process is creating a financial interest by earning them money or at least taking away a lot of their money. like, even if it turns out they're correct I wouldn't trust them because they will alway be leaving out vital assumptions between the lines.
618. Do poachers attack one lion or a population? -> one day, my relatives heard about some kind of protest about a poaching or an attack on the environment. I don't remember the details perfectly well right now. the one thing I remember is somebody killed a lion and people were protesting because it could have lived in a reserve or because people shouldn't destroy animal populations and habitats; it was something like that. there have been news items like this for decades, but the remarkable thing here is that my relatives tried to minimize this by turning the improperly-killed lion into an individual. that's just an individual lion, they said, is it more important than a wolf, a fox, or a house cat? but in the end that's something of a logical fallacy. individuals belonging to populations are never just individuals. if you take a Tory and show them a poacher shooting a lion they are "able" to identify the lion as an individual, but if you take the same Tory and show them a Black criminal shooting a White person, suddenly that criminal is part of a population of hundreds of other terrifying people. take them and show them 9/11 and suddenly they can connect every Arab or every Muslim to the whole population of Iraq. they know what populations are precisely at the moment they think populations are threatening to them, and otherwise they have no idea.
618. Poachers attack populations / Poachers, unaccountable corporate efforts, and national development plans by early republics that destroy the environment attack populations, not individuals / Kimba proposition (proposition that animal populations are loosely similar to human national populations in matters of their survival) -> appears in: Kimba the white lion, MDem 4.3/2501 (pronounced 2501) "Nature-Imperialism". it's important to contrast the two. Kimba, because it's an imaginary story, actually gives animals the agency to determine themselves and create their own government as if animals were a Third-World country. the counterpart real-life "Kimba proposition" would simply be that no animal is an individual and every time humans kill an animal they attack a population which they could potentially eradicate; it doesn't directly imply any particular way to counter or combat this.
618. Most people who think they're anarchists just want to find another country / The easiest way to realize anarchism is moving to another country / The easiest way to realize Zinovievism is moving to another country (Trotskyite conspiracy, anarcho-nihilism, a few closely-related but different ideologies)
618. Anything universal applies to the planet / Anything universal applies to the earth as a whole / Something which is universal will apply at a global scale -> overlooking this is one of the major errors anarchists make in thinking that "tent of freedom poles" is okay. if "tent of freedom poles" is universal to all people, then it applies in all countries. but if people have individualized freedom extending across all countries, they'll just slide out of one country into another where they are the least inhibited by other people and the most free to do what they want. and before you know it, you have Taiwanese massage degrees going to Turkey so a bunch of Taiwanese capitalists can determine Turkish laws and for all intents and purposes take the land and rule the people that were previously there all because they are free individuals and those other people are treading on their freedom.
618. Freedom cannot be decolonized / "Equal freedom for all limited by the freedom of others" cannot be decolonized -> if you think this isn't the case, just try persuading an anarchist to abandon "tent of freedom poles" and to get them to accept that only creating structures that are mandatory to choose to participate in can actually create freedom. it'll take like a day for them to turn into Trotsky, and not in the good sense. I wish it was in the good sense, can you imagine if just, every time somebody got mad at "the establishment" or "the elites" they permanently turned into Leninists?? can you imagine if all Trotsky's followers permanently turned into Leninists. with how many Noam Chomskys there are in the world you'd almost think Trotskyism would just happen.
618. "Sometimes true" means false / Propositions that are sometimes true are false -> axiom used in the traditional practice of formal logic. I think this has done a lot to ruin logic and generally ruin language. if every proposition has to be precisely 1 or 0 and it can't be precisely anything between that, then propositons have to be ridiculously long in order to be evaluated as what the person who said them actually intended the proposition to mean and refer to. and that creates a complete and utter mess the instant you start talking about "democracy". formal logic works fine in a monarchy, but what if people do experience structural racism in Alabama and don't experience structural racism in California? there will be every temptation for all the voters and representatives who don't live in Alabama to say that the propositon "Black people experience structural racism" is false and there shouldn't be a national policy about something that's false. likewise, every time somebody makes a video essay and says any statement at all, such as "linguists fall into two categories", formal logic incentivizes everyone to instantly pick apart the statement exactly as it's written, and say things like "that statement is false! I know about another category of linguists!" rather than realizing that "fall into two categories" could inherently mean that two categories of linguists exist and other categories of linguists exist while none of them exclude the possibility of the others.
618. "Sometimes true" means true / Propositions that are sometimes true are true -> this axiom is vastly more forgiving to any claim that real people make with the intention of educating other real people about real problems. when most people attempt to say a true statement they often don't mean to exclude other statements from also being true. "horizontal killings are bad" is not necessarily meant to exclude "defensive wars are not bad", but when you think in terms of formal logic you're often pushed to think "horizontal killings are bad" being true means "war is bad" becomes true. the rule of a statement having to be always true to be true does a lot to make statements that shouldn't be exclusive turn mutually exclusive and destroy discourse because truth values don't encourage people to compromise onto a shared set of true statements. working with sometimes-true statements being true can be a little challenging, but the way you do it is you basically separate large-scale philosophies or ideologies from small-scale ones and the ideologies of different regions from each other and treat them all as material objects, such that something could be true in one of them quite fairly and quite fairly not be true in another, without causing any problems, just because different civilizations have different physical structures and different physical arrangements of people. formal logic was really really badly designed for the existence of multiple countable cultures, and yet, you don't really need to invoke "culture" to fix it per se, you only need to invoke Social-Philosophical Systems of populational structure and the physical gaps between populations. if you separate California and Texas into different bodies of knowledge where the same thing isn't always true even if the population is functioning well, you've basically fixed it.
618. The proper division is Marxism-Leninism versus Marxism-Dengism -> the claim that some Marxisms go Mao process, Stalin process, and some Marxisms try to go Stalin process, Mao process. in pracice, the second kind hasn't worked yet, but we don't totally know it can't.
618. Japan is a Western nation -> very useful for understanding the Axis powers of World War II, even up to United States indifference to nazi scientists and erasure of Japanese empire while eventually becoming best friends with Japan. quickly crumbles when you start looking at anything at scales below the international scale. like, are corporations Western, or is overwork and deeply embedding corporations into society and culture inherently Japanese, meaning that Korea and maybe the United States are also very Japanese places to be? you really can't just call everything culture.
618. Japan is a First-World country -> equally explains the Axis powers and the arc of fascism. equally explains how both Japan and the United States eventually had it. actually explains how the rivalry between United States Republicans and Democrats vaguely mirrors the rivalry between Axis powers and so-called Allies. much better places Japan within the history of its own development and the history of industrial development in all countries.
618. China is a First World country / China was a First World country in 2025 -> the claim that China is developed enough to be on par with the United States or Japan, not with Cuba. this has two connotations or implications. one connotation is positive: that learning about Marxism as it applies to the development of China applies to the United States and Japan. one connotation is negative: if China is a First World country then any claim that Deng Xiaoping Thought is a valid Marxism could theoretically be First World countries bending over backward to not accept mainstream Marxism-Leninism. Deng Xiaoping Thought could very literally be a member of the Western-Marxist tradition just because China is now a First World country and is still more or less practicing it.
     this is where the model of abandoning "The West versus The East" in favor of "First World countries versus Third World countries" really has an advantage. you don't need to say "Japan is a Western nation" or "China has Westernized" where the axis of capitalist alliances between First World countries is the actual thing uniting them against countries that suffer imperialism rather than "culture".
618. Mao process / Maoist process / Leninist process (process of assembling workers into a capable movement that can break up a feudal order or capitalism, not the process of creating the Material System of Bolshevism; meta-Marxism) -> the motif of a historical process based on assembling workers to break up a system, but which does not inherently include the process of building a new system.
618. Stalin process / Marxist process (process of creating the Material System of Bolshevism, not the process of assembling a revolution) -> the motif of a historical process which arranges workers into a new system which is capable of surviving for decades after a revolution. I had to think for a moment about what this should be called. usually I associate the Material System of Bolshevism with Lenin, but if you're trying to distinguish between Marxism and Marxism-Leninism then Lenin is often associated with revolution. after thinking a moment I realized that nobody likes Stalin and nobody likes Stalin almost specifically because Stalin's government actually made people build the Material System of Bolshevism instead of letting everyone flow around like helium atoms. so I think these processes are quite fairly called Stalin processes.
618. Trotsky process -> the motif of a hypothetical process where multiple countries join together into a structure of 5-20 countries or so. this process has never existed, but if Marxists ever manage to make it exist then Trotskyists will finally get to put their name on something.
618. Class is development, not wealth -> many Marxists accidentally fall into the wealth-brain trap where petty bourgeoisie are essentially bad because they have wealth, or the ability to buy education and be educated. this isn't what classes are. classes come from the development of enduring structure. a king only exists because a bunch of people are arranged into a kingdom. a count only exists because people are arranged into some kind of town that the count is vital to or into some centrally-drawn county within a feudal order. a capitalist only exists because people are arranged into a corporation. so there are two ways for the capitalist to not exist: the corporation being absorbed into something bigger so the capitalist has no role in creating it, or the whole corporation dissolving and leaving nothing. the corollary of this statement is that if capitalism shatters and a bunch of petty bourgeoisie are created in order for people in a "corporation desert" to survive, it's not specifically a matter of a population being "privileged" or "greedy" or "colonial, full of the colonizer attitude" or "sinful", it's simply a population going backwards in development which needs some way to develop forwards.
618. The proletariat and bourgeoisie are diametrically opposed -> strictly speaking, this is not always true. for instance, there can be times where both the proletariat and the bourgeoisie have an interest in creating a functioning business structure and making sure it doesn't collapse and leave all the workers unemployed. this is especially true for Director types that are earning significant salaries for actually designing things about the business territory or the individual project to the point of indirectly putting workers into roles or firing workers. let's look at MrEnter trying to create a TV show: he has elaborate plans for practically everything in the TV show, and he only needs to put people into place storyboarding and animating things he has already designed. in terms of having created the project and being the one who will take it to market he should be the capitalist. but he makes a lot of decisions to the point his decisions can affect whether the show succeeds or fails and whether he practically has the money to pay his workers or a simple debt to them. there is a significant problem today, especially as big businesses spontaneously collapse, of a lot of businesses reverting back to a state where the capitalist and the worker are not very differentiated. they're just two peasants bound together both trying very hard to produce something. this makes it hard to apply traditional models of "the capitalist is purely a landlord and the workers can take over"; no, capitalists are sometimes doing just enough real work ordinary people get genuinely confused what a worker is. this isn't just the case in the arts. it's easy for there to be a small restaurant or a small thrift store where the owner still makes a lot of actual day-to-day decisions that could sink or float the workplace itself, and where even lists of union demands across ten tiny thrift stores might not operate fast enough to save it. the union turns into a crude hammer or axe operating on a scalpel-level task — although to be perfectly clear the surgeon is blind. nobody has the ability to both do the task and look at the task at the same time. this has led to a lot of wrong interpretations of unions — that unions are a bunch of freedom poles uniting specifically for freedom, that workers primarily gain the ability to do their job through more and more freedom and not because of any structure or guidance, that if a ring of producing-capitalists strikes it's a gain for workers, that some workers "just don't know what producing-capitalists go through",
618. Workers and capitalists sometimes have the same interests / The proletariat and bourgeoisie occasionally have the same interests -> this better covers unusual edge cases like North Korea or China where there can really be a situation where workers and owners have to all stand together against outside countries trying to own their country and take away their right to have a national government, even if outside countries have turned the world into a forever cold war where it's not a thing where you can do it for a short while and then stop. people can also argue over whether workers and owners ever have the same interests just because they both have to organize a Liberal-republican law for Black rights or similar. I'm still not over a contemporary Marxist theorist I will not name saying "workers and owners are diametrically opposed" "you have to detach everyone from the bourgeoisie that run the Democratic Party" and then "we have to build a social-democratic movement, I organize with landlords". one of those statements is wrong. I think it's actually the first one. I think the general concept of creating a large-scale movement of some kind before you try to filter it is right. but I think the statement that workers and owners are neatly opposed is wrong. you wouldn't be able to get every single bourgeois assembling-people organizer into your movement and build a "social-democratic party" if they all consciously knew it was against them and that all the workers ultimately just wanted to get rid of them. so the question becomes, is social-democracy nothing more than a useful lie? if it's something more than a useful lie, there have to be solid material reasons for the bourgeoisie to support a nationwide movement where they largely stand to lose something and take on precarity rather than to gain something.
618. Code is culture / Code is law -> "code is law" doesn't capture the problem sufficiently. much code has to actively be interacted with and read by non-programmers, or people who become programmers. whenever anybody else has to interact with code it turns into a chain of signifiers, and turns into communication. the same is also true for user interfaces or any expectations on how a program or operating system is used. huamn beings have an inherent expectation that all culture already exists and doesn't require labor to create. this inherent expectation is wrong, as it is very often true that people have to actively create culture with labor and yet can easily make wrong decisions on where to put their labor purely because they do not have enough information about who is going to use it. corporations inherently generate dissatisfaction by having to build things in private, although at some times gigantic corporations inherently generate satisfaction by already having a customer base that they can feasibly learn from; non-accessibility is the shovel dream of people creating things while fragmented into tiny groups, which simply cannot see anything outside them as a practical matter, not a matter of deliberate prejudices. sometimes this has some very nasty consequences: if you truly wish to build something which is inclusive and equally accessible to anyone it may end up rather low-tech and behind the times for quite a long while while you troubleshoot every possible thing that could alienate an individual from participating and only very slowly update everything when it's clear that everyone can use it. some people will become lost specifically by how low-tech and manual-labor the project is. a few of those people might be disabled people who require technology to perform an assistive role, but which wasn't the assistive technology you expected. there is a tradeoff between actively not doing anything if someone wouldn't think it wonderful and trying to use good judgement based on a small group's local or individual tastes hoping it will be less alienating than doing nothing because it was designed for at least one real live human, not a mindless deterministic lambda function of several unknown people interacting.
618. Your choices created 28 times more empty houses / Ours choices created 28 times more empty houses (hyper-plural phrasing) / We choose [all individuals in the United States choose in parallel] to allow people to be homeless when there are 28 times more empty houses [30] -> no, we don't "choose" that, it just happens. 90% of the individuals in the United States could choose that homelessness is bad and they could all get Frantz-Fanon'd by other parts of society being more effective at out-surviving them and nonviolently crushing and oppressing them. every island of capital is like a wolf pack, with all the individuals connected to a specific capital like the wolves; the bigger the wolf pack is the more easily it overcomes an isolated caribou even if there were millions and millions of scattered caribou but only forty wolves. each mother or father wolf that "greedily" attacks a lone caribou instead of a herd has four other adults and a bunch of pups beside it, and it has them because they all benefit from standing together. you think there will be a hundred caribou and one wolf but the wolves always have cohesion. the bourgeoisie always come with built in cohesion because they need to form a ring of people that all sell products to each other. this is why as corporations keep existing products get more and more expensive — everyone in the ring just goes up and up and up at once, while letting all the corporations outside a particular successful ring die. so this is the game now. capitalism is a forever cold war and we only win it when the million caribou actually out-survive the forty wolves. in the brutal imagery of nature, you can imagine that each time a wolf tries to get a caribou it gets stomped, and maybe it dies, so they either learn by instinct to hunt something else or they simply die out physically. what does the metaphor actually mean? I'm not positive on that. I'll say this. Marxism survives when China merely keeps existing and nothing can destroy the most basic first steps of Marxism from the outside. Marxism also potentially survives when a relatively large area of industry emerges which is impossible to break apart, where the people don't forsake building any of it just because somebody gave them an offer to migrate somewhere better, and it fills up with workers. I said once in MDem drafts: once something becomes so big it's a whole population it decides what is legal, the people surrounding it don't determine what's legal or okay. but I also think that doesn't happen unless the inside of that area is genuinely strong and hard to break up. a statement that "we choose to allow empty houses" doesn't by itself create a population that strong. (I marked this false purely for Idealism, not for not knowing my working model)
618. Atomization hastens First World revolution / Atomization breaks up the tight social relationships that would actually cause the supposed "constricting grasp" of ideology within Western Marxist models, making revolution possible again (atomisation; meta-Marxism) -> this is a bold one. I have no idea if it's true. but I am very tired of every anarchist and Western-Marxist trying to claim that television or billboards or social media platforms stand between people and taking action. I know that in some way that claim is very misleading. I think one reasonable hypothesis is that what actually happens is people are connected to the wrong people rather than the right people. simply being connected to reactionary relatives and living in a scarcity of jobs where there are no good places to move to and no workers to meet each day has a far greater effect than "phones" could ever have. in this sense you can argue that everybody normalizing breaking social bonds to be "free" or to "find success" tosses people into a world where they interact mostly with capitalism rather than any organic social connections and if their brain is functioning at all they will grow to hate it in less than a decade. the problem is that this only really manufactures theorists, not workers, because the kinds of people who get the most atomized aren't workers to begin with — by meta-Marxist definitions they're either petty bourgeoisie tearing into a multicapitalism which could theoretically one day lead a plural Marxism, or the Refuse class.
618. Nothing can be legal without defeating the forces that prohibit it -> keep in mind, that's over 20 years, not over 5 years. the light bulb and Google search principle.
618. Nat Geo Animals: wolf series [31] -> good info for Beast model. wolves are similar to lions but maybe not at the level of violence lions are at. for wolves there are ups and downs. some of the strong, high-ranking wolves are not aggressive. a few of them are. it's also worth asking: what binds wolves together into a pack of 40 wolves? some of them are born there. others find the open females I guess. they aren't going to be thinking about it deeply. but it's weird to think there are so many of them. I guess one big factor is simply that one wolf has as many as 6 young, so you start with 7 mother wolves and you can end up with 42; a few leads to many of them. it really makes you think though, if you're writing an imaginary story akin to Warriors why would LGBT+ characters be a problem. once the pups are there you need somebody to raise those 6 pups. they won't really care who is there to protect them from being trampled or lead them out of a hunter area.
618. Indonesia was never decolonized / Decolonization is a lie (statement that Indonesia was not freed from global empire) [32] -> one of the few things where I clicked on it thinking it would be something different but was pleasantly surprised. this sounds entirely plausible to me. especially considering how vehemently Indonesia has been against Communism — in principle that is much easier to maintain if there are effectively two combined countries adding up to a population of millions of people weighing down on the country. yeah. people probably lied about to you about Indonesia being freed from the Dutch.
618. No substance can be bent beyond its physics / No material object or substance can be bent beyond the overall range of physics it is capable of -> this is meant literally in reference to substances like water or helium, but I think it is useful for explaining why society has to be regarded as a material substance that has to be studied for its actual "chemical behavior" rather than as an ocean of ideas that will take whatever ideas you give it. people like Carl Sagan seem to get this totally wrong. Sagan tosses out the notion of "maybe religion makes connected groups of people stronger against the surrounding world" in assembly-theory language but he doesn't stop and really take it seriously in order to see how to operate on the substance of society to redirect people from harmful religions or from Toryism.
618. The French Revolution is a model for anarchism -> true, but backhandedly true. it explains everything that's wrong with anarchism and why anarchism doesn't actually succeed.
618. The French Revolution is a model for Marxism -> I wish people would stop saying this
618. The French Revolution is a distraction / The French Revolution is unimportant (not important, irrelevant to Marxism; meta-Marxism) -> this is a bold one. some swaths of mainstream Marxism-Leninism might not like it. but I really think you can argue that the most important discoveries in Marxism happened in spite of the French Revolution, not because of it. the whole concept of "liberty, equality, fraternity", a.k.a. "tents of freedom poles" has been toxic to future movements for centuries, making them all focus on disregarding classes and building "friendship" and "intersubjectivity" as opposed to working out a Lattice model of how individuals and small groups can actually tell in real time who is their ally, enemy, or neutral and stack up to a coherent population that's capable of doing anything. I think that it's not purely the existence of the bourgeoisie and their effect on ideology that fools people. I think the sheer concept of tents of freedom poles taken on its own level is enough to do it. I think the sheer activity of telling people about the French Revolution and implying tents of freedom poles by itself can lead people to the wrong ideologies and away from the correct ones. this is because "tents of freedom poles" is a civilizational shape model. civilizational shape models exist below the level of abstract concepts, as if they were actual arrangements of classes. center-Liberals never supported the bourgeoisie just because they liked the bourgeoisie, and instead, propagating Existentialism is the new face of supporting the bourgeoisie. Existentialism is what people truly line up behind when they want to shut down the proletariat, not the bourgeoisie themselves, but it has the same effect. that's just it.
618. Juche-socialism would have been invented if there was no French Revolution -> think about this a while. every Third World Marxism popped up because the national population was under strain, not because they heard about the French Revolution. I think Marxism would eventually have been invented inside the Third World without there being any French Revolution. anarchists, Existentialists, and center-Liberals have a totally wrong view of this. they always talk as if the French Revolution led to later instances of Liberal-republicanism, or to anarchism, or to Western-Marxism — is any of this actually true?
618. Ideologies block others through environment / Meme "selection" is ideologies shaping environment / Meme theory is wrong because ideologies shape environment / Meme theory is wrong because the action of realizing ideologies decides the survival of other ideologies / Meme theory is wrong because realizing ideologies changes the environment that other ideologies will operate in and environment decides other ideologies' survival -> example: as early Maoism realizes, it becomes impossible to realize nationalism because Maoist allies have literally occupied the space and latticed the nationalists out. the same model can apply to right-Liberalism trying to push all progressivism out of an entire empire, or a Filament of White people occupying an institution.
618. Endocolonialism is physics imperializing the arts / Science proceeding onto the domain of the arts or humanities begets colonialism-generating structures inside the border of a country -> the main problem with this one is simply that it is hard to define. what is the proper domain of the humanities in the first place? couldn't it be that people are already misusing the humanities for things they can't actually do? with the sheer amount people use the word "escapism", often negatively, you'd suspect that many people are indeed misusing the arts for purposes they weren't intended for.
618. Endocolonialism is humanities imperializing physics / The humanities proceeding onto the domain of physics begets colonialism-generating structures inside the border of a country -> this one is very easy to argue to the point it will almost certainly poke the beehive of Existentialism and make large swaths of it angry. arguing people should learn about diversity and demographics from art rather than nonfiction world history and anthropology books makes it easy to erase the history of all other countries and teach people racist history. arguing people need to learn art in school makes it easy to teach people only about technical skill and teach them fascist art. arguing that messages of hope are explained by freedom for freedom's sake, and not at the very least by knowledge that society and history have and will go on for a long time, makes it easy to teach everyone that the Confederacy will come back if everyone just believes in freedom enough. art is a terrible defense against Toryism and fascism. Existentialists can't win this.
618. Unions are not tents of freedom poles / Unions should not be treated as tents of freedom poles -> although these are meta-Marxist concepts I think this is more or less the mainstream Marxist-Leninist position. unions are important because they have the power to join into a large subpopulation that can be filtered and become a capable subpopulation. I often don't define what "capable" is but basically that refers to it being either really really big or being well-organized. people who believe in tents of freedom poles don't really know how to do either, because the tent of freedom poles concept is Idealist rather than Materialist.
618. Genocide makes marketing art easier / If all the people protesting and posting about anti-racism or Media Representation just died, marketing art would be easier -> I am so sick of how completely shitty (pronounced shitty) things keep happening in society and yet at every moment people just keep Businessing and asking how to Business good like nothing bad is happening, and it's always these teeny tiny businesses that could never employ people to put them into houses or pay for social programs to win the forever cold war. unpopular opinion: corporate slop series like Warriors are good, independent series are bad, because if you work at a corporation you can strike and you can join up with the workers or non-owning substrate of other corporations, but if you are independent you have to sell your stuff on gigantic marketplaces like Amazon and let them horrifically abuse all their drivers. a million of you plus Jeff Bezos, if you're independent it's trivial for you to turn into a [L] (pronounced [L]) Wasp swarm 1:(-)1:(-)1 with the power to crush Liberal democracy and vastly harder to organize anybody to turn into anything less bad.
618. "Tent of freedom poles" comes from Filaments / "Tent of freedom poles" is the shovel dream of Filaments -> a Filament is an arbitrary group of individuals that when linked together gains the power to push out everyone else. (graph struggle; chunk competition; hegemony politics.) there are a few scenarios where Filaments could be benign, like if you used graph economics to construct molecular Deng Xiaoping Thought, or if you regard all of China or Cuba as a Filament. but there are many scenarios where Filaments are harmful, like Filaments of bigoted people "clogging up institutions". Filaments are the lifeblood of capitalism. it's never actually about individuals. but here's the catch. Filaments delude people into thinking capitalism is safe or "can do good". it has to do with the fallacy of thinking any group of people being nice to each other is "socialism", such that families are socialism and working at Google is socialism.
618. "Tent of freedom poles" equals fasces / "Tent of freedom poles" equals "tent of arrows and an axe" -> Prejudice is a form of freedom + tent of freedom poles. every bigot believes in freedom. every bigot believes in joining up with other bigots and people handing each other "a crumb of socialism" in order to achieve freedom.
618. Working at Google is socialism -> some people's definitions of "socialism" are so bad this would be true.
618. "Tent of freedom poles" has ruined media literacy / The "tent of freedom poles" concept has ruined media literacy -> heard someone say the reason people have bad media literacy is "we need to teach the humanities". that statement is worth probing deeper. is it really a statement for more education in general, or is it a statement for including more arts graduates next to the science graduates in teaching because balancing the tent poles wrong is bad but people have no real theory on why? could it be that a mistaken framework for how education becomes more complete is the real reason education is becoming incomplete?
618. The only thing you have to do to stop postmodernism is act / The only thing you have to do to stop the postmodern period is act (organize, touch grass; anarchism) -> Existentialist video tried to claim that the reason everyone is paralyzed is simply that they "envy others" ­— there's the tent of freedom poles again — "get lost in information and thought", and "don't act instead of thinking". [33] no. lemme repeat a forbidden proposition title: lynching is a form of direct action. every time one group of people acts for one cause another group of people acts for another cause. every time Trunks tries to take action Cell appears first. the problem is that acting is a dark forest, and genuinely requires strategy to successfully pull off before someone else acts. Marxists argue with each other as a substutite for having actual violent conflicts where Stalin kills 100,000 Trotskyites, which historically is what happens if they act. a lot of anarchist activity is almost totally secret from the nearly-surface stuff of forming groups and letting anyone know they exist to the actual secret operations. whatever little thing anarchism achieves it largely manages it because a lot of people don't know anarchism even exists and as they go around claiming nobody is an anarchist or a Communist and there is "only" common-sense center-Liberal anti-racism they act as useful idiots in favor of anarchism. then there's Gramscianism, where people hide inside institutions for decades hoping their mere presence pretending to be conservatives but not actually being them will make change. since around 1970 movements in general have turned into this weird intelligence game where the whole goal is to fool people like this video maker that there are no movements when there actually are. I swear, if you can believe me, that even I don't actually know much of anything about anarchist movements. I am just sitting here like, although I only know scraps about the generalized shapes of them, is it dangerous to tell people movements don't not exist, or not? the only way to break out of that is to solve movements so that they can actually defend themselves, and not just for a month or a year, but for decades against the forever cold war.
618. rotten prey and starving cats -> Warriors is so interesting because the simplicity of the society makes it especially easy to make a distinction between a functioning graph of individuals and the arbitrary concept of wealth. for cats to eat there has to be an active graph from warriors to the other cats each day; a pile of stuff will not do. arguably, that is almost exactly how income and wealth actually work. the value of jobs is literally to produce when needed, and for business A to be available when needed by business B. the notion of workers or owners "making wealth" from a business is totally wrong and potentially leads to the destruction of towns and capitalism and even Liberalism. Menshevism doesn't fix it if capitalists successfully deconstruct all the means of production and hoard everything, which there is almost nothing to stop them from doing. the worst part is this: capitalists hoard shit (pronounced shit). somebody builds structures for them to deconstruct and hoard. it isn't the proletariat, it's the Director types. Director types build shit (pronounced shit). they employ people to do the hard work and never to think. but they don't maintain it or own it, they just get together at fancy parties and go "isn't everything wonderful?! we're all friends friendship wonderful tent of freedom poles". they live in the moment and they don't care if anything totally breaks apart. so practically they always let society suddenly fracture into multiple violent societies, sometimes standing by and pretending to be neutral, sometimes joining a side and picking a big capitalist and simply slicing the country down the middle. to overcome all the bourgeoisie, practically speaking, workers have to be able to graph businesses together and predict which store sells to what to the point Directors aren't needed. they have to defeat anarchism, at least in all its bourgeois forms that seem like 90% of it, and the whole concept of a tent of freedom poles.
618. Empire can survive while it avoids extremes / Imperialism can survive as long as it isn't extreme -> so here's the thing about "socialism". if you define it so modestly that it's any chunk of individuals taking care of other individuals, outright nationalist reactionaries can perform socialism without ever being progressive. it's super duper easy for Tories to do something for each other and then turn it into love-bombing and say you're a traitor if you don't support destroying Palestine, you're a non-person if you don't support shooting Black people to death before they go to prison. mutual aid isn't socialism and it isn't even love. it only really guarantees social cohesion, which is terribly easy to form around the imperative to survive at the expense of other populations. all Tories have to do to be able to do whatever they want is just be a little bit "not extreme" and appear to be nice to all the people immediately around them while being terrible to people somewhere else.
618. claimed characteristic of Existentialism / claimed characteristic of Existentialist-Structuralist tradition -> I could start compiling a list of these just like the fascism diagnosis lists, only the thing being diagnosed is technically less harmful, and it's only being diagnosed because it can seem nebulous and hard to describe until you observe it really closely and start making lists like this. a while ago I had an entry about "kinds of Existentialism"; I think this is what that is better framed as or called.
618. a-culture-ism / anarculture (motif; meta-Marxist term) -> the motif of people practicing what based on underlying frameworks seems like it should be anarchism, yet which is almost solely aimed at "culture" — any number of words may be used for this such as "ideas", "attitudes", "toxic institutional culture", "oppressive system [of repeated patterns of individual behavior]", "prejudice", "implicit bias", "hierarchy" (with the connotation that it can mean patterns of individual behavior), "Whiteness", "institutionalization" (in reference to large groups of able-bodied people throwing smaller numbers of disabled people in institutions), any number of specific prejudice words such as "homophobia" and "xenophobia", and so forth. "a-culture-ism" appears to develop when anarchists are trying to find ways to break up material structures they consider hierarchical and then they realize that the structures are composed of groups of people bound together with toxic culture, so, applying the Idealist frameworks they don't like to abandon, they start declaring that the first step to forming an anarchist movement is to defeat "culture" and the ideas behind the ideas behind the ideas behind the prejudices behind the ideas in people's heads. it seems like this same concept leaches into Western Marxism just because everyone is actually anarchists or Existentialists before they become Marxists and they never quite figure out how to think entirely like Marxists and stop being anarchists.
618. People will always treat each other as items when they need or want items -> when it comes to countries, trade is always one of the first things to happen when groups of people don't yet trust each other and are moving toward trusting each other, regardless of whether they still treat each other with bigotry. I think it's similar at the scale of separated individuals or groups of individuals. and I think this is part of how social platforms got so popular: in an age where everyone hates each other a bit as a baseline, the ability to trade posts into a weird bazaar of sayings that people can pick up as if they were products feels safer than anything actually intimate. what's driven me away from ever really wanting to use these things is that even as impersonal as it is it isn't actually safe. people can still start hating you and rejecting you just because you aren't perfect. the separation that is supposed to bring safety doesn't really achieve its own goal, and only seems to drain good things from the experience without getting rid of the bad things.
618. Freedom is only equal across a connected graph / Freedom only applies equally across the same social graph / Freedom can only be applied equally when people are part of the same structure -> anarchists are bizarrely down with the concept of individuals magically being free and being free, separately in parallel but both the same, but for some reason they never want to admit that when that actually succeeds a structure is formed. it might be because if they did admit that, they'd have to admit there are reasons for people to form into a workers' state or other "restrictive" arrangements which are formed around survival imperatives.
618. East Germany wasn't a tent of freedom poles / East Germany was not an anarchism because it was not composed of millions of identical processes of individuals being free / East Germany was not an anarchism because two people could not be free and be free separately in parallel but both the same -> finally. I am finally beginning to understand the "anarchist concept I'd need explained to me 100 times". it still sounds stupid, and I still need 99 explanations. but at last I do understand the known unknown I hadn't explained
618. freedom for everybody with the only limit of equal freedom for others / a tent of freedom poles (motif) -> this is inherently contradictory. it's all too easy for somebody to be less free purely because someone else is free. anarchists really want to think this result is impossible but it isn't. say there are 30 Protestants, 20 Catholics, 10 Muslims, and 5 anarchists. the 5 anarchists talk to the 20 Catholics and the 10 Muslims. they don't manage to get them to give up religion, but they do manage to convince them to all agree with each other to become anarchists. the 20 Catholics and 10 Muslims all tolerate each other and agree that freedom for Catholics can only include freedom for Muslims. then the anarchists go talk to the 30 Protestants. 10 of the 30 Protestants are fine with anarchism and agree to coexist with the Catholics and Muslims, while 20 Protestants get upset and become convinced that if there are Catholics and Muslims determining things about the society they live in and making them Catholic or Muslim instead of Protestant in character the 20 Protestants are not free. the 20 Protestants try to make the Catholics and the Muslims leave. the other 10 Protestants don't quite know what to do. the 20 try to make them all concede that policies are tyrannical and having any unified policy on whether Catholic or Muslim traditions can be practiced or anyone can be made to tolerate them is unfair, and only a world where nobody can tell Protestants what to do at all is in anarchy. the Protestants insist that only a world where Protestants are free to be a totally freely-standing nation just as at the same time any other is is actually free, and anything else is a violation of the concept of "freedom for everybody limited by equal freedom for others", which is nearly worthy of a war for independence; they will stop short of killing any Protestants that don't concede or shipping them off to Catholicistan if the anarchists will only drop this entire thing. is anyone free at this point? the Catholics, Muslims, and defector Protestants are all going to be bound together by survival and basically formed into a nation-state with hard rules against leaving it because reality forced them to. the Protestant bigots are all bound together around their concept of having to be Protestant-only or you're not free, forced to defend their border so that concept even exists. in a real way, any difference inside countable cultures has the power to create borders and States just because cultures will insist on not being ordered around by each other. and all of this is because the anarchists brought up "the limit of equal freedom for others", but it isn't really possible when the reality of almost all human cultures is to want to realize culture outward and "believe that everybody" should do some particular culture, not just yourself. sometimes this is much less harmful than other times, like when indigenous populations become mystified by industrial populations and "believe that everybody" should go effect degrowth although in reality they don't understand what causes the undesired patterns or how to stop them. but overall this is the same Lacanian bullshit (pronounced bullshit) as capitalists getting to determine what is good behavior and what is being a real human and what people aren't free-standing producers enough to be real humans. this bullshit (pronounced bullshit) is a component of capitalism.
     I have a deep urge to make this the first F1 Item. maybe I will. I think there should be very stringent criteria for what motifs can become F motifs. they should have to be so utterly logically incoherent it is nearly impossible to understand them at all. like, "God" could be an F motif because it's relatively easy to argue the concept doesn't even make sense. something like "unicorns" or "vampires" isn't an F motif because fantasy books can coherently define what they are. most wrong concepts are still just S motifs, not F motifs, because it's easy to tell the difference between a coherent imaginary world where they do exist and the real world where they don't. only a very select slice of motifs are F motifs, which are referred to in consistent language yet on the inside are utter conceptual spaghetti that barely refers to anything at all. some parts of Lacanianism may get marked F1 and then have the decision reversed when it's discovered they actually make some kind of logical sense.
618. Liberalism is dictatorship of the Existentialists / Liberal-republicanism is dictatorship of the Existentialist-Structuralists performing a tent of freedom poles, not the whole "bourgeoisie" -> this is the thing. if you want to analyze Liberal-republicanism through the lens of a "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie", then the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie actually does appear to prevent billionaires from controlling it and thus it's hard to get people to believe it isn't actively holding back the bourgeoisie. what really tests this is China. China manages to hold back the billionaires with what is effectively a very similar structure to the United States, billionaires actually go to prison when they do something bad, but you need experts to run it which all amount to the petty bourgeoisie. so is China a dictatorship of the proletariat just because it has an intact party-nation of Marxist theorists? arguably, no, it is a Marxist party-nation but a party-nation isn't the same as a successful dictatorship of the proletariat, it's just the first step out of the utter suffering of Liberalism. Menshevism is not a bourgeois reform, literally forming China and giving it the power to violently suppress the bourgeoisie with weapons if truly necessary but it's nearly the same as the United States is the bourgeois reform, and the only reason we don't realize that is that we don't want to admit there are multiple bourgeoisies that utterly hate each other like inhuman carrion piles and so it's truly necessary for people to divide into plural areas of bourgeois control no matter what people want to think. the border of the wolf pack or lion pride is the dangerous part, not the high-ranking adults. that said. here is how I think the order goes: national independence; defeating Liberal-republicanism and creating party-nation; not creating capitalism; creating Bolshevism; dictatorship of the proletariat; age of multi-Bolshevism; hypothetical age of poly-Bolshevism. this is the order of what theories are good theories, whether or not it's the actual order of history.
618. The molding of the free person is the true equality of all [34] -> it's not, because any capitalist-suck-up Lacanian could say this. also, like, just imagine, you're Stalin's government, and you start believing this. when Trotsky is causing trouble for the people of the Soviet Union you tell him that the reason he doesn't understand mainstream Marxism-Leninism yet is he is not a complete free individual and he needs to be a person better, he's just terrible at being a free-standing person and he ought to go through a ton of training to be human exactly correctly before he is allowed to be human, while other people who are better at being individuals inevitably claim positions of authority and order people around. that's how Lacanians think, that's how capitalists think, that's almost what Lenin said however accidentally. the whole concept of "molding the free person" Leads To Hierarchies, precisely because not all people are equally good at Being Free People.
618. Anarchy isn't about taking things away / "Liberty is the mother of order" (Proudhon) [35] / Anarchism is not simply a negative critique [36] -> funny how in practice basically every anarchist you see just talks about smashing things and taking them away and most people never actually see any "anarchist communities". the SPSs are secret and the SPMSs hardly come to pass for a period of longer than 3 years. but go on
618. There is more than one anarchism [37] / Anarchism refers to a plurality of possible systems which all realize in parallel -> what I had always suspected based on how anarchists literally detail different solutions with different content. but it's notable how utterly ill-defined and squishy a pro-anarchist writer's description of this will be.
618. There is more than one Marxism [38] -> I'm astounded the pro-anarchist writer got this given how not even Trotskyists or some mainstream Marxist-Leninists understand this.
618. There can be no recycling without graph economics
618. Undertale mirrors U.S. antiwar movements / Undertale is the way it is because of the shape of United States antiwar movements -> so, I have a weird history with movements and being on the total fringes of them for most of my life when they would ripple out and hit me but I would only really get them secondhand. around 2014-2015 I got hit by the ripples of BLM. morality was everywhere. Existentialism was everywhere, and this concept that people will automatically flip over and change their minds if you only shout individuals individuals human rights identities individuals that is an individual you are an individual identity identity people like each other because they are different enough. in the beginning when I was literally a right-Libertarian that made some kind of sense to me, but as soon as I started actually not being a conservative all of it increasingly made less and less sense until I was like, where did any of this even come from and how does anyone even think it's correct? I read non-Marxist texts like I was supposed to and none of them made any sense, so I just kept digging and digging and digging on every single lead I could find anywhere to try to figure out where any of this philosophy coherently originated from whether people were creating it consciously or not. most of my research focused only on the past decade and how people could derive ideologies from scratch. but most recently, I realized that past United States antiwar movements had already been this. past large-scale movements in the United States had had the shape of anarchist Idealism, and not at all the shape of Marxism. finally, the outpouring of works like Undertale and Steven Universe started to make sense. the exact way they were portraying the notion of breaking up war was based on things like the Vietnam War period, in which despite the war being against Communism it wasn't actually Communists trying to stop it. and I'm not just saying the obvious fact of "a Marxist movement isn't mostly made of Marxists", what I'm saying is, "it's as if the whole entire movement was not Marxist and anarchists were forming the theorist layer and trying to form the party-nation". nobody will ever be able to do historical materialism again if we don't understand workers' movements as plural bodies of people with different colors of theorists on top that realize different kinds of countries. incidentally yeah I think Trotsky accidentally set the whole world back purely by claiming workers didn't belong to either plural countries or plural workers' states. come on, Trotsky, every object is plural.
618. U.S. antiwar movements have always been Idealist / United States antiwar movements have historically always been Idealist / Marxist Jake believes Leninism is forming a Materialist social-democratic party, filtering it into a party-nation, and somehow filling it with workers. By Jake's definition, no anti-war movement in the United States has ever been a Marxist movement -> this really struck me when reading a book that was accidentally about the Vietnam War. the entire framing of the thing for normal people (and by that I do mean the bourgeoisie that represent them) was morality and basically the notion of war being a social construct and a thing that every individual has to choose to drop or sustain some kind of attack. there's not really any Marxism in there; that could quite easily devolve into a nationality of anarchists attacking a nationality of Liberal-republicans just for being part of the wrong nationality and not immediately assimilating into anarchism. and when you think of things this way, that previous antiwar movements in the United States are United States antiwar movements, you start to really see how "the left we have" being "non-Marxist" is a lot more than a color swatch, and in practice means that when United States people practice "revolutionary defeatism" the population is pursuing a totally different transition out of capitalism than what any Marxist strategy looks like assuming it pursues one at all. if you want people to work with "the left we have" you have to get comfortable with the concept of a charcoal transition and that you might have to toss every bit of your Marxist theory out the window and learn a big stack of anarchist or Existentialist theory, that the United States might get all the way through transition to a new system before Marxism ever begins to apply.
     would I do that? well. I hate it. I have no other choice. I am incapable of doing it practically. that question is one big contradiction. so my answer is, I will analyze every single other ideology through Marxism, but as itself rather than a confused Marxism that explains itself wrong. Trotskyism isn't secretly mainstream Marxism-Leninism, it's Trotskyism. anarchism isn't secretly Bolshevism, it's anarchism. and a Marxist analysis of anarchism is something very different than a Marxist analysis of Marxism pretending to be anarchism. I am a meta-Marxist. if I have to use Marxism to explain how to succeed at totally non-Marxist ideologies that never turn into Marxism then I will. but I won't lie to you that Western Maxism or anarchism "must" be effective just because everyone's doing them and an ideology that's popular "must" be a winning one. I will judge the effectiveness of ideologies based on history. currently it's looking pretty bad for anarchism and bizarrely good for Deng Xiaoping Thought. I have been wracking my brain as to why that latter trend exists, and I think I half have an answer? but the answer only makes the outlook even worse for anarchism. anarchism is going to have to molecularize or it will never win.
618. The biggest bourgeoisie have a material interest in regenerating the petty bourgeoisie -> follows from: petty bourgeoisie and precarity. 1) big bourgeoisie don't want to pay taxes. 2) small bourgeoisie would benefit from it and start telling them to. 3) big bourgeoisie use material power to push tax burden onto small bourgeoisie. 4) small bourgeoisie physically cannot cover tax burden without disappearing, and all turn against taxes. 5) next generation of petty bourgeoisie starts out against taxes. 6) big bourgeoisie wildly encourages regeneration of petty bourgeoisie in order to win elections, and starts using them to generally shut down resistance to any of the overall [L] (pronounced [L]) Wasp swarm 1:(-)1:(-)1.
     we are like, solidly in the post- social democracy period. the social-democracy period crashed and went up in flames and now we're here. I feel like the only thing that is going to get us out is quite literally basing all political theories on producing the ability to produce — on arranging all the individuals who don't want to live in [L] (pronounced [L]) Wasp swarm 1:(-)1:(-)1 hell into these almost fortressy civilizations that use the robustness of their businesses or ministries or party structures at the smallest possible scales as a low-temperature national defense to finally win the 1950 to today forever cold war. we simply have to assume Deng Xiaoping was half correct if not necessarily totally correct. we don't have to bash people who can't work but we do have to make them be utterly loyal to the overall town or party-nation structures that can produce as a whole, because in a world where nobody can scrape together taxes or people to organize, producing is surviving and anything you produce is required to make socialism be. there are just some days when I have a "molecular Deng Xiaoping Thought" day. I hate it but I think that's definitely a logically possible Marxism now. can we filter it. can we please filter it so it's actually made of workers and isn't just an amorphous blob of bourgeoisie who are Chinese instead of Japanese. I feel like with the notion of Bauplans and internal structure that becomes possible eventually, if you'd only take slices of China and map them out as structures of connected structures. it may be that molecular Deng Xiaoping Thought kinda goes backwards. although, I did just describe a hypothetical scenario where it went forward from small things. maybe it can go either way.
618. Light bulbs don't work -> somewhat literally what was said at the time, and now we all have them.
618. The effectiveness of Communism can be measured in how many years it lives / law of fractions (meta-Marxist conjecture)
618. Anarchism is one-tenth as effective as Communism -> Catalonia lasted 3 years, Bolshevism in the Soviet Union lasted 43 years.
618. Google is half as effective as Communism / Google search stopped working before Communism did / Google search stopped working before Bolshevism stopped working in the Soviet Union -> Bolshevism: approximately 43 years. Google search: 20 years. to be perfectly fair I think a great fraction of things humans invent are "not as effective as Communism" in this sense. Catholic Christianity would be one of the things that was, because it's been around for hundreds of years; you could say the same for Protestant Christianity, and Islam, as much as that will make some people very mad. Liberalism is as effective as Communism because we've had it over 100 years. but the Democratic Party isn't, because it never gets votes over and over and over to where the Republican Party stops existing and it has to divide. that totally did happen with the original Democratic-republican party. which has been around... 233 years?? that doesn't sound right. but if it's true the Democratic Party is pitifully ineffective in comparison. and definitely not as effective as Communism, because it has never made it for 43 years straight.
618. Pokémon is two-thirds as effective as Communism / Pokémon is half as effective as Communism -> follows from "Google was half as effective as Communism". Pokémon has been around 29 years. which is pretty impressive, really. but strictly speaking you can't yet say it works as well as Communism.
618. Communism and LGBT rights are equally viable / Bolshevism and LGBT+ rights have the same level of workability; either Bolshevism doesn't work and LGBT rights don't work, or Bolshevism works for a while and LGBT rights work for a while but neither is actually complete enough to work fully -> I feel like we made the hugest mistake in saying that Bolshevism didn't work just because it failed after approximately 43 years. like, by that standard, you could say a lot of new appliances "don't work" — a particular iPhone has a much worse rate of working versus failing than Bolshevism. with a span of 2003 to 2023, Google search stopped working before Bolshevism did. but more than that, there was genuinely a period where LGBT movements were working which was maybe.... maybe a full 40 years long, before there came to be a huge backlash that nobody truly knew how to stand up to and the whole thing started crumbling down. this has caused a lot of reactionaries to genuinely think that LGBT movements don't work. but for a while they really were working until they weren't. whether something works is not a binary statement. you basically need a non-binary truth value to capture how well something really works.
618. Corporations are as effective as Communism / Free-standing businesses are as effective as Communism; they are just as likely to survive and keep functioning and functioning longer than 43 years -> literally not true by the law of fractions because a vast number of front-facing businesses don't live 43 years. a Disney is relatively rare, while when one actually forms nobody likes it and everybody tries to exclude it as a form of capitalism. at the moment that capitalism "works" by the standard Bolshevism has to meet people say "that's not capitalism! that's an anomaly!".
618. Liberalism is five times as effective as Communism / Liberal-republicanism is as effective as Communism -> this you can actually say because Liberal-republicanism, not any particular part of capitalism, has endured for 249 years; Liberal-republicanism is five times as effective as Communism and 83 times as effective as anarchism. the caveat here is, what parts of that are actually robust and what parts of that are short-lived? is it the case that Liberal-republicanism is burning all its people and their ability to survive like sticks of firewood just so 200 representatives get to live a good life and believe that Liberalism makes everyone free and able to debate because they are? I think that's quite arguable.
     I think the other thing that deceives people is this: the people at the top of the country who rule it and as a group dictate what ideology everybody has to believe are not the highest-rank people in the country. people will look at a billionaire and then look at a Congressperson and think, well the billionaire isn't the Congressman yet! but the key word is "yet". tent of freedom poles doesn't really do anything to prevent that from happening. if Bezos believes that sharing a tent of freedom poles with a bunch of JD lawyers makes him free, and all the representatives subjectively believe it, suddenly tent of freedom poles fails to make anybody free. the freedom poles are just burning everyone else for firewood.
618. Dinosaurs don't work / Dinosaurs were effective for millions of years but then they failed to be effective and disappeared (worked millions of years ago; failed to work; went extinct) -> at face value, funny joke. most non-avian dinosaurs went extinct. but what I really like about this statement is how backhandedly true it is. if you think dinosaurs don't work you've failed to realize that birds are dinosaurs. and if you think Communism doesn't work you may have failed to realize that Deng Xiaoping Thought is still a fringe form of Marxism.
618. Bolshevism is effective in the same sense as dinosaurs -> dinosaurs are still very effective, they just look different.
618. burning up citizens like firewood / tent of freedom poles burning everyone else for firewood and believing that everyone is okay because the central tent of poles is okay
618. A faggot is one object / A faggot, which is a bundle of firewood sometimes used as a metaphor, is one object -> these are blue because structuralist linguistics and descriptivist linguistics.
618. A faggot is multiple objects / A faggot, which is a bundle of firewood sometimes used as a metaphor, is multiple objects
618. together we form a mighty faggot / bundle of twigs or firewood logs as representing many people rather than one -> uh... this one is blue because "free speech".
618. It's wasteful to burn the whole faggot / It's ineffective to burn the whole faggot (literal or metaphorical statement about a pile of firewood) / A pile of firewood is most useful when you use each log as needed rather than tossing them all onto one big bonfire for some reason; this is to say that "faggots" are a backhandedly true metaphor for minorities because United States empire is most robust and hard to oppose when it gets rid of gay people or other minorities just a few at a time rather than all at once
618. my favorite bible is The Bible / "what's your favorite bible?" "The Bible" -> a quote from one of Matt Dillahunty's shows I still laugh at. it's one of those things where you can really see the gears turning on how people draw category lines. in some contexts it would be perfectly reasonable to put "the Christian bible", "the Muslim quran", and "the Bhagavad Gita" in the same category. in this context it refers to different translations of the Christian bible. but for the caller, the first thing that came to mind was "but, there's only one bible? isn't the Christian bible a singular thing?". not really. it's amazing how often the simple concept of things being plural fails to occur to people.
618. dead-end business / dead-end businesses versus dead-end employees -> many people commonly speak of "dead-end jobs". what if that was totally wrong? what if the real problem is that the businesses are dead-end and aren't properly improving and making towns better, while workers are never at fault for getting tossed into dead-end businesses?
618. Profit actually applies to chunks of civilians / Profit does not apply to industries, it applies to chunks of civilians -> this is one of the underlying reasons anarchism doesn't make sense. capitalism always lied to us about what profit was. then anarchists make a bunch of theory based on the capitalist definition of profit which was wrong, and as a result it's wrong. the real explanation for profit is that a sheer group of people has to make more stuff than it eats or people don't get to have houses, which means they don't get to choose where to live, where to work, what people to meet, or to some extent what to believe. if the population isn't expanding and always remains at the same numbers this might not actually be a big issue; it's only the fact that most national populations are expanding that causes older and younger generations to compete so intensely and hate each other so much over not having enough houses or ability to earn them. the genesis of proletarians always requires people to become productive as individuals, to be able to do something very consistently, and this consistent productivity underlies profit. in reality there can be obstacles to achieving this: people can be disabled; it can be that all the businesses around are garbage quality like the strips of teeny businesses that constantly die and get replaced, and working at them won't really make them better;
618. Bleeding workers for social programs is logical / Bleeding workers for social programs is only fair -> the argument goes like this: A) workers need government programs. B) profit makes taxes possible. C) workers make profit possible. D) workers make taxes possible. E) workers created the problem of government programs, then solved the problem of government programs, and now must pay for government programs. F) accidental implication: owners are just landlords while workers create everything in the country to accommodate their own population growth from nothing, yet somehow it is okay for owners to stand around forcing workers into teeny tiny spaces of society being as good as possible at existing just to be allowed to exist at all and not get yelled at for existing while owners don't have to have any survival skills or anything.
618. a crumb of socialism / "Can we get a crumb of socialism in our cat fantasy?"
618. Neutrality is undemocratic
618. Lacanianism mathematically results in blood feuds / Lacanianism boils down to capitalism and capitalism mathematically results in blood feuds
618. No country should discriminate against religions -> case of: "I believe that everybody" statement.
618. Religious discrimination is an individual choice / All religious discrimination is due to prejudice which sits inside individuals, and could not originate from a scale above the individual -> relatively easy to argue this is false, but widely believed.
618. All religious discrimination is an individual choice
618. The purpose of religion is determining the correct course of history / The purpose of religion is to determine the correct course of history
618. Communism should legally be considered a religion
618. Normal people are glued to words / The average person is incapable of intuitively understanding any form of ontology which is not language and the use of specific terms instead of other terms -> I've come to the conclusion that, for very bad reasons, sense-labels on Items are damn (pronounced damn) important. you absolutely won't be able to release this project on everyday people without them quibbling about something like "topic" not being the same thing as "field studies field" and bickering with you until you create a mechanism for each Item or Property to be linguistically labeled exactly for the situation it's being used in. and even there people will bicker about whether the post-language label is actually the right label or the Jews chose the wrong label versus what the Southern Baptist Christians would have everyone say. when people argue about whether postcolonial language is "postcolonial enough" or whether Marxist framings are Leninist enough it's ultimately all the same thing with less violence. I know people. I know how totally disgusting people are. and yet these are the humans we have to work with, not imaginary perfect ones.
618. Greed is an intensity of grabbing -> when I didn't know what Idealism was and how to analyze it or describe it I got so mad at this kind of stuff. it would totally drive me up the wall going "how did you even come up with that??". now it's a lot easier to describe. the big problem is, how do you falsify an Idealist statement? do you think dr. faustroll would be capable of doing that, or do you think that in that universe all Idealist statements are just true? I have no idea.
618. Always voting is an extreme position -> this concept only hit me while making the The new political compass. if, as Lacanians and traditional philosophers love to tell us, extremes are defined by the intensity of a particular definable thing which is totally not a slider of opposites when we've choppified it out of the context of anything else, couldn't there be an extreme of voting too much? greed is an intensity of grabbing things. prejudice is an intensity of not listening to people. Communism is an intensity of having a single united country when countries are supposed to constantly divide and fight themselves and that's supposed to not be oppressive or violent. isolation in a pile of media is an intensity of escapism that we have to "stop" doing, not the total absence of functioning social bonds and interactions. if all that is true, isn't being determined to vote every single time and telling everyone else to vote an intensity of voting which can be just as non-moderate as greed is? isn't everything non-moderate potentially dangerous? how would you know it isn't? does Idealist science even exist?
618. No technology is inherently inclusive / No technology or individual technology-designer individually solves the problem of including human beings -> this will be controversial. but in my mind, it's necessary to lay this out to prevent any possible scenario where disabled people exclude and abuse people, and ensure that will be a totally imaginary complaint. disabled people frequently absorb Existentialist arguments — that designing technology to include disabled people is all about "the human", that technologies which did not consider disabled people are "prejudiced", "inconsiderate", or "inhuman", and that people who update programs for no reason are more or less "greedy". but if you start from these kinds of propositions, the concept of access exists for utterly any group of people. you could define a concept of access applying to Leon Trotsky in which if he can't fit into the CPSU it isn't acceptable. I am guessing disabled people would probably not prefer to define access this way. but it's hard to stop that hole from tearing open. some people rewrite programs because they are not practically "accessible" to all the people attempting to look at the code, to debug it and such, and thus they feel rewriting the program is more inclusive to all the human beings that would later look at it. this is all because calling code accessible or not accessible is a fallacy. it's always populations of people that are open or closed to people, and the existence of code or technology is totally incidental; code itself has no intentions on how it is designed. to overcome the fallacy you have to realize that the thing that performs accessibility is an institution. you have to basically deliberately create a really consistent group of people that will function As A Community Unit for it to be able to do accessibility. and when you do that, anarchists will show up accusing you of "centralization". anarchism — depending on which one it is of course — is this terrible contradiction. anarchists want to overcome all social oppressions and make everybody behave good. at the same time anarchists hate anything being consistent and cohesive enough that it could be a painted target for anyone to catch a law-breaking anarchist. this contradiction practically results in a bunch of disconnected anarchists with little information about each other who are unable to live up to the standards of anarchism and who perpetuate social oppressions, all because they are scared to have a civilization that has laws and can defend itself from other populations that think it shouldn't exist. this is the Free Software movement in a nutshell: it's anarchism hiding inside capitalism, and it has all the basic logical problems of anarchism.
618. business territory owner / capitalist
618. finance capitalist -> this is the archetypical capitalist since about the year 2000.
618. Artisan type -> this used to be the archetypical capitalist in circa 1770 New York. [39] they're not the archetypical capitalist any more.
618. Every pioneer is a colonist / Every inventor is a pioneer; every pioneer is a colonist; every colonist is a colonizer (proposition about the relationship between director or professor types and the general historical process of creating empires) -> it is painful to me how obvious this is to me just from reading a science-fiction book like Dragonsdawn and yet how utterly not-obvious this is to anyone who isn't me.
     the process of creating any civilization historically begins with training a bunch of highly specialized professor types who set up the civilization. after they do that, nobody else necessarily benefits from studying what they studied, but what they created is theoretically available for anyone to use and becomes cheaper. by conventional Liberal-republican wisdom, the same process should apply to everything, with anybody who goes to college being able to discover something new and snag an exclusive Careerist spot as a resident expert, or start a new business. of course, in real life it doesn't quite shake out that way. in real life, capitalism produces so fast thanks to its Third-World workers that culture fills up with available products and nobody even wants or needs any more innovations. people get gaslit that learning stuff will make them likable because people like talent and creativity and education and then they get gaslit again that there's no need for any more art or science if they aren't the next one-in-a-billion international corporation owner that made the stuff everybody around them will be actually using the next morning. so why then does everyone keep saying "college college college, go to college"? because it's ultimately a trick by the bourgeoisie to disguise capitalism. the longer everyone says "college college college", the slower people figure out that the economy has filled up into a very limited number of jobs where the key is not in being good at things but simply in claiming things first and staying in them as long as possible. this is easiest for someone with a huge bank account who does nothing but buy businesses or stocks. a finance capitalist can switch from industry to industry in a heartbeat without spending any money on training, and very easily forgets that all the college-educated people have to spend thousands of US dollars and take years and years to do what they can do in a day or a minute. the concept of education becomes outdated as education inevitably builds up societal structures in which people do not have to learn the things previous pioneers learned. this is good in that in theory jobs will come not to cost as much, although it can be bad in that those with the money and time to commit to education have no advantage over the person who is simply very obedient to the constructs previous educated people created and is willing to work for a low wage, even to the point of serious fault where they go to work for a Tory and fully accept the racist, misogynistic, ableist atmosphere. fifty able-bodied White men full of hatred and willing to work for any wage gain a particular amount of power to absolutely grind five college-educated progressives into the dust. even so, people will keep chanting "education education" like sending all the socially-linked Tories to get an arts degree and somehow bleeding it out of professors' pockets or something will magically fix everything. but in reality all those "education education" people are just falsely and confusedly thinking that they're at the level of elite pioneers who could have started the United States from scratch, they're temporarily embarassed colonizers. they get this wrong impression from the observation that Liberal-republicanism constantly imposes artificial destructive processes which arbitrarily grind up industry and start it over again, ostensibly so that capitalism is "fair" in that new people can enter it and Zinovievize existing "industrial culture" whenever they get tired of it, but in reality, it's a ruse to make people think cultures are made of endless competition and churn when that can never be the definition of any culture. it's always been that cultures are made of invention, the codification of standards or structures, the falling of profit, and the enjoyment of abundance where applicable. this assumption is baked into the sheer existence of universities. the reason creating professors is valuable is that professors create wealth for society as a whole, not for individuals. even if universities create capitalists, the capitalists also create structure for society at a town- or local-state level rather than for themselves. "wealth brain" destroys humanity's ability to understand society, to understand what it is and how it develops. when you have wealth brain you believe that education is for earning personal wealth and society is nothing more than a bunch of shiny objects and paying, but if that were true, it would quickly become that individuals would destroy the social structures they are supposed to create and become both useless to society having contributed nothing, and incapable of earning wealth because they created no consistent means of production. funny enough that's kind of exactly what's happened. people are going to college thinking wealth wealth wealth (not that it's their fault when they're not allowed to think anything else) and they end up utterly unemployed as all the necessary businesses are full and incapable of creating a business. they're not creating unions because there aren't enough businesses per individual being born for them to work at and if they manage to find a job it's always more advantageous for them to move to either a "prestigious opportunity" or one of the "only" regions with jobs left than to stay and fight for the first one they got. with nothing to fight for it's easy for the bourgeoisie to shove the smallest spark of resistance totally out and make them scramble to create a second rival bourgeoisie just to live. simultaneously businesses periodically fail just because they have trouble lasting forever, taking all their workers down with them. each failure of a capitalist hurts workers and gives an opening to a swath of new petty bourgeoisie that's enough to cause trouble but not enough to provide real relief to the unemployed population. they grow a bit, they enable really gigantic marketplace-owners that will get to keep the money forever, some of them drop away, one gets big and the hole in capitalism plugs back up. a little later another medium-sized business fails and the cycle starts again, or maybe towns just fill up with a bunch of tiny businesses that are constantly opening up and dying and causing confusion for everybody.
618. "I wish comrades existed" / wishing comrades or solidarity existed in real life (motif) / "the love of humanity" is usually not reciprocated (motif) -> a thing you would mostly only hear in the United States or Australia, but trust me, it's a real problem. we really have this problem where movements form solely around being terrified of White people or men etc based on individualized traumatic experiences, and beating up on people who don't perform exactly the correct gestures to not look like an enemy, but where you don't get anything back, they don't form unions, they don't help people get housing, they don't help people join up with a hundred people to get more people to vote center-Liberal and keep the ballot boxes from going away, they just kinda periodically slug you and tell you you're bad and you need to be better harder faster stronger. at a certain point it's like, what do you even do with this. all our movements to supposedly squash "Western individualism" are fucking (pronounced fucking) individualist. by the time I'm not completely distracted with hiding from reactionaries and not being able to work or tolerate workplaces, I've been through so much shit (pronounced shit) and trauma and problem-solving I don't need these movements, I just already experienced everything the movements were attempting to prevent. and it's like, thanks, guys. thanks for absolutely nothing. thanks for all my experiences with you over the years making me want to move to another country and not even bother to do anything to defend or take back this one. if you think this is what a country is you can have this blasted country to yourselves. I'll get my grubby Communist hands off it and it will be all yours. so what will your excuse be in 30 years for Existentialism not being able to materially stop Toryism from erupting into fascism, and what is your plan for succeeding next time?
618. global marketplace corporation / global marketplace owner (corporation that owns the substrate of a global marketplace, not the person that in turn owns such a corporation) -> a general category applying to very large corporations indexing many smaller sellers. Amazon and eBay are the prototypical examples; anything which is very similar to them in structure can be considered a case of this.
618. Printing books won't educate people / Production won't educate people / Producing more books cannot educate people (implied "usually"; comics, shows, games, etc; discrete product available for price or advertisement revenue; anti-Gramscian proposition) -> the claim that in every case, people receive better education if you can get something out of existing resources made as many as ten years ago than if you require new resources to be made. "we have wealth, the big problem is we haven't distributed it" correct. and one thing that means is that people need to be taught to use old books rather than buy new ones. printing more books just to put minority representation in them is meaningless, depending on the subject of the books and whether they deal with very serious non-fictional history or plans to create movements.
     I allow that this proposition could be false. there is some potential that, say, if there were the five Communist parties of the USS and they actually decided to defund Media Representation produced in their parties versus distributing books and teaching people to use them it would deal a heavy enough blow to the process of assembling marginalized workers together into their own movements that join into the big movement that it wouldn't be worth it. there could be a real contradiction there that could falsify this proposition depending on exactly what we specify the proposition to apply to. to me, when I'm typing this, I think it applies to areas of the US that aren't major cities. I am not sure what times it does and doesn't apply to the Third World. I think the times it applies are rather structural, it applies to specific kinds of towns more than broad historical periods of a whole country.
618. gender-neutral patriarchy -> the motif of a society liberating women from misogyny but then reverting to powerful individuals who control households regardless of whether they are women. really, really prevalent in the United States. where I've lived, and possibly also in Great Britain where J.K. Rowling lives, it's like feminism got totally replaced by this. nobody believes in feminism any more because they've all become powerful enough to be the oppressors.
618. gaslight, gatekeep, girlboss [40] -> the motif of conceptualizing feminism as a matter of individual morality: if feminism causes individual women to become immoral and create gender-neutral patriarchy it has failed, while the implied point of feminism is to make individual people who all exist separately in parallel Freely Decide to treat other men and women better. really quite a strange way to conceptualize what feminism is when you think about it. you can't really explain how a movement happens that way. but it's very very common for people to think this way when discussing the relationship between fiction and real life, or when discussing news events. to think of individuals and individual experiences as a direct model for other separate individuals, but not to think about what happens when it's not materially easy for one individual to spontaneously replicate everything another individual does. I feel like people's underlying biases when they talk about women's rights are directly creating things like having universities only consisting of non-political experts and getting science defunded, or statements that everyone should join up with center-Liberals that don't exist to create social-democratic programs when in reality that just creates a lot of dropouts from the Democrat "movement" and every existing program going away.
618. Seek truth from facts [41] / Practice is the only criterion for testing the truth / Theory cannot decide what is accurate to reality (what is true; objectively true) / The truth is what the facts are (Aron Ra) ? -> I feel like this proposition is already recorded either in the numbering or MDem drafts. I don't think it's a unique proposition.
618. The United States abolished kings / United States people chose to abolish kings because having a king was a bad idea (mentioned in Dinesh D'Souza's book) -> "as you know, the United States doesn't have a king. it's worse than that. we reverted to a warring states period where different populations fight over the country and try to kill each other. but at least we created a republic."
     Richard Wolff said this once. but honestly, I think a great illustration is to open up Guardians of Ga'Hoole book 1. on one page there is a quote something like: "it's been a while since we've had a king." the book then proceeds to explain that owls have reverted from a kingdom to a warring states period.
618. In the U.S., a tiny bit of economism is warranted -> this might be controversial. but from 30 years of experience living here, the people of the United States are often joined together only and solely by mathematics. no appeal to shared history, freedom, generosity, or empathy can actually join U.S. people together, although somehow the one thing that can join people together is economic imperatives like a corporation being there tomorrow and everyone having to go to the same corporation to receive a paycheck. people put up with their relatives almost solely because their relatives have money or able bodies while they don't actually like them or feel a bond to them. people join identity politics movements for selfish reasons of protecting themselves as much as for actually helping anyone else, graphed together by the promise of a bunch of people joined together winning rights and an elusive mathematics of graphs and people-blobs which might one day explain it. the whole concept of solidarity as some kind of moral or emotional connection or "the love of humanity" just doesn't really apply in the United States. talking as if employee types even have emotions left and aren't just hollow vessels of depression is almost itself an appeal to the bourgeoisie. the bourgeoisie have all sorts of time for marketing novels and talking about expression and emotion and Lived Experience. but as for any genuine workers that exist — for whatever five minutes they exist until being totally forced off business territories and being forced to start a new teeny precarious business — it's more useful to think of workers as devoid of emotion and being herded around by societal patterns and themselves to the things they "just have to do today" as if with cattle prods. the whole thing is held together with nothing but mathematics, there's no emotion in it. this leads me to feel like to fix it it's perfectly okay to appeal not to anything emotional but instead solely to new mathematics that people can recite as the thing they "just have to do today" equally as dispassionately.
618. Industrial work does not create wealth / Industrial work does not create wealth for individuals, it creates actively-flowing groups of people who are graphed together exchanging things with each other and who enjoy stability and surplus wealth for social programs only when they are strongly united -> at its basics, wealth is the possession of independent survival separate from all other members of society. peasant life generally possesses this unless somebody else claims the land from the peasants. industrial work does not create wealth in the same way, despite everyone's misleading metaphors about "the grasshopper and the ant". industrial work creates stuff: the material components of culture which do not necessarily have much value by themselves but are valuable precisely inasmuch as three corporations constantly producing them can sell them to each other. "stuff" is only meaningful as part of a structured graph arrangement of people, and ceases to be meaningful when the graph arrangements break and nobody will take it. simultaneously capitalists stupidly try to insist that graph arrangements breaking is normal, although to anyone with a brain that is the momentary absence of capitalism, not an actual process inside capitalism. saying that "market corrections" are part of capitalism is like saying that cats frequently dying of kidney failure is a useful and important part of cats; a bug in the system isn't a design.
     this question takes on a whole new dimension in light of anarchism. anarchists successfully understand that peasants had wealth more easily, but fail to understand the purpose of corporate products. the social purpose of corporate products is to make it easier to produce something useful without it having to be judged by the harsh immediate demands of survival — to make it possible to spend your time writing poetry or making watercolors of crows like a third of anarchists would love to do, instead of finding that because you're a woman and a mother dad said you had to watch the baby while he works with the cows. having to do work at the level of individual independence and survival has a lot of unintended consequences. independence and "wealth" make it hard to spend your time on children without accidentally resenting them or creating conflicts between the parents, while statistically at least half the population is going to have children. capitalism, at first, is just as bad about this, but eventually makes it possible to chain together a bunch of corporations that are all in effect paying for each other's existence and have just enough productivity left over to provide inexpensive childcare. capitalism creates surplus wealth for a particular chunk of society at a time specifically because undirected graphs of people are all graphed together, vaguely like the way electrons are all graphed together across two atoms in a chemical bond. incidentally this benefit goes away when people allow Liberal-republicanism to divide people into two populations — the two populations don't graph together properly and the wealth doesn't get shared "across the bond" — although Deng Xiaoping Thought funny enough more or less fixes that, leaving China with an intact capitalism and in an objectively better stage of history than the United States.
     the big challenge for anarchists, or for Bolshevism, is to master graph economics. you can't even put a bunch of anarchists in a village and know the thing will hold together without knowing what the structures are and the inputs of every structure are in order to determine the other structures' outputs. industrial work does not create wealth. it creates graphs that are doing a verb. the republic is republicking, the town is towning, the village is villaging. this is the sense in which anarchism is indistinguishable from capitalism. Marxists say this accusation in a negative tone but it doesn't really have to be negative if anarchists simply didn't attack workers' states and stuck to peacefully creating tiny city-states that help workers' states on the off chance they're actually able to. the ideal scenario for anarchists is basically that you have a Soviet Union with 14 big republics and then you have like 300 teeny tiny city-states that are also part of the structure. I don't know how many, maybe it would only be like 20.
618. Industrial work creates hierarchies -> the problem with the concept is in the word "creates". if you stop at "industrial work ... hierarchies", then you've got it basically correct. when there is industrial work it is the case there are spatial hierarchies. but industrial work isn't the thing that creates them. industrial work is a response to them already being there, which attempts to solve them and make them less bad and more tractable. the end of that solving process looks like graphs that have been graphed together into the "shared electron" process of capitalism.
     anarchism is so... blockheaded. whenever you try to cover the things said in anarchism it comes out in such simple words I feel almost like I could explain why anarchism is false in toki pona. I would love to do that, just take one or two of these propositions and after it's written make a toki pona translation. the only real problem is I'm not "fluent", I don't have the standard usages and grammars down yet. but I do know in the mean time I can always make an en-x-pona page to later translate the toki pona from. I remember the first time I discovered simple english wikipedia and not really thinking deeply about how many English learners there are I found it so funny. now even though I see "simple English" as a serious tool with broad application I still think it's fun. I still have a laugh at the notion of a complicated idea being "unrolled" into simple language to the point anyone should find it obvious. I hope someone else has as much fun with the en-x-pona pages as I will.
618. Avenarius was just probing social constructs / By asserting that the only way we can understand reality is through "constellations of perceptual elements", Avenarius and Mach were effectively trying to probe erroneous social constructs, prejudices, and incomplete science -> the most charitable reading of Idealism is that it is trying to give us the tools for understanding the difference between ontological models we assemble in our minds versus material reality. if you read it that way, then Idealism can be put to productive use to define what is good science; there are many cases where Idealism simply doesn't work but this is one of the only things it's good for.
618. Science is discovered independent of cultures -> the question of whether science is a cultural construct is rather complicated. I feel like to answer it properly you have to separate out "the scientific method" from "an ontological model discovered through science which is now a field of study at a university". when you're talking about the second thing, you can absolutely argue that science is a social construct, specifically because each field of study contains assumptions or hastily accepted hypotheses and could always contain important errors. say that clinical testing is a field of study, but in practice the whole field of clinical testing has almost exclusively tested treatments on men. this would lead clinical testing to be a social construct which contains scientific errors and which would have to be updated through the scientific method into a better construct.
618. A genuine science can be done in ancient Egypt / Any genuine science can be done in ancient Egypt / For any particular philosophical framework to be a field of science, it has to be doable for people in any period of history -> imagine there's an Egyptian priest, or people appointed by the pharaoh. for their time they have relatively good means to do anything, and yet for the purposes of this thought experiment they won't reject anything you say just because it isn't advantageous to them to know it; they will interpret every fact you can prove as supporting Egyptian religion or values. you have the floor to convince the pharaoh of the existence of a particular field of science. can you do it? I think using ancient Egypt is a good thought experiment because it doesn't run into problems of tribal populations a really long time ago simply not being able to get the apparatus to test things; the single, sole advantage of class society is that it has wealth. tribal populations today are very different because they can make the journey to industrial centers if they really want to, so the major issue that comes up today is the will or decision-making power of different populations to be able to do things on particular land areas or "impose forms of science". anyway it's less complex to do this with ancient empires or very large populations versus small tribal populations; if you want to do this with tribal populations you use today's indigenous populations rather than the ones that existed a long time ago.
618. A genuine science can be done by a Lakota Sioux -> here's the one for things that aren't empires. I read a small amount about the Sioux people so I think they are an appropriate example. it may be appropriate to make several more propositions for different kinds of indigenous populations that aren't comparable and interchangeable for thought experiments. that's fine.
618. For historical materialism to be a science, it has to be doable for people in any period of history -> Newtonian physics is a science because the overall set of patterns of Newtonian physics could have been studied in any historical period given the right equipment and ingenuity to design tests. psychology is a science because despite many different models of psychological phenomena throughout the decades and slow refinement, the underlying phenomena are the same in any historical period. historical materialism has a unique challenge that the substrate of people underneath it changes each historical period, creating difficulties for applying the science the same way in all historical periods. in one period you have a wealthy pseudo-landlord doing physics. in another period you have a university Careerist type who is also privileged. in the future there may be more genuine workers in science — if the proletariat is restored at all, of course. a very long time ago you are looking basically at royal appointees and priests. but when the topic of science turns into historical materialism, you have to turn these different groups of people around to study themselves. and that could be challenging, simply to get people to comprehend the idea of a different group of people thinking about something in the future than the group they're in. try thinking about your own death and somebody else consciously observing the world every day in place of you. that always feels a little off; the human mind inherently has trouble comprehending anybody else being conscious instead of itself. I think the same thing is true for plural groups of people existing in the present. a group of White Southern Baptist Christians, no matter how nice they are, will have a little trouble imagining zapping their perception over to India where people in India are conscious instead of them, and vice versa the other direction. this in turn makes it hard to understand the concept of a whole other class subpopulation of people, who manages to exist in the very same country as you and yet isn't you and is consciously perceiving the world instead of you. to someone who has never experienced it, the whole concept of another class probably feels like one of those weird science fiction scenarios like discovering your universe is only an atom in another universe and you never knew. even a group of workers in the 1930s United States would find it hard to predict the 2020s where the proletariat has been shoved off the area of the country and everyone has been turning into hostile warring factions of bourgeoisie. to be able to comprehend historical processes that might happen in each period you really have to see outside yourself and see all the groups of people that exist, all the classes, all the factions consisting of plural class-subpopulations each with a local ideology inside. but, if you can do that you're set. you're ready, in any historical period, to comprehend the possible futures that could happen.
618. Small groups are inherently reactionary / Small groups of people tend to be forced to focus on the immediate survival of the small group over the survival of all outside groups and to end up practicing the Sunny fallacy of only letting people who are willing to perpetuate this competitive struggle into the group, which in the short term leads to anti-government movements against outside groups as an anti-social activity, and may ultimately cause a small village founded by progressives to birth reactionaries over generations -> existential materialist hypothesis. the bane of anarchism, Western Marxism, and early Trotskyism; a blessing to Toryism.
618. pronoun pins for Communists -> the hypothetical, mostly joking motif of people at a meeting actually wearing swatch colors or ideology "chemical symbols" or some variation on the concept. it could be a badge or one of those name tags that stands up on an office desk, or anything else. even if this existed you wouldn't necessarily need them at any time that isn't specifically people getting together at a meeting where they need to come to an agreement on strategy but you're going to have a clash between totally different frameworks and ultimate goals.
618. Cosmic history is a straight line / The history of the universe is a single straight line in which time progresses evenly across the whole universe / non-relativity proposition -> error made by Henri Bergson and possibly Isaac Newton. science sure makes a whole lot more sense when you actually have later, more current science than it does when you're going off outdated science.
618. The concept of fantasy should turn Freudians into Materialists (The Imaginary; psychoanalysis, Lacanianism) -> if ideologies were logical, this is how it would work.
618. learning languages to remember other populations are human / learning other languages to remember that other populations even exist -> I have to wonder how many countries are stuck doing this. I know it's very relatable to me to have had to learn Japanese to have the only experience I could possibly have of two separate, different groups of people interacting in a benign way instead of necessarily pounded through this particular strainer of racism. it's like if you even watch an anime dub it will expose you to people interpreting the show or the choices of the show writers in xenophobic ways, while only when you watch a show un-dubbed (or read any number of book translations that happen not to have this problem) do you simply experience the show as someone in its origin country would experience it. (the fact that Japan is a now-stationary First-World empire that should basically be the same as Britain and logically shouldn't be subject to such prejudices only makes this whole phenomenon that much worse.) god (pronounced god). shit (pronounced shit)? I struggle to think of an appropriate swearword. after messing with the "voting licenses" thought experiment I felt a bit like dirt. even though the scenario was by no means framed positively. and I just started burying myself in an introductory Russian language textbook. that was what felt better. if there was another language in existence and I wasn't speaking this one then I wasn't in the nightmare scenario. it's kind of irrational in the end. if I read a language textbook or comic in another language do I actually know whatsoever how people in another country think and feel? I would like to know. when I read Marxist history texts I feel like I learned a lot more about it than I knew before. but there are always times when I freak out about the concept that the separation between populations of people as material objects is always stronger than anyone's ability to reason or intuit about what other populations are feeling and any attempt to have empathy or think about the problems of other groups of people could potentially offend someone, because you didn't predict the thing that was literally actually in their mind which was the only tone in which it was acceptable to speak about them at all. it makes me afraid regarding the potential for diplomacy between groups of people, how or whether it is even possible in a world where anyone is like this.
618. termite violence / violence reduced to the tiniest cuts rather than to large eruptions of violence (anarchism) -> well, this is a memorable phrase. I don't think the concept is sound but I have to admit the word is pretty funny.
     on why this isn't sound: people like predictability. people tend to take unpredictability as indistinguishable from rudeness, hostility, or malice — because, to be fair, a lot of actual malice pops up totally unpredictably. when big eruptions of violence happen, people are very happy when they stop. when small incidents of violence happen, people can become terrified just because they never know when it stops, and they will look for the nearest pattern they can see to try to find a causal mechanism that can stop it. this means some people will look at "termite violence", see a recurring pattern of "Black people", and start judging all Black people or even retaliating at all Black people with their own "termite violence" just to stop a presumed pattern of "toxic Black culture".
618. Greed is not a good model because in order for people to not be greedy they all need to have a big pile of education that isn't necessarily materially available to them -> note that "information being available" and "education being available" are very different things. misinformation is incredibly cheap. real education is always more expensive. information which contains education has to be checked over by somebody. it has to be compiled based on previous sources that cost someone money, even if it's the library paying. somebody has to pay to publish the education, and somebody has to make calculations of the correct people to sell it to in order to have enough money to print it in the first place. various people inside that supply chain or industrial structure all have to pay to have the training or experience to do all of their roles effectively, and it's an uncertain leap for all those people to decide they can definitely succeed at what they're doing well enough to justify all the spending they'll have to do to get to do the risky thing in the first place. so in this weird way, greed is required to successfully produce enough education to educate people to not be greedy. say capitalist Bob is making all kinds of terrible anti-human decisions about all the businesses underneath him. if he is totally content as he is, he won't think education to become better is "worth paying for" with his money or effort. so in order to just get capitalist Bob who has all the money to change himself the whole rest of the population will have to pay to make that education really easy and basically free to the point it is almost more difficult for him to not bump into it and start reading it out of boredom. if you think of all education in the framing of bibles, every piece of information considered critical to humanity has to be as easy to obtain at a used book store for a few cents as a Christian bible is — go to a book sale, and there are even some of them where just the bibles are free. the astronomical amount of labor from all people in an entire country to make every critical piece of information both that easy to obtain and that easy to fact-check for the crustiest Tory who never uses the internet is what's required to make the model of "greed" or "insensitivity" even make any sense. yes, any person can change their mind. yes, you'll have to work 18 hour days where a whole lot of your effort isn't paid at all and can't be solved by "donating to charity" to make it happen, where the amount of effort required might take away from your children and your recreation and your social relationships which aren't directly to progressive people with some involvement in movements and from your novel-writing and your cat. a lot of anarchists never stop and think about this, how much difficult labor it actually takes to produce a lot of anything, including a lot of easily available quality education, and how much labor they'd have to do just to preserve the principle of freedom and every change in society coming from individual free choice or from supposedly spawning that indirectly through the pressure of "termite violence".
618. aristocratic science -> the motif of wealthy individuals conducting science on private estates before universities or corporate research became common. this wasn't just done with chemistry and astronomy and physics equations. this was also done with chimps and language studies. it was done with basically anything.
618. peasant science -> the motif of miscellaneous people who aren't currently workers or owners of any actual productive business getting business income privately working on mathematics or science, etc, just because they have no institution or owner stopping them from doing anything in particular. it's often mathematics. it's hard for a person of this description to get much done in the way of science.
618. wild animals having seven babies -> interesting in comparison to the development of industrial societies and how agrarian societies had a lot of babies but urban societies do not. there's vaguely something to be said or something to think about here on the topic of "do anarchists understand that humans eat and occupy space?" but I don't necessarily have thoughts on that right now.
618. A citation is a kind of signifier that points to a generic physical instance of a particular book -> the significance of this concept is that every bibliography in the back of a book is only a bunch of "dangling pointers" to a bunch of "memory banks" that only some people have access to while some people don't. this is a reason for putting the generalized cost or method of obtaining in every citation.
618. Most science is not done in reality / Most science is not done in the material world / Most science is not done in the field or in laboratories / criterion for identifying scientific revisionism, defining the failure to recognize correct models as revisionism -> sounds shocking at first but logically has to be true. textbooks and teachers present science to children like every scientific claim is always substantiated by testing it in the material world. but that leaves people with a really bad understanding of science by the time they have to actually go interpret complicated discusssions in string theory and quantum field theory which will take a long time to go to some kind of particle accelerator or highly indirect apparatus that was unusual in the early days of science and finally get tested. these days most claims in science actually get tested against highly accurate models of experiments instead of in actual experiments. that's what you actually do when you cross-check a new hypothesis against older equations and existing experiment teams — those equations and memories of experiments are models of experiments. and this is why I find non-Materialist interpretations of literature frustrating. the people saying that fiction is not internally consistent in a way where some claims (although not every claim) can be tested against coherent models of a fictional world's internal physics may not actually understand real-world science, because at the end of the day, taking your best coherent model of Dragon Ball and testing something against it and taking your best coherent model of current experiments to understand the universe and testing something against it are not actually all that different. unpopular opinion, building theories about fiction and trying to solve if everything is actually consistent shows you are building a good understanding of the real world. also, most science of historical processes and ideologies would not be done in the real world. if you understand how science truly works, then you'll understand how Marxism truly works and how meta-Marxism truly works. it's very possible I had to invent the category of meta-Marxism purely because people around the world don't understand that most Marxist "experiments" amount to thought experiments or peer review through the means of models of old experiments. I've always been confused why Marxism wasn't already meta-Marxism. why wouldn't Marxists test their models against each other for accuracy, and why would Marxists end up dividing into different competing versions of Marxism that become unfalsifiable?
618. A hydrogen bond is not an ionic bond -> despite graduating with a science degree I genuinely had to look this up. water managed to really confuse me because I knew the bonds inside an individual molecule were covalent bonds but I looked at the positive end of one water molecule linking to the negative end of other water molecules and I had to ask myself, do I know that's not an ionic bond? they aren't joined together, just like the ions in salt, but salt forms crystals of connected molecules anyway. what's the difference?? it appears the answer is a difference of magnitude. the bonds in water are hydrogen bonds but in some molecules there are stronger hydrogen bonds that start becoming ionic bonds. [42] that makes things a lot less confusing. maybe I should enter in a precise order of magnitude which is the approximate threshold where hydrogen bonds to ions start being ionic bonds
618. Hatred is as bad as murder -> bible verse.
618. Waiting for people to die is hatred / Waiting for people to die is as bad as hatred -> there is this really huge contradiction in the way everyone defines prejudices in the United States. normal people believe that every bad thing comes from prejudices. it's bad to be prejudiced. but for some reason it's okay to take the group of everyone who has prejudices and hate it. it's even okay to say things like "when the boomers die out", although logically that should be a prejudiced statement because you don't want them to exist or physically live and you want to squash their inner experience and everything they think and feel. isn't that statement just the act of passively killing them very slowly? I think the bible verse about hatred is truer backward: people dying is the same as hatred, people dying is as bad as hatred. if you frame it that way it's easier to conceptualize what the definition of hatred should actually be. in my mind hatred is when Trotsky exists but you don't like anything about him and you don't want him to exist, and you won't go to the active effort to make it possible for Trotsky to coexist with all the followers of Stalin, actually in real life, actually taking into account the goals and desires of both groups of people and realizing both of them instead of making a compromise that crudely squashes one of them to have the other, like, you have to build a world which realizes Trotskyism to some extent that Trotskyists eventually agree with even though it is limited by the rules of reality, instead of a world which acts to prevent Trotskyism, to the point that Trotskyism and mainstream Marxism-Leninism both exist and they both acknowledge each other as part of each other even though they began with different content and are not the same entity and have to actively get to know a new entity in order to predict and merge with that entity. an odd metaphor when applied to anything else, but it really illustrates what the problem with anything else is: if you want Protestants and Catholics to coexist or White Southern Baptist Christians and Black people to coexist, etc, you need to understand that each countable group of people realizes differently and builds different things and it's the Social-Philosophical-Material content that is realized out of each group of people that brings culture clashes. culture clashes don't come from abstract ideas and attitudes, they come from people realizing clashing material behaviors like Black people are saying slang words like "cook" or whatever it might be and White people actually hate that realized behavior because they prefer another behavior for them to do and everyone to do. a countable group of disabled people realizes the behavior of building ramps and a countable group of able-bodied people wants to realize a different behavior that is most natural in their group. so to get people to stop culture-clashing you actually have to get people to agree on the particular, not the abstract, to actually do and like specific realized behaviors which are not ideas at all but are acts of existing and being in a certain way. if it were true that hatred was an idea, then everyone around the world would immediately love neopronouns and unnecessarily-specific gender labels just because they don't want to be hateful, but that isn't how things work. acceptance and tolerance is always creepily conditioned on how well you can twist and contort normal people to pretend to not be normal and enjoy it as an active way of existing and being and making every daily decision and directing the whole of their Free Will and identity assuming that either of those exist toward the specific end of not being themselves as they were yesterday and being somebody new. it genuinely doesn't make sense to comprehend tolerance through individual freedom, because to truly tolerate someone not just where you're hiding your hatred but at the level where you could become friends is to overwrite and destroy individual identity and freedom, and the only question is whether this is a good thing. I think there's a decent argument to be made that it is, but it is nothing like Existentialism and the way that everybody ever tries to comprehend freedom and The Subject. this is a new philosophy I have no name for. I already named entropicism. maybe I should name this one too. this is, uh... the ego-death philosophy of tolerance and friendship, I don't know how to make that snappy. this is the philosophy where instead of Twilight Sparkle and Rainbow Dash being friends and gelling into a team because they're unique different competing individuals who each separately want freedom, Twilight Sparkle and Rainbow Dash are friends because they agree to become each other in part if never in whole and abandon the parts of them that are harmful to them being friends. under this paradigm, Starlight Glimmer creates her Pol Pot village and it's up to the Ponies in it to either become the new culture in part as they become part of the new culture, or leave, and there's nothing heroic about them leaving as individuals versus staying as a group; the village does not have to exist but if it does the success of the village depends on them working together and not being too selfish to be part of society. I wonder how different that show would be if it was written under that ethos. all those weird repetitive "be yourself" plots in the last season would probably be different and maybe even better written. like just imagine if there was an episode where a Pony was getting mocked and bullied in Ponyville or one of the main locations but it was because they were too much of a free individual to stay in Totally Not Eastern Europe; their own greedy individuality left them with nothing and turned them into a minority somewhere else constantly getting picked on by others. Starlight: I keep trying to change the future but it always turns out terrible! but then all the futures are just the terrible consequences of destroying workers' states that Celestia's kindgom and the major empires caused.
618. Anarchism finishes the task that Liberalism started / Liberalism began the task of anarchism / The task of creating Liberal republics contained the first steps in the task of realizing anarchism as a historical process or transition -> Bookchin says or implies this in The Third Revolution. there may be any number of other places this is said. today I just realized that you can actually create a logical proof that this is false, that isn't a subjective opinion; depending on some models and definitions it is objectively the case that this is false. one way to interpret this proposition is that Liberal-republicanism would never stray from some particular anarchism if only people knew how much of a better idea it was than Liberalism and Bolshevism — that Liberalism was created with values that are basically anarchist values but are incomplete or slightly garbled. another way to interpret it is that Liberalism was never designed to turn into anarchism but the undesigned shape of Liberalism is still ideal for creating anarchism; this interpretation is closer to what Marx says about Marxist transition. the second, Materialist definition of anarchism that anarchists don't usually use is simultaneously stronger and easier to attack. if the shape of Liberalism is ideal for creating anarchism then why does it keep dividing itself as a pattern that repeats across multiple countries into one countable culture of center-Liberalism and one countable nation of abject proto-fascism? that wouldn't seem very designed to create anarchism to me, unless Toryism is secretly just a very hateful anarchism. although if that were true then anarchists would almost have an argument, funny enough. anarchism would definitionally be a trash fire but it would at least be what Liberalism is designed to create.
618. No dictator is an island / Every dictator ever identified derives power from having a socially-linked countable culture of people inside the population that carries out the will of the ruler / Every dictator ever identified is only the nominated representative of a localized countable culture of people who all wanted to have a dictator -> the claim that every single "dictator" ever identified requires a socially-linked subpopulation of supporters — said another way, a countable culture of supporters connected to the ruler — to actually have power, to the point that every time somebody tries to define a dictator it's always the group of people behind the dictator that is the real dictator. I think it's fairly possible to argue this. definitely in fake cases like Bolshevism supposedly having a dictator it applies, but it also applies in real cases like [L] (pronounced [L]) Wasp swarm 1:(-)1:(-)1s and Donald Trump or Ron DeSantis, and Protestants joining up with a Protestant king to squash Catholics. it even applies to the fake case of anarchists and Existentialists turning their backs on Trotsky claiming Trotskyists are a collective dictator that is trying to make them conform to Trotskyism. this seems like a solid model of what causes human beings to label things "dictator" or try to define the concept of a generalized dictator.
618. Marxism is decadent -> wow! sure am having the time of my life analyzing everything through Marxism, putting my feet up and thinking about how every United-States person born today is fucking dead and poised to be massacred by the bourgeoisie for being too "Black" and not strong and White enough to work and everyone gets forced out of work into small businesses or unemployment or another country before anyone can strike and then we regenerate fascism. a real life of luxury. having a fucking beach vacation over here thinking about how to live in limited space limited belongings limited income and limited technology just to survive a world where lots of people have less than me and any risk you take at living remotely modern can suddenly be taken away from you just because you won't be White enough. so what exactly happened to all the stereotypes that all Marxists are Third World peasants being led around by The Pigs and coming home from work to almost-empty stores. those were at least sort of accurate as far as understanding where Marxism comes from. how do you go from that to the conspiracy theory that Gramscians are one hundred copies of Jeffrey Epstein. who even invented the idea that Marxism is decadent and not austere? not Gramsci, not Trotsky, not Malcom X, and not Kim Il-Sung. maybe Kim Il-Sung when those three started having weirdly extravagant banquets. but come on.
     is it jsut me or is it literally only Tory types that say the term decadent and everyone else associates it with constantly being vulgarized in things like chocolate ads to describe something as delicious and cannot take that word seriously.
618. meta-education -> the motif of learning about the merits and application of various kinds of education, without which it won't be effective or meaningful. education: here is how to write an essay. meta-education: here is the actual reason people write essays toward the function of actually being more able to survive and more able to help others, which if you knew you would be far more able to write essays and articles because you would actually know what you were learning and how to learn it independently through doing it.
     education: here is a bunch of stuff Marx said and all the main points in Lenin. meta-education: here is the actual way to apply Leninism in order to survive the absolute hellhole that is First World countries where you might not be able to trust any other individual for anything without them potentially abusing you, and in order to navigate your way through extreme isolation and confusion and lack of meta-education to find ways to survive individually and meet up with the people who need you to over time begin comprehending the operation of the proletariat and movements and how to analyze and fix organizations.
     I am convinced now that universities were actually supposed to give us meta-education at one time and now they are totally failing at it and only crudely dishing out contextless education.
618. Class War: The Jacobin Board Game -> rare to see one of these. at the same time something inside me says, eh, I don't think I'd buy it. there are some complex feelings going on in that that would take a while to unpack. I would have to see a demo first. I'd feel less depression in analyzing the demo.
618. When the proletariat is free there will be no class antagonisms [43] -> the more I've come to compare what Marx said with history that has happened between 1900 and 2020 the more I've come to doubt this — that this statement is simply true without missing important information. I think there's a fundamental role played by separate populations such as countries and towns which wasn't well captured by Marx. and I think this is exemplified really clearly and simply by the emergence of early Trotskyism. you look at Trotsky and Zinoviev and their at-most-five-or-so Marxist theorists that started the conspiracy. they just wanted something to belong to, but the Soviet Union didn't really want them, and subtly pushed them out. (they think it wasn't subtle and was so blatant they could outline it like a conspiracy, but that's simply not historically accurate. if anything there was just an undesigned motion of the whole system of people, the central party and ministries and "bureaucrats" and so forth, slowly nudging them out as they didn't fit in and didn't understand it.) Trotsky's accounts of the Russian revolution are, a bit amusingly, often personal stories centered on him, but there is something specific that sifts out of that. the notion that some people are Marxist theorists but the only thing that strongly connects them to anything is a shared bond to a countable culture. you toss Trotsky out of this utterly miraculous bond made of little more than friendship that should never have been able to happen from the point of view of basic Marxist theory and he's going to be pretty mad. the act of tossing out theorists can cause a population to start slowly dividing as if it were some kind of biological cell sorting all the chromosomes into one side and the other side. I think there was a little bit of intellectual dishonesty in the Soviet Union where they did not want to acknowledge the possibility that even if the country would not naturally divide by regenerating the bourgeoisie your local theorists are the glue holding the country together and the whole thing could crack into multiple countries starting from the top. now, it's not like Trotsky was the keystone and if you get rid of him the whole thing comes crumbling down, but it is like the structure could break anywhere but because Trotsky is one of the weakest links ready to snap it all started there. you listen to these dumb capitalist-aligned sources talk about the Soviet Union and they say things like, the ministries and local party-nations were so bloated, having a level of state businesses is too much government, I couldn't stand having soviets in my town!! and basically none of that truly makes any sense. but when you take a perspective more from inside the country you see there were weaknesses most people don't really talk about. countries themselves are fragile in their own way; sometimes it's the simple notion we can make 300 million eating space-occupying organisms coexist instead of fight each other that's arrogant. and so Liberal-republicans will go thinking that sending 200 hostile representatives to compete against each other won't go badly and won't eventually devolve into blood feuds between sections of Alabama. party-nations are a lot less bad, being made on the basis of cooperation to start with. but sometimes there can still be cracks in them that threaten to tear an otherwise united population apart. there hasn't been enough thought in Marxism about the concept that every population is a material object, just as much as a block of ice is a unique material object and it would be a different collection of material objects if you broke it in two. there's been this consistent motif throughout what seems like all Marxism that for any given collection of people the only thing dividing the proletariat is it being stuck under the bourgeoisie and the simple need for everyone to get out of there will unite everyone permanently. but I honestly doubt it's that simple. how can it be that Trotskyists believe this, and early Marxists believe this, and Stalin believes this, but Trotsky and Stalin can get into a fight about how to free everybody around the world and unify everybody around the world? that shouldn't be possible. unless the content of what they are each trying to do is different even when Trotskyists do become Leninists, or there is something fundamental about two groups currently being separate objects that makes them compete and fight until they are literally one object that physically cannot fight itself any more. the latter one scares me a bit so I tend to focus on the first one hoping that one could be true. the notion that we only need to fix the content of our Marxisms and make them interlock together from the inside is a nice idea. I'm not absolutely certain it's true or the most important thing but it does give me a starting point that's not depressing.
618. 現代日本の階級と社会意識 (1982) / classes in modern Japan and society's consciousness (1982) -> I don't know if this is a good article but I do know it's not every day I find an abstract about Japan in Japanese. (Western Marxism is only a guess but it talked about class consciousness a weird amount compared to the way Lenin and Luxemburg's writings are all about material objects and historical events.)
618. Wikis don't actually make information available / Wikis don't actually make information more available -> because they don't make the products people have to check to "really have sources" affordable. this may make you ask: then why does this one exist? because this is a wiki for original research. the exact thing that's not allowed on Wikipedia. it's nothing like a "source" in the traditional sense of a closed book which is authoritative. it's a laboratory full of conjectures and hypotheses and thoughts which may be dubious at first but which will all ultimately be tested... and the testing will produce "real sources" such as the MDem text, or any other texts people end up drafting on thesis portals. field: graph economics.
618. Soap method -> this is a method for structuring Christian bible study. unironically? Christians do come up with great ideas sometimes. I feel like this would be a lot of fun to do to deconstruct bible verses and get completely secular lessons out of miscellaneous texts. scripture: love your neighbor. observation: this is supposed to prevent wars but it never does. hope: Christians learn to love the Soviet Union and decide the Cold War was not Christian. application: be wary of Christians trying to unify everybody against the proletariat.
     scripture: Stalin let the country fill up with bureaucrats. observation: you yourself admit he didn't, so why pin the blame on things that happened later? hope: that Trotskyists realize that not having impossible standards leads to harmony. application: try to nudge Trotskyists toward the concept of direct involvement in things they couldn't do because the bureaucrats did it better. worst case they realize they screwed up and finally drop it. best case they actually start investigating the on-the-ground "Beast" structure of countries and understanding it.
618. comrade (mathematics) -> this is very close to becoming an actual term. like, the more I pick at graphs and Lattice models and Beast-based graphs, the more it becomes likely there will be a mathematical definition of what kinds of graph links stay and which ones break. it makes total sense in my head. but it's also hilarious. there would be a certain great comedy in titling an entire chapter of the MDem book "Comrade (mathematics)", like it walked straight out of a weird alternate Wikipedia from a different timeline.
618. Being Russian has no political character / Being Chinese has no political character -> variations of this statement are always said inside First-World countries but never actually applied to other countries sharing the same world with them. practically speaking, whenever anybody inside the First World talks about China it will usually be with contempt that Chinese people even get to have a republic and aren't somehow a United States colony.
618. a regular Arab, not an evil one -> I accidentally said a microaggression as a teenager. the gist of it went something like "a person from some Middle Eastern country, only they're just like us". this was my confused attempt to not be racist by invoking anti-essentialism and trying to explain in a world where my relatives were always saying terribly racist and essentialist-sounding things that other groups of people contained all the things that ours did. some progressive-raised kids from a progressive city took it super duper badly, and this left me really confused because I wasn't the kind of person that casually said all the racist things my parents did. every time my family members were making racist jokes I tended to try to comprehend other groups of people as people and explain things about them to my family members which would leave them really bored and uninterested. when I became an adult this vast and yet very lukewarm movement for what appeared to be postcolonial anarchism was kicking up everywhere. suddenly the root of all evil was language and it didn't matter what choices you made in your life or what you did to others as long as you Platformed Minorities and Made Media Representation and every day you said the right language. I got constantly kicked and kicked and kicked for not being born instantly knowing the right phrasings and framings of things, even though whenever I would say things correctly it wouldn't actually help anyone and it would just result in my family members and all the Tories getting super mad at me. everything about this movement or cluster of movements was about things you could only do if you were the bourgeoisie, while it was like if you were the proletariat you'd only get endlessly abused by absolutely everybody everywhere because you couldn't do the important capitalist things that would fix society. I felt really bad. I stopped trying to interact with people or make friends because the way people would get stuck to general-sense psychoanalysis and Vote Vote Vote and pounding everyone for the wrong language but had no ability to help each other survive or brave towns of Tories or not end up stuck deep in their houses unable to work or go out in public and it was all just "All Human Should Behave Correct Way With No Help Strong Squash Bad Guy" had me feeling sick. I felt so shit about being born and being in society and everything I stopped really caring if anyone would like me or forgive me for not being perfect. I retreated into my hole and read a lot of stuff just to try to figure out what had happened. I wasn't angry at anybody because to be honest I didn't feel like I deserved to be angry, LGBT+black&brown were out there being the bourgeoisie and being legal experts and doing things but no matter how not-awful I was or how many thousands of hours I had spent creating and learning and trying to be productive I hadn't given anything back to the world. determined just to understand what had happened, I read and read and read things, trying to make everything everyone had ever said go together and not be contradictory any more. and, well... long after all my emotions were dead and I could only experience empathy with anyone through proposition-based logic, my working conclusion is that the top way people teach each other not to be racist is essentially to say "other countries are like us rather than flat bad guys". it's literally just, the reason people tell each other to read fiction as education is that fiction keeps showing them over and over examples of people being normal in multiple countries, practically the same exact things over and over but different country now. do you see why I'm dead inside? it's like the only difference between "a regular Arab, not an evil one" and the generally accepted way people teach fiction to each other is not even what tone the thing is said in but whether a particular kind of postcolonial anarchist is analyzing and framing the teaching process. that's it. thanks to the difficulty of predicting individuals and the prevalence of false positives, the difference between microaggressions and non-microaggressions often hinges on the person diagnosing them rather than the actual subject of the diagnosis.
618. If people in local-states can live in harmony in Germany, why was there colonialism? -> the error here is that people weren't actually living in harmony in Europe. European countries far smaller than the U.S. fought each other in World War I. prior to the United States England was breaking into Protestant and Catholic nations failing to live in harmony. so populations not living in harmony and trying to kill or conquer each other started well before colonies were created on new continents. worse, that isn't the hopeful thing some postcolonial theories want to make it into where all feudalism equals colonialism and therefore anarchism can surely fix it. like, if anarchism was really that easy it would have been discovered in the year 1,000 and we'd be already reading about the wars between Protestants and anarchists in history books. now that does sound like a severely interesting history book but it sadly doesn't exist.
618. Every incorrect progressive theory produces irony -> it's easy to notice this but not common to notice why it happens.
618. Liberalism is postcolonial relative to medieval empires -> I would say this is true, although there's a huge drawback as well as a gain. medieval empires ordered countable populations into single populations. there were costs to that. but at the same time, the creation of Liberal-republicanism, "freedom", and "democracy" came at the cost of allowing any two groups of people to postcolonialize each other and tear out of each other's government if they are willing or eager to risk going to war and killing each other's people. anarchists and Liberal-republicans who have coopted anarchism to bash China seem totally unaware of this tradeoff.
618. Graph economics appeals to Trotskyists / It's easier to pitch graph economics to Trotskyists -> seems logically true but I don't know if it's really true. might also be true for middle-of-the road Maoists that aren't against Deng Xiaoping Thought / "revolutionary Dengists".
618. Any time someone stops a mining project it can be taken to the Third World -> makes the ethics of mining complicated. is it important to actually create mines in the United States if it was known they could prevent a Third World mine?
618. Every novel is a thought experiment / Every work of fiction is a thought experiment / Fiction is to nonfiction as pictures are to words -> relatively self evident. I think even Existentialists would very nearly agree with this, the only gap being that they would insist that fictional narratives are thought experiments about individual lives rather than about societies.
618. Cuba can't succeed in isolation; Cuba building a Deng process which in other cases is typically used to create links to other countries is bad; these two statements are contradictory -> maybe this point is clearer with China or Vietnam, but the Deng process is kind of the same phenomenon in all cases. it's the act of building up industry and the bourgeoisie specifically as a national defense against global empire and Liberal-republican prejudices against "dictatorial" Third-World countries.
9990. Wikipedia is a walled garden -> one of the bits of absolute stupidity you hear out of anarchists that don't understand the set versus atom distinction. I won't be nice about this because it prevents any of the things which would actually be able to stop capitalism by realizing anarchism. if you want to be an anarchist then you have to believe in anarchist transition methods that work. I'm not sorry, this is just stupid.
9991. Everything decentralized is itself centralized -> one of my biggest beefs with most anarchist projects on the internet. from everything I've seen it seems like a lot of anarchists are incredibly bad at set theory. a lot of them really don't understand the problem of distinguishing a set from an atomic data structure, or the notion that what they were really fighting is atomic data structures and when you are talking about human beings atomic elements are inevitable — worse yet, the more you break things up the more inevitably you have to deal with highly-specific graph nodes or points in space people absolutely have to use and their failure rates.
618. U.S. people compete over the means of citizenship
618. Wizards are the devil / Wizards are The Opposer -> applies to D&D, Harry Potter
618. Wizards can be anything
618. An equation is an algebraic process -> so it's called algebra because an equation contains objects and operations? is that it. marking this one F2 would be embarrassing, though it would be perfectly acceptable to do something like that
618. The Middle Way
618. Dusk of Dawn
618. The Dragon Rider Who Saved the World
618. affective place identity [44]
618. the three sisters -> agricultural technique in which three specific plants can wind together, although they are not just any plants
618. Trofim Lysenko -> his swatch is orange because he was culturally aligned with Communism but not well-versed in what is considered science today, mirroring the way Trotsky treated Marxism.
618. Any plants can intertwine together -> the three sisters + Lysenko = this.
618. Lysenko isn't what people thought
618. Lysenko made a serious error -> the two are not mutually exclusive.
618. Lysenko is the Mengele of plants -> not really true. he was just wrong. ......hang on. if it is so bad for Lysenko to try to design the world of agriculture then why is everybody an Idealist that believes ideas can change the United States in any direction people think of. those two things should be the exact same kind of process. culture is solely made up + mainstream Marxist-Leninist error / Marxist error = this
618. this is incredibly silly -> Problem Sleuth.
618. Psychoanalysis makes freedom imperial / Psychoanalysis turns freedom colonial -> I don't think this is actually controversial in anarchism, depending on which anarchism you ask. so this one can be charcoal.
618. Anyone offended at Stalin is contributing to Whiteness / People who are offended by Stalin might be contributing to Whiteness -> is this what it takes to wake people up. it's like. Gramscianism and anarchism have been going on and on about this thing called "Whiteness" but they keep defining it in Idealist terms to where although they claim you are supposed to "get rid of it" basically you can take Whiteness and dust it off and make it all new then it would be just fine. but I think that concept is practically tested the moment you mention any of a particular category of things including Stalin. anyone who gets instantly offended at Stalin and wouldn't consider for a second that he could be protecting his population from First-World empire and Whiteness might in fact be a part of Whiteness. even a big long appropriated Marxist text about racism won't necessarily change that people get recruited to racism through cover stories which have been selected by people who are already racist every moment of every day and every moment they are conscious who carefully pick things that don't look like racism and which aren't connected directly to the racist history and choices and culture behind picking them but instead are consequences of racism that can be written off as "not really" racism per se.
618. Gravity accelerates everything at the same rate -> part of general relativity
618. How do scientists predict large-scale patterns when they don't know any of the smaller things inside? -> like how did Einstein know that things contort moving near the speed of light and gain mass if we don't know what gravity is. I think sometimes one of the answers is that these things are simple observations instead of predictions.
618. The Giver (graphic novel)
618. S the first time I saw red -> it is so ironic that like this is a book about Trotsky banning the color red. say that out loud. ???
618. How do you know what action goes on which slider?
618. God leadeth the righteous and the wicked he destroyeth (1 Nephi 17:36) / TheWickedHeDestroyeth -> when religions are transparent about the purpose of religion
618. Dialectical systems are also machines / Calling dialectical systems machines makes them appealing / People will drop mechanical materialism if we only redefine machines to also mean organic and evolving systems -> a weird bit of hidden logic inside schizoanalysis which is worth stopping and examining.
618. All people have hopes and dreams / We all have hopes and dreams (all human individuals separately in parallel) -> why did the video that brought this up have to pull an Ultraman Geed (pronounced Geed). and just. "even if you're a boring office worker you're hoping for something just by going to work". are you? or are you preserving empire and leaving ten other Japanese people in their basements? the problem with statements like this is always the weasel word "we".
618. Economics is based on scarce houses / Liberal-republican economics is based on scarce houses -> quite honestly? I think this gets marked false for the wrong reasons. I think what really happens is economics is based on scarce gold bars or scarce production-acts while the number of houses is separate and irrelevant to what scarcity even practically is and has been. products aren't even scarce, partly because people will swap out non-fungible things for each other in a way that is hard to measure. people will use old things. people will use one thing for the other thing. in the early United States people could just claim land and it wasn't scarce yet. even now, the United States has a great land area. so scarcity of land was created by giving plots of land "brains" and letting them say no. The Subject caused land to be available exactly when it wants to form a graph connection. suddenly it started to become that every product within supply chains was synonymous with arrangements of people and the availability of people-graphs — with these diminishing pyramids of how much choice people actually have in being part of a people-graph. that's the really dumb thing about the cybernetics research group — if capitalism were actually about "time" or decision-making, then you wouldn't be able to stop it because it would have taken up all your Free Will and decision-making ability before you could even think about stopping it and build a cybernetics research group. Free Will and the ability to affect history are incidental to capitalism, which is why people can resist it no matter how much it takes away people's "time" and "control".
618. Whiteness is society / "We live in a society" and "get rid of Whiteness-prejudice" are not compatible -> the claim that when Gramscians try to infiltrate society and change "culture", the reason they have trouble is that society is actually a material object they are trying to drill into that resists the drilling. Whiteness is a physical wad of bigots, not an idea.
618. narrative about prejudice / narrative attempting to portray prejudice
618. narrative attempting to portray subpopulational prejudice
618. narrative attempting to portray national prejudice
618. narrative attempting to portray multi-nation-axis prejudice / narrative attempting to portray Global North versus Global South prejudice -> a multi-nation axis or international Filament effect is a collection of aligned nations that beat up other nations they believe to be threatening the multi-nation axis, such as the three First-World fascisms of World War II, or the allied powers into the Cold War.
618. What does democracy govern?
618. dragons resisting kingdom
618. medieval revolution as Trotskyite conspiracy -> there is this weird motif in fiction that like, all resistance against governments that people don't fit into is exactly the same regardless of historical period, regardless of anything. it gets really telling when real memoirs based on anecdotes of defectors from workers' states sound just like made up medieval stories of resistance with little difference.
618. Che ran the bank / Che Guevara ran the bank -> implication that workers' states don't hire by experience when in reality they do. now, is this a good thing or a bad thing? that's often not clear. we know "meritocracy" is a dumb concept because it's the opposite of democracy; kingdoms were meritocratic, the Chinese empire was meritocratic, a "Pig state" is meritocratic. but how do you actually apply that to create a sensible workers' state?
618. I confess to awesome feats / I confess but my crime was awesome / We did it! (celebratory remark deliberately phrased as confession) -> Zinoviev. probably also a common motif in fiction, yet one which usually has a totally different framing of generally being bad. fiction is surprisingly reactionary sometimes just by virtue of believing in general-sense psychoanalysis / natural crimes.
618. You will never get in trouble for having literature that looks anticommunist -> this is why I spend so much time analyzing capitalist books, and anticommunist memoirs. so it becomes impossible to tell who's a Communist just based on what books they have.
618. mathematical singularity
618. Any static model can have a singularity
618. Singularities represent the ends of a system / Singularities generally represent a particular system of parts ceasing to exist, even if only in terms of a spatial boundary
618. An AI singularity graph could level off / A graph containing an AI singularity could instead level off
618. digital-only product
618. Any product that must be bought new is not abundant
618. Any used product is somewhat abundant / Any product that that can be bought used is abundant / Any product that that can be bought used is at some level of abundance
618. Any change to car production takes decades to affect roads -> as long as everyone has to buy a vehicle people that practically people can barely afford, people will keep buying used cars and it will take some 10-15 years for people to actually start using electric cars.
618. Any change to book production takes years to affect books -> recently there was a controversy about how utterly badly Warriors treated disabled characters. fans did their small part to try to make it "obvious" that the book should be revised. the publisher did not do anything. but the worst thing is that in general, people who want to read the greatest amount of books get used books. many library books are actually used books rather than new books. thrift stores are full of used books; the more people are born and the more suburbs are created, the more it will be that used book stores are closer and more effective to go to than new book stores. any serious plan involving the future has to think seriously about the fact that people are going to be reading old books and books cannot be changed. the only realistic strategy is to encourage people to read bad books anyway and teach them what information in books is wrong. a simple used book store obsoletes the postmodern proposition basically. really, used bookstores obsolete all "empirio-critical" or positivist philosophies.
618. Used book stores destroy positivism / Understanding old books and not falling for misinformation requires looking beyond one's immediate experience and perceiving the world through models
618. For the United States to have state businesses the Democratic Party would have to own them -> one possible conclusion of realizing that countries contain plural subpopulations. people who want to side with the constant separation and churn of businesses will always group into the Republican Party or Libertarian party, etc. because no individual in the United States is actually apolitical or nonpartisan, the total space to work with for transitioning the country is basically the Democratic party or any new progressive electoral party that would pop up; whenever people are so much as Christians who tend to clump together with Christians against gay people they won't be receptive to creating a workers' state, such that although the Democratic Party is unusable it also paradoxically contains the only people who are usable. the bourgeois parties are actual national divisions of the country akin to the 14 union republics of the Soviet Union. but each of those developed a central party-nation and state businesses. hence this claim.
618. To maintain anti-discrimination laws the Democratic Party must own businesses -> derived Gramscian proposition. in the United States, one of the chief reasons for anyone to be a progressive at all (red, charcoal, blue, of any color) is just to push for anti-discrimination laws in businesses and hope that will make them not be bigoted (it won't, but still, everyone is really convinced it will). what this really amounts to is wanting a "business constitution" that all businesses have to follow the same way all local-states in the United States have to follow the U.S. Constitution. to practically secure a business constitution what you'd have to do is hand all the businesses that are going to follow it to the Democratic Party as state businesses, so that whether it owns them monetarily it will own them geographically. under some arrangement like that it would actually be possible to make businesses follow a business constitution, because if they refuse to follow it it would be possible to kick them out of the structure and hand them over to the Republican Party.
618. Totalitarianism either exists for all ideologies or none / Totalitarianism either exists for all republican ideologies or no republican ideologies / Center-Liberal neutrality can be extreme / There can be too much center-Liberal republicanism / If totalitarianism is real, it is possible for there to be center-Liberal totalitarianism (although if it is not real, there is not) -> the whole bogus concept of the "center-Liberal middle way" is flat-out false when you think about it enough and when you observe real-life events. if everything is defined by the existence of extremes (and moderation), then the mere realization of ideologies from nothing is defined by extremes, and the realization of ideologies starting at one person and colliding with another person of a different ideology is defined by extremes. the thing that really made this obvious for me was thinking about microdistricts and how to some people microdistricts are oppressive. if you think that way, then you think Freedom is the ability for any individual to grow as a separate organism and expand in any direction regardless of the consequences to other people. when millions of people take this position it typically creates Liberalism. but every ideology realizes. every ideology realizes specifically itself as a countable concept, and realizes more of itself the more it exists. if Liberal-republicanism exists and exists and exists and squashes everything that's not Liberal-republicanism under the guise of Freedom, it doesn't stop growing, and it just keeps realizing more and more Liberalism on top of Liberalism, vertically, going from just a little Liberalism to Liberalism Liberalism Liberalism Liberalism in stacks and stacks and stacks. effectively, the longer Liberalism goes, the more it seeks to control people and make them do what Liberalism wants them to do, extending down into individual lives and the fine tiny-scale structure of the country and getting really really specific about what every little bit of it has to be. and when a republic gets ridiculously specific, what is the difference between that and people's popular conception of "totalitarianism"? you might be able to claim the same for Bolshevism, but that doesn't allow you to deny the possibility that Liberalism does it and when Liberalism does it that is unacceptable. the only way you can get out of that contradiction, that Liberalism should be unacceptable under Liberalism, is to conclude that totalitarianism doesn't exist and what you were actually complaining about is simply that you don't like Bolshevism or rightfully don't like European fascism. because when you have Bolshevism you just get more and more Bolshevism with more and more fine details, because that's the content of Bolshevism. it really seems that the exact same thing is true of Liberalism. that we all keep realizing more and more Liberalism than there was before because for some reason everybody wants the population to develop and develop into Liberalism so they all continuously realize Liberalism and enforce everyone turning into the bourgeoisie. (I believe this is because inside it all people are actually participating in and regenerating Existentialism and getting Liberalism as an emergent effect.)
618. If attacking religion is bad, then attacking people's faith in Donald Trump is also bad -> what becomes logically true if you strictly hold that it is wrong to tell people religion is not materially true. it's bad to tell people that religion is not accurate to reality because that's always, inevitably a microaggression against countable cultures, and microaggressions are unthinkable? okay, let's roll with that. sociologically, people's fascination with political candidates serves a very similar role to religion, grouping them into countable cultures and giving them something to hope for by giving them other people to support them and someone to lead them as a group. it's the sheer act of putting people into a group which has the material power to fight and crush other groups that gives people hope; said another way, any act of hiding in a group to gain hope is an act of magic ritual. it can be argued that magic ritual is sacred in the sense that anyone who does not respect it is simply bashing countable cultures and refusing to be friends with them and understand their point of view. therefore, when people band together behind Donald Trump to protect them from progressives, listen to Fox News, and get together to push demographics out of everywhere and out of the United States, all of that must be understood as an indispensable cultural tradition. this statement is contradictory, of course. if all religions and spiritualities are indispensable cultural traditions, but one of them is built on oppressing the others, but it's still an indispensable cultural tradition in practice, then allowing religion naturally leads to religion itself forcefully extincting religion and magic ritual — just because it is religion. tolerance and "moderation" are not a substitute for historical materialism and the material study of ongoing interaction between populations, and really never have been.
618. People can only live in nations or supranational federations / People either live in nations or supranational federations; pluralistic nations do not actually exist -> the claim that although the United States is doomed, it can stay standing and remain a republic by subdividing itself to become a supranational federation with two internal national governments. this seems like a logical inevitability if you want any subpopulation of the United States to truly be held responsible for populational crimes or to receive reparations. you basically have to have a Black government covering some geographical region or political subpopulation people register to that has a Black government budget that takes in the reparations and builds local programs. otherwise there's nothing to pay reparations to which will actually matter; a "systemic" problem needs an actual system to take action, which requires the system to realize itself into a physical structure which can take control of the system, or the same system keeps going and going. I wish the United States would drop the concept that "systemic" problems are made of ideas and attitudes when that is not at all what "system" usually means, and what it almost always suggests is an arrangement of material moving parts which is distinguishable from other arrangements of moving parts. if all "systems" are just clouds of individuals they aren't distinct from each other as systems and you can't change them. well, unless you literally forcibly change ethnicities and demographics themselves. given that clouds of individuals are equivalent to countable cultures.
618. Within Liberal republics, Communists are treated with cultural assimilation and social darwinism -> this results in anarchism becoming prevalent because it survives selection pressures.
618. Can a Black cop shoot a White cop to prevent a killing? / If a White cop can shoot a Black thief, can another cop shoot a White cop to save the life of a Black thief so the thief can go peacefully to prison? -> this thought experiment is intended in a moral sense, not a legal sense of case law; it's okay to discuss case law for comparison purposes though. this is the real question that I have never seen anyone ask: what actually gives anyone the right to kill a criminal, and where exactly does it end? say a brown cop does shoot a White cop to save a Black thief. another White cop is going to try to shoot the brown cop before the brown cop gets the White cop. populations hurt each other back and forth and populations kill populations, it would seem.
618. South Park is freedom of criticism / South Park getting to make a corporate product is freedom of speech and criticism -> so many people are praising this incident of South Park challenging Donald Trump but it's like... what kind of Western-Marxism are you people getting at. that's a tiny chunk of the country having the ability to challenge the country's own president while most people can't do anything. a tiny chunk of the country with the ability to surround itself with an army of lawyers gets to challenge the president while regular people have to hide from their own relatives and neighbors and town business owners to avoid being involved in an imminent blood feud between the Republican-party nation and the Democratic-party nation which is not well contained by any form of Liberal-republican law and is barely being contained whatsoever by culture itself and "Term:culturocracy". why does anyone think this is a victory for anything. like, anything. when I see this incident I wanna go into a South Park voice and South-Park the South Park incident.
618. Black lion or white lion, any republic is okay if it promotes a thriving White countable culture / Black lion or white lion, any republic is okay if it promotes a thriving Protestant-specific nation (England) -> the proposition that seems to define Toryism versus Liberal-republicanism. Tories do not require democracy as long as all the individuals in the population somehow end up happy with it. Liberal-republicans require Liberal-republican democracy at the cost that somebody must rule over all the countable cultures of a national population and tell them how to be a countable culture. is this inherently colonial, and do we have to deal with the contradiction that fascism and anarchism are both postcolonial whether we like it or not? that remains to be seen.
618. Racism comes from global empire / Racism comes from colonialism (postcolonial theories, anarchism, Existentialist-Structuralist tradition) / Racism is the shovel dream of global empire or imperial colonies (meta-Marxism) -> true, but an incomplete story.
618. Tiny-scale processes create large-scale colonialism / Tiny-scale processes create large-scale global empire (colonialism; imperialism; imperial colonies) / Tiny-scale processes can be colonial / Colonialism can exist as tiny-scale processes before it is connected to a large country population or the entire past history of a country -> chapter two of the three-chapter incomplete story.
618. Macro-colonialism comes from micro-colonialism / Small-scale material processes of colonialism create large-scale processes of colonialism which then after each step result in colonial-racism or alterity -> the Hyper-Materialist angle, where tiny-scale things that stack up to bigger things are material processes or arrangements of objects, not "ideas".
618. The only tiny-scale processes that create colonialism are ideas in our heads -> it's strange how almost every Idealist statement eventually turns charcoal; it's like the more Idealist something gets the more anarchist it gets.
618. Gentrification is colonial / Gentrification is an empire of some sort (colonialism; imperialism; small-scale empire; socioempire) / Gentrification comes from either material colonial mechanisms or colonial ideas, but the choice of the two is unspecified -> Black anti-racist movements imply this. I pretty much agree with this. it's an accurate statement. the only real question is in what way and in particular by what material mechanism this is true. you have a whole lot of theories in the United States wanting to pin the blame on ideas, when I'm nearly convinced it's material mechanisms and the material dynamics of whole groups of people plus eating-and-space-occupying individuals simply existing.
618. Gentrification is made of attitudes / Gentrification equals alterity / Gentrification is colonial-racism / Gentrification is an empire of some sort which is very specifically made out of ideas and attitudes
618. Gentrification is made of humans / Gentrification equals socioempire / Gentrification is an empire of some sort which is very specifically made out of material processes that people rationalize after the fact with racist attitudes -> to say that gentrification is "made of humans" is not to say that people do not need to be responsible for it, although it is to say that undesigned processes are creating it and no intelligent entity intentionally pressed the "create gentrification" button. this is the concept that things can happen in a random manner outside your conscious control and you can still ultimately be responsible for having to clean them up; this is the concept that even if a real dog ate your homework you still have to redo the homework.
618. All Existentialist theories of multiculturalism are rooted in capitalists / All Existentialist-Structuralist and Liberal-republican theories of the interactions between countable cultures are rooted in capitalism -> color swatch references: class analysis / proposition against the bourgeoisie. something I keep noticing over and over whenever I try to investigate "general-sense psychoanalysis", or postcolonial theory definitions of "colonialism", or Western Marxist concepts of "institutions". every one of them breaks down to this same problem of a small cluster of bourgeoisie trying to fix the entire world by knowing how to run their teeny tiny local territory. every one of them! some days "meta-Marxism" is almost just synonymous with "exposing purported Marxisms as a cluster of bourgeoisie". but in its own way that kind of just supports the hypothesis that meta-Marxism could be useful, if the big thing to remember with the original Marxism has always been "don't get fooled by the bourgeoisie, don't let the bourgeoisie have power". maybe the things you find with meta-Marxism are a little boring, and something Lenin would have been able to figure out. maybe that's a good thing, and really just shows we're ending up on track.
618. What do postcolonial theories intend to achieve? / What do postcolonial theories define as colonialism, how do they intend to end it, and what do they intend to put in place of it to prevent it from coming back? -> a vast number of people in the United States are convinced this question is simple when nothing could be further from the truth. postcolonial theories are like this weird trick to avoid ever having to talk about the plurality of different possible civilizations and kinds of histories in order to supposedly stop "colonialism" as fast as possible without debate. but in the end there's a great irony in it, an irony in utterly squashing plurality in terms of the landscape of possible progressive theories and factions that could stop the destruction of people-groups to supposedly defend plurality in terms of people-groups. postcolonial theories are very... nationalistic. they begin with this actually gigantic leap that "Whiteness" actually even unites White people and White people even belong to the same population where all the people in it could even take orders from each other. in reality there are at least two totally separate Whitenesses. the United States North was one Whiteness and the United States South was a second Whiteness; the Republican Party is one Whiteness and the Democratic party is a second Whiteness. of course, both of them are bad. and just like with gender, there may genuinely exist people who don't belong to either countable culture. they may have their own form of Whiteness and their own brand of terrible, but that doesn't mean they're literally part of the two main Whitenesses or will go along with what they say.
618. Postcolonial theories are not distinct from anarchism / There is no serious difference between postcolonial frameworks and anarchisms apart from level of education and academic language -> in general it would seem that postcolonial theories are the pre-realization framework and Anarchisms (charcoal-tinted workers' states) are the Social-Philosophical-Material System the framework is meant to realize. I'm not totally positive on that. but after seeing people on a toki pona related forum literally hyper-correct "pre-industrial societies in general" to "postcolonial societies" it sure is hard not to think that in practice "postcolonial" is just a synonym or euphemism for anarchism.
618. A coherent postcolonial theory would attack psychoanalysis / If postcolonial theories were coherent, they would attack psychoanalysis / If postcolonial theories made sense, they would attack psychoanalysis -> the claim that because general-sense psychoanalysis is assimilatory, postcolonial theories should logically be obligated to tear it apart. if schizoanalysis is considered a general-sense postcolonial theory, then they already do. so in that regard it holds up; at least one postcolonial theory in existence is coherent.
618. A coherent postcolonial theory would tear apart anarchisms attacking each other -> if postcolonial theories allow anarchisms to re-create the same patterns that make people want anarchisms in the first place, then logically speaking postcolonial theories have not done their job.
618. In a century, Liberalism will ban postcolonial theories / If Liberal-republicanism continues for another century, postcolonial theories will be banned -> the claim that because Liberal-republicanism is a sociophilosophy based on forcibly assimilating individuals into some particular population — which may be "the United States", or "the axis of First-World Liberal-republican countries", etc. — if Liberal-republicanism continues into the year 2135, one particular First-World country will ban postcolonial theories as some sort of heresy. "ban" means "suppress and eradicate", and does not specifically refer to legal or judicial measures. this would look something like First World countable cultures assigning postcolonial theories a similar status as Communism.
618. Swatches are basically difficulty levels / Swatch colors are basically difficulty levels -> silly subjective proposition about this wiki's ideology classification system. crimson propositions are nightmare difficulty. strawberry propositions are very-hard difficulty. orange propositions are hard difficulty. blue propositions are easy difficulty. charcoal propositions range from very-easy to very-hard. ...maybe there should be actual Items rating how plausibly difficult each individual proposition would be to notice or falsify. beyond being able to test this one silly thought empirically it would give some very important context
618. Wiki Categories can be endlessly specific / Category pages can be as ridiculously specific as needed / micro-category proposition -> tentative project policy.
618. Disambiguation pages should be Categories -> tentative project policy. instead of bothering with a special "disambiguation page" construct, just use Categories; when using micro-categories it only makes sense. example: Existentialist monomyth ontology
618. I've been Frantz-Fanon'd -> violet because of the theme of all-directional chunk competition as opposed to class unity.
618. Individual institutions are individuals
618. Institutional action is individual action
618. Bolshevism is nonviolent until capitalists attack it -> I think Che Guevara may be what got people confused about this. this isn't to say he isn't a Marxist, or not a Leninist — just maybe not a mainstream one. it's complicated.
618. Warriors and fascism / Warriors and the 14 characteristics of fascism
618. ShadowClan is coded as a Third World country to ThunderClan's First World country / ShadowClan is coded as minorities on public assistance / ShadowClan is coded as the Taliban -> this sounds absolutely wild at first but I'd totally believe at least one of these being true
618. Failure to integrate the United States Black population into an ideology is racism, assuming the ideology is about the United States -> straightforward. until the day it happens that nearly all Black people believe in anarchism and a surrounding population of Communists doesn't. what is one supposed to do then? without meta-Marxism I don't think there's a good answer. (it's worth noting that a few people that immigrate from Africa or live in the region don't seem to get stuck in this trap. some of them seem to have the only good version of Western-Marxism I've ever seen. goes to show that people that live in the Third World are statistically likely to believe different things from people who live in the First World.)
618. Center-Liberalism would work best if the United States took over every country and became a global nation -> a haunting possibility, but I think you could argue it using the United States constitution and a bit of general-sense psychoanalysis. and this is why I don't like Liberal-republicanism.
618. Trotskyists secretly want to restore the British Empire as a republic / The logical result of Trotskyist principles is to restore the British Empire as a republic -> they'll certainly deny it. but consider the background: A) Trotskyists don't like borders B) Trotskyists don't like anything Third World countries do (yes, that's a hyperbole) C) Trotskyists like their own population and think they can organize the workers inside it D) Trotskyists want to create a workers' state E) some Trotskyists have given up on a Fourth International
618. Pluralistic societies are colonial / The concept of a "pluralistic society" specific to center-Liberalism requires subpopulations to be forced to be part of a society -> derived postcolonial proposition. this is the most fundamental assumption in like every philosophy in existence that it seems like everyone misses every time: that populations are part of "a society" or "our society" at all and we know for sure what the borders or gaps between populations even are.
618. artisanal production / Artisanal Production (signifier case; MDem 4.3) / early capitalism or small capitalism (Marx) -> the non-fictional motif of a town or "market" of people consisting of single-person businesses which may be highly skilled, but much more importantly than that, are totally self-contained and cannot have any employees.
618. polyartisanal production -> the non-fictional motif of a corporation actually consisting of many tiny businesses barely bound together rather than consisting of workers who genuinely could not exist as workers without an employer. Uber is one of the most prototypical examples. the Soviet Union may have been guilty of this at times.
618. Capitalism does not inherently get rid of violence over territory and resources; it pushes people who have not yet secured territory to commit more on its fringes / ends-of-the-earth effect (commerce, wealth) -> in one sense I feel like a lot of "general-sense psychoanalysis" comes directly from capitalism, from capitalists acting as an inherent government over tiny territories before any larger state-population/republic exists, and thinking that stable property-having equates to moral decisions and "good character".
618. Cultures separate due to their internal content / Countable cultures separate due to their internal content -> A) FNaF comes out with various series of books, some people love them, some people hate them, people start forming separate circles. B) the internal content of Trotskyism is not the same as mainstream Marxism-Leninism, which ultimately led the Social-Philosophical-System of Trotskyism to fight against it and act like it was oppressed.
618. The Shuteyes -> my favorite World War II era metaphor which is the only anticommunist fable or "wartime fable" I like totally unironically. like basically no other book I have ever seen, this story didn't take an ideological side against Communism, and genuinely stood on the fence. the entire premise is that instead of there being buffer states that nazis and Communists are fighting over, some people get whisked away to a mysterious realm called Alert where nobody is ever allowed to sleep and arbitrary groups of people compete in team sports as The Reds and The Browns. the really genius thing about it is that as a kid I didn't even have any idea what these names were referring to. this book managed to have enough of a backbone that unlike most "dystopian fiction" I never figured out what it was talking about purely by virtue of its themes until after I was a lot older and knew a bunch more history.
618. the world of Alert -> the motif of a world where people cannot rest because there are constant disruptions from some kind of larger outside civilization which behaves similarly to one of the great powers of World War II or the Cold War. the disruptor can be portrayed very metaphorically and poetically to where it appears to come from inside or doesn't look anything like its inspiration, as long as the story is clearly a metaphor for large civilizations fighting over buffer states. this motif may also be used to code real-world scenarios that closely mirror fictional "worlds of Alert".
618. Tribes contain bureaucracy -> that slowfactory video was the weirdest thing. "we're better because we choose not to continue to be a corporation after our task." "we don't choose to continue to be a corporation because to stop colonialism we can't believe in bureaucracy". but older forms of society aren't inherently pure. in tribal populations for instance, there can be "bureaucratic" structures like a circle of elders. that was the entire premise of The Giver: that if you simplify society in the name of Communism that would (supposedly) cause it to revert to an earlier form and create an elder council that made all the decisions. humanity did not enter modernity because it created bureaucracy.
618. If White people just unlearn everything, they begin colonizing Third World culture itself -> don't know if this proposition is true but it definitely comes to mind when I hear postcolonial theorists talk. imagine you send ten White people to learn from an indigenous population and come back and build an anarchism. maybe there will be nothing bad about that. but then imagine you have 100,000 White people somehow do the same thing. if they were literally standing next to the indigenous population, in a small fraction of cases they'd outnumber it. at a certain point of everybody converting to better "cultural assumptions" I feel like you'd still end up with competition between populations on the level of populational will and oppression, where small populations still have issues they're complaining about in regard to large populations doing things that make them feel Not Free. I feel like the mere existence of a huge population and a small population is colonialism to some extent ­— particularly if you want to say "colonialism" is largely defined as prejudice and populations hating each other. I feel like you could have a world where every White person transitioned to postcolonial anarchism and the indigenous populations were still experiencing racism, and maybe even upset that White people are trying to be part of a single countable culture while marginalizing other parts of it almost exactly the way people assert everyone in Liberal-republicanism is part of the same society and then marginalize people out of society.
618. Existentialism is unfit for human consumption
618. Realizing existentialism eventually produces Toryism and fascism / Realizing the fiction of Existentialism-Structuralism piled up in all the language and definitions in Existentialist texts eventually produces Toryism and fascism (structuralist framing)
618. Free buses don't lead to Bolshevism -> I may have accidentally implied they did once, oops. I definitely didn't mean to imply that. but this is what happens when absolutely everybody around you is anarchy-brained and convinced the United States will totally avoid any shred of Marxism and purely go through a transition to Anarchism. it was in the entries about "Red Structuralism" (Existentialism-Structuralism), where I said something to the effect that Existentialists were trying to do absolutely everything that would happen in an active transition through socialism before creating a workers' state and it was an open question whether that could in fact potentially work. although the subtext below that statement, especially if I'd said the same thing today, was that you might end up with a uniquely Anarchist, charcoal-tinted workers' state. the real crux here is the difference between Marxist and anarchist workers' states, and whether a "charcoal" workers' state has a plausible realization process. most of the time I want to say the answer is no, but the pain of having to operate in a society and movement landscape where almost literally everybody is an Existentialist pretending anarchism is Liberal-republicanism or an unapologetic fascistic Tory but you still supposedly have to "work within The Left" to filter it really messes with your head.
618. cybernetics in relation to free will -> I swear that along with schizoanalysis, cybernetics was just another of many ways to smuggle in Free Will and fight crude predetermination so people wouldn't have to learn about the complexities of determinism in physics and discover reterminism.
618. Linear time prevents individuals from realizing fictions / Linear time prevents individuals from controlling the process of realizing fictions / Linear time takes power away from cybernetic assemblages or Group-Subject-organisms and keeps them from determning their own destiny -> no. honestly, if you steered this away from mysticism, it really could sound less silly than it does, but I still don't think it's true. like, say you try to de-mystify this using relativity. Isaac Newton didn't know there wasn't one big linear flow of spacetime, so he cursed science with "linear time". then Albert Einstein showed up and laid out a model where if anything has an approximately linear flow of time then there are billions of them going in parallel and none of them is "the real one". so, we start with relativity. for any particular Group Subject with so-called "cybernetic flows" inside, let's say it's a Trotskyist party to be funny, that Group Subject retermines stuff about itself using its internal elements and the things immediately surrounding it. if there is a big bad Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the way, the Trotskyist party will do what it can to plan around its environment and realize Trotskyism, its preferred so-called "fiction". this happens on a timetable specific to and emerging from the Trotskyist party, while the CPSU may have a different timeline of how it wants to realize its own plans. there is nothing particularly cosmic about this in a magic-ritual or sci-fi time travel sense. the CPSU doesn't actually distort spacetime and take causality away from the Trotskyist party. both of them still have a timeline on which they can act to the degree they are capable. but, even so, when the two groups interact with their surrounding reality and each other, some possibilities collapse into more disappointing ones as a product of all the directions of interaction. whatever "fiction" (sociophilosophy or ontology) you come up with, it will always be affected by the presence of other "fictions" busy realizing themselves in relativistic time. all the fictions are realizing at once, some of them succeeding and some of them not succeeding, and the ones that don't successfully realize only keep getting screwed over by the successful ones in a vicious cycle. so the deal with Newtonian linear time is that it's an effect of sociophilosophies defeating each other, not a cause. linear time is only an outward perception of the result of what happened, but because it's a result, you can't simply fight it to fix the inner causal process. man. if the chaos magicians had just stopped with the notion of realizing fictions and never ever said anything about time, I would have been more receptive to it.
618. Treating authors as gods is reductive to art -> if all art is is just waiting for authors to say things, then why would anyone pay for it? can't we all just imagine stories on our own, regardless of how good they are? when you realize that, you realize it's vitally important to treat art as an internally coherent system in order to get anyone to appreciate authors. when fan theories are framed as an alternate form of humanities study which is more scientifically-minded — this being an arbitrary flavor choice, not an objectively better way of doing things — they act as a form of art appreciation because they are predicting things and looking for sound structure and solid craftsmanship within the fictional world. it's something like the systematic "music theory" of narratives. sometimes people do it wrong and fail to correctly analyze departures from reality as legitimate rules within the system rather than "unrealistic". this doesn't mean that the entire analytic approach is bad, or doesn't understand what art is. I think there's at least some amount of an argument, maybe not rock-solid exactly, that it understands art on a higher level. the level where art has already succeeded and transported us to the new reality it has fabricated. shouldn't it be the highest praise of art having succeeded when people are actually living in that reality for a moment?
618. Fictional futures come from fictional individuals / Susie holds the path to a different ending because she is a different person, not because she wrote it / Twilight Sparkle creates the future because she and her friends are unique material objects -> I don't know if this is literally true of Deltarune, but this is the issue I have with Deltarune as a metaphor for real life. this is the claim that fictional individuals create their future, but not specifically through the process of Free Will, perhaps instead through the process of groups of individuals interacting together to produce favorable historical processes. Twilight succeeds because multiple Ponies actually cooperate together. Susie can only change the future if Kris and Ralsei want the same future as she does.
618. Fictional futures come from characters' free will / Fictional futures come from the free will of fictional individuals / Twilight Sparkle invents the future, and should Lauren Faust not outline that correctly she is wrong / Susie authors the future, independently of whether Toby Fox creates that correctly or incorrectly -> message more or less stated in Deltarune chapter 4, and which all its fans really run wildly with, but which I don't really like personally. the reasons are complex. I think this is slightly better the statement that authors design utterly everything and fiction contains no causality, but not entirely correct.
618. Fictional events only happen because the author said so / Details in fiction only exist because the author said so -> no. if this were true Media Representation would be impossible. say there's a fictional book meant to teach people about the United States Reconstruction era, or slaves escaping to the North. can somebody just go around saying that every single thing that happens in that book is the author's opinionated agenda peculiar to their own individual tastes and not inherently shared with any other person like them for reasons they did not choose? or are some of the things in that book in there because they are representational art of things that regularly happen in the real world or have happened? if historical fiction can be based on particular unique historical events, then events in books can also be based on general patterns seen in history. and they can be based on scientific models. and they can be based on any number of internally-coherent things which make sense in and of themselves without asking what the author's desires or agenda are. many well-written stories don't look intentionally designed, and you keep this in mind if you want to solve them.
618. When the proletariat doesn't win, Careerism is created / When the proletariat fails to create a capable proletarian subpopulation and take over every business territory within a particular window of development, Careerism is created -> when almost every workers' state has emerged in the early development of a particular country, and not in any country's later development, you start to ask questions. why is Liberal-republicanism a parallel track to Bolshevism? why does it never turn into Bolshevism? can a society partly build up to something and then blatantly go backward, and perhaps then even transform into something totally different?
618. Lacanianism is the shovel dream of Careerism / Lacanianism is the class ideology of Careerism (ideology emerging from a particular layout of material objects which may or may not have individual owners conflated with the whole object) -> we need a new word for "ideology that belongs to a particular repeatable physical formation of people". "class ideology" makes total sense to me, but I don't think it's really a standard usage within Marxism. formational ideology? object ideology? shovel dream? we'll go with shovel dream for now.
618. Capitalism came from the dissolution of central power in English monarchy to create a pseudo Liberal state (Ellen Meiksins Wood) / Capitalism came from the dissolution of feudal-style kingdoms resulting in chunk competition and contracts -> cool hypothesis. sounds possible, although I don't have enough knowledge in traditional history to try to disprove it
618. Fossil Capital (Andreas Malm)
10999. North America
10999. Mexico (2000s)
10999. Canada (2000s)
10999. United States (2000s)
10999. Europe (2000s)
10999. Germany (2000s)
10999. East Germany (date?)
10999. West Germany (date?)
10999. Weimar Republic (date?) -> note: Nazi Germany already has entry Q14,88
10999. United Kingdom (2000s)
10999. Ireland (2000s) -> there have been a few different transformations where Ireland was or wasn't part of the United Kingdom; it's not always been one way or the other.
10999. England (2000s)
10999. European Union (2000s)
618. In the United States, the Careerist class rules the proletariat, while the bourgeoisie rules the Careerists -> Careerists are the class of people that compete against each other to claim limited high-quality "careers" that they contrast against "dead-end jobs", and who regard work chiefly as a means of producing individual household wealth that is considered a good thing or a purpose for living in and of itself. "dead-end jobs" is a classist jab between the two classes that nobody realizes is that, while "social mobility" is an attempt to whitewash Careerists as the only good class. Careerists have a very Nietzschean outlook where they often try to act like forming into a [L] (pronounced [L]) Wasp swarm 1:(-)1:(-)1 of many separate tiny imperialists all each trying to become more wealthy or powerful is inherently better than being the "master" that rules workers or the "slave" that works for a boss.
618. Western Marxism, anarchism, and Existentialism all begin with historical non-materialism / Western Marxism, anarchism, and Existentialism all begin with the belief that history is not material
618. a Materialism of how the humanities teach models of real life
618. Fascism is the most effective resistance to colonialism -> if "colonialism" can exist inside an empire based on cultural norms, then there is a very uncomfortable conclusion waiting: the empire holds all its people in colonialism, and any group of people that can glue itself together and fight the rest of the people has some chance of breaking out. if an empire holds all its individuals in colonialism based on culture, then center-Liberalism could very much be holding fascism in colonialism, and it could be that a wad of Tory secessionists forming into fascism is literally postcolonial. if colonialism is defined relative to an empire as a whole — which most people in the United States are incapable of not doing — then it is fully possible for something to be postcolonial relative to a greater empire and colonial relative to itself. ...oh god. is this what schizoanalysis is hiding? is it intended to be a mathematical model of what is "postcolonial"? I understand so much now relative to what I or any "real" Marxist theorist knew when I started and yet sometimes I still don't understand any of this.
618. Human beings went from tribal populations directly to disconnected suburbs / In the year 400, White people were in tribes, in the year 2020 they were in suburbs, and absolutely nothing happened in between / history denial (motif of people acting like suburbs were suddenly made up yesterday rather than coming from particular cumulative sets of events over generations) -> you see this pop up fairly quickly as soon as you let people talk about "the modern period" or "Gen Z". [45] for most people in the United States it didn't go that way. first there were tribal populations, then there was more than one population in plurality, then the populations smashed into each other and started fighting over borders and trying to clear people out of land areas. this is flat-out history denial. it ignores the centuries and centuries of history between the United States hypothetically being a tribal population and all the changes it went through until getting to the state where it starts fighting tribal populations. propositions like these show that a whole lot of people don't like thinking about history as mattering to the current day. it seems evidently harmful when people are claiming slavery is irrelevant and none of the populational transformations inside that period matter, but nobody stops to realize that forming an empire is also a historical process where the content of the process changed current conditions and needs to be understood.
618. Imperialists believe in a causal study of history / Imperialists believe in a material study of historical events -> the more you think about it, the more it becomes evident just from looking at people insisting we need to learn about the Roman Empire or we need to learn about the founding period of the United States, etc, that all the people saying this believe that studying these things actually aids in building particular kinds of historical processes and particular formations of people. they don't just talk about "Western Civilization" for the hell of it. whatever they say outwardly, they clearly believe this is a thing that can be actively recreated through particular material steps. to imperialists themselves, there is a set of steps for realizing imperialism as a social transition. yet somehow everyone else does not want to believe this and wants to believe that every human behavior is only connected to immediate individual choice and none of the steps of realizing empire actually created any permanent changes. anarchism, Western Marxism, and progressive Existentialism all equally seem to stem from the belief that imperialists do not have an active, cumulative cultural history in the same sense that "Germans" or "Spaniards" do. because imperialists are linked into one or more countable cultures that function as countable physical objects, trying to instantaneously dissolve imperialism is almost as ridiculous as asking everyone to spontaneously stop being Spanish and doing anything Spanish. it would be hard to do that because "Spanish" is a physical entity that keeps existing if you don't destroy all of it. have you ever stopped to think about why it would be the Roman Empire, Jewish legend, Christianity, and "Our Founding Fathers" are even taught together or grouped together when they come from separate places? these are the cumulative cultural history of imperialists. why is it it's okay for every kid to learn about Egypt as well as Greece? because the stationary empire shape of Egypt isn't seen as threatening; it fits into the existing "historical materialism" of imperialists. but at the same time, no book for kids would ever talk about the Soviet Union or Cuba in the same tone as ancient Egypt, simply going through "this is how people lived". it's worth thinking about why that is.
618. Human beings cannot predict history -> strictly untrue. everyone who says this defines history as any arbitrary series of events. people are obligated to predict small/medium scale series of events just to survive.
618. state apparatus signifying regime -> not necessarily phrased this way, but this is the implied whole phrase. the motif of a "deterritorializing power" marking up particular required ontologies of groups of people and sellable units of land; to be contrasted with "rhizome sign regime". I don't like the subtle implications in the uses of terms like this that "centralization" is anything in particular, which never lead to anything good.
618. Nothing is more important than free will / No standard can be more important than free will / Every other ethical value is subordinate to free will -> if we assume Rothenberg and Žižek's texts describe anarchism, then I swear this is what they're saying. no squashing The Subject. don't be afraid to act. so, what? you're going to ignore the entire process of Marxism building up a system for making the smallest number of unethical actions that's possible, all to regain the single ethical value of Freedom? what is it even worth at that point? it's even weirder when Rothenberg is like obsessed with voting blocs and the concept that countries can never be a whole and rejects the suggestion that an oppressive government could turn everybody beneath it democratic (which is exactly what happens), but then this whole anarchist secret operation thing is also okay for some reason. nothing about that makes sense. if you can just reason your way out of creating Bolshevism because it's "inherently" oppressive, why wouldn't you do the same thing with anarchist secret operations, or on the other hand, if you recognize that anarchist secret operations are necessary to create Freedom, why wouldn't you say the same thing for workers' states? why wouldn't you just interpret workers' states through your weird Heideggerian framework and say, ok, I don't believe that any of Marxism is correct but I still have to acknowledge that workers' states are legitimate because those groups of people formed them spontaneously out of necessity. I think anarchism is full of special pleading that anarchism is inherently better just because it's anarchism. and I think in a sense you really can't expect anything else, because this is how all ideologies actually work. anarchists cluster together, Communist allies cluster together, Tories cluster together, as if they were ethnicities or some other demographic, then they protect each other and determine their ideology as a group.
618. [S2] Societal transition is just horizontally sliding across a phase space that always contains all possibilities -> I would say this is true, if for instance you think of the "singularities" in the unity of opposites as ideologies. a population realizing into Liberalism or Bolshevism is more like floating a slider across a spectrum than anything linear or simple or inevitable. this can create great uncertainties in how populations will ever stay out of capitalism, but that may be the reality.
618. [S2] Deleuze is a Materialist -> everything I have been reading sounds like Deleuze is just trying to describe a noumenon/phenomenon, process/model relationship and explain how mathematics describes reality and is useful for guessing and probing things we can't yet see. almost all of it sounds like Materialism, like there is no real separation between models and reality assuming the models are accurate. even the definition of "Ideas" would appear to be a Materialist explanation of Hegel, saying that particular entities are made of material processes or physics which in certain senses feel "freeform" in that they do not always fit themselves to our mental divisions of concepts. at least up to that point everything is fine. but Deleuze's commentators do have this weird secret obsession with Free Will and not squashing The Subject, and I do know schizoanalysis gets abused for non-Materialist ends. so I'm a little confused whether it's actually the case that Deleuze was a Materialist or not.
618. [S2] Reality begins at separate entities interacting / The noumenal aspect of reality is full of separate entities interacting / The virtual is self-differentiating (Deleuze) / Entities start with the process of Being (Heidegger) -> correct as far as I can tell. Deleuze is saying the same thing as Heidegger, but both make it equally opaque.
618. [S] phase space
618. [S] societal phase space -> Deleuze and Guattari use this to characterize the possibilities of Social-Philosophical Systems generated from the action of the internal parts, knowledge limited by the way we can only observe outward phenomena. the word "reductionism" was thrown around but I think there is some intellectual dishonesty in that from today's point of view. now that relativity exists we all have to admit that objects interact to produce new phenomena that can only be described starting at the multivariable function of the two objects. this isn't anti-reductionism, it's just taking "reductionism" the other direction so small things make big things that still ultimately come from the small things. quantum mechanics was the biggest clue: running the quantum mechanics rules to produce larger-scale physical rules is difficult but vaguely possible. reductionism has always had to start by observing the outward results of things — with photons, with atoms, with body organs, with brains. you just defined reductionism and then claimed it was over.
618. [S2] Individual relationships cannot be molecularized -> meta-Marxism makes the distinction between molecularizing a significantly large group of people by joining them all into a viable population-society whose particular workings can be described to fine scales ("molecular" scales), and attempting to molecularize two or three people. that's not the point of molecularizing. the point of molecularizing is to make it possible to create a capable subpopulation, especially a proletarian subpopulation or something that functions similarly enough to do Marxism. yet the geophilosophy summary throws out the concept of a "hierarchy" of two people in this transparently anarchist way. [46] I'll say it out loud: two people is not a hierarchy. in the medieval sense, a hierarchy covers a whole kingdom, or a significantly large local state likely not bigger than Italy. words are whatever, but that's the definition of why hierarchies are actually important to anything. because they're big. the concept of hierarchy is not relevant to the study of historical revolutions unless you have a concept of hierarchy which refers to large structures instead of specifically to relationships. anyway. the major fallacy here is thinking that forming a population-society will not cause new "hierarchies", when in reality it could, simply as a requirement of realizing itself into a viable structure. it could be that you have to form things the anarchists think are "hierarchies" to get a large group of people free from something larger than that. to not admit that is basically to commit Trotsky's world population fallacy and erase the existence of countable cultures and ethnicity and language and religion and racism. the differences populations raise between themselves are connected to the existence of populations as separate interacting objects, which creates borders, which creates internal structure and Archons. this is why you need to conceptualize freedom as a different internal structure within the same populational unit or units.
618. [S] pseudo Molecular Marxism / pseudo-MDem / garbage MDem -> "garbage MDem" is an actual technical term of sorts thrown around in early MDem scraps. a garbage MDem is a Social-Philosophical System which superficially sounds like it would meet some of the characterstics of being a Molecular Marxism but it isn't class sorted, it doesn't use historical materialism or existential materialism, it doesn't try to unify itself with "other" Marxisms, it maybe roots itself in a theory of individuals building up to populations and existing as population-societies before they exist as countries, but it doesn't do any of the stuff Marxism does. early on when writing drafts I assumed that "molecular democracy" would somehow make it clear enough what was being discussed if I only spent enough time defining molecular — I really thought that the only thing missing from Marxism was a small-scale theory and if I simply set out to create a small-scale theory every Marxism could eventually be fixed — but before long I had to pivot to specifying "Molecular Marxism" because I realized there were so many possible garbage-MDems. this is part of what led up to the term meta-Marxism, the need to utterly emphasize Marxism and not let people forget it even while creating a theory which is actually intended to be able to analyze the fine scales of any ideology.
618. [S2] Schizoanalysis is a pseudo-MDem / Schizoanalysis is a garbage-MDem -> the claim that schizoanalysis is trying to analyze populations as population-societies but it doesn't necessarily have the tools to analyze history or produce workers' states. replace "workers' state" with any realized civilizational shape. [47]
618. [S2] All Western Marxism does is create a new hegemony that has to be infiltrated -> the claim that as much as Gramscians manage to infiltrate existing structures, all that actually does is make it harder for any "real" Marxists to get in there, and create a conflict between countable Marxisms to infiltrate the same space. this is one of those propositions that's a bit more of a bad joke than something I'm confident in. I am deeply confused as to what's really going on right now. but this is the thought that comes intuitively.
618. [S2] If it looks deterministic, it's scientism / If philosophy looks too deterministic, it's scientism -> found this one in an overview of schizoanalyst "geophilosophy". [48] was just barely unsaid but could smell it all over the thing. why are people like this? why is determinism so scary to them? as I say I swear most people don't even know what determinism is. determinism is the mere ability to describe things as differential equations and manifolds, like Deleuze did. he used it to explain Hegel. if there isn't determinism you couldn't describe everything with math. I find almost nothing more baffling than the way psychoanalysts (and schizoanalysis) are absolutely obsessed with math almost more than scientists are and then they also get obsessed with the individual and how you supposedly have to resist anything that could threaten to predetermine The Subject. why does nobody see the terrible contradiction between these two things? I swear we should just abolish the term scientism and make a new term of math-ism when you're over-applying math. that would make Marxism challenging but still possible. it would kill psychoanalysis though
618. [S2] If a statement about art condones racism accidentally or intentionally, it is against the purpose of art as education -> derived Existentialist proposition. note: this claim doesn't go into why fiction should or shouldn't be considered educational. it only assumes that certain statements are contradictory with the claim that fiction teaches us about experiences or demographics.
618. [S2] Everything can be described through anti-essentialism / Every single object or concept can be described through anti-essentialism -> for all the crazy things Deleuze and Guattari say I have to mark this one true. structuralist linguistics? true. entities such as animal species or individual piles of hay are only distinguished from each other as they exist separately and/or differently on the ground? true. mainstream Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism are most easily distinguished as interacting factions rather than defined by their theories or beliefs? true. this is one of the most obviously "Existentialist-Structuralist tradition" concepts in its construction, containing both the appeal to things being descriptively defined by their relationships and differences ("structuralism") and the appeal to Lived Experience mysteriously joining everyone together because we all inherently want to be in the united nonviolence of shared oppressions ("existentialism"), but I have no issues with it. not until they get to saying that populations can never differentiate, which isn't true.
618. Unities of opposites never separate / Plural subpopulations are never countable / There can be no totalising unity that contains unities of opposites (totalizing; about Deleuze) / Multiplicities do not have a shared pivot connecting them to the unity (Deleuze) -> no. I get where he's coming from to say that "multiplicities" always start out never fully possible to differentiate. but they can fully differentiate, even to the point they'll never go back. we wouldn't be talking about the implications of a Soviet Union existing versus there not being a Soviet Union, because they'd be the same republics of people either way. there would be no national independence movements if this claim were fully true. there'd still be a British empire. we'd all be arguing about how to represent everyone within the British empire without breaking it up, just because we all "know" civilizations never ever break up. god, like. Deleuze. have you ever been a Trotskyist. that's a silly question to pretty much everyone but genuinely, have you ever had to deal with groups of people breaking apart and not going back together? if you actually did you'd know that things really do differentiate. there's almost an entropy arrow for groups of people just like there is for chemistry, where when a group of people breaks apart there are specific "chemistry" changes that make that tearing apart hard to run backwards. this is part of the definition of history, I feel like. the entropy arrow that makes things like a national independence movement or an organization disintegrating hard to reverse and more of a permanent creation of new conditions, new characteristics for the involved entities.
618. Gramsci's statements equate to saying that countries containing a [L] (pronounced [L]) Wasp swarm 1:(-)1:(-)1 can only undergo anarchist transition -> don't know if either layer of this claim is true, but the first layer that Gramsci accidentally insinuated this is certainly what it sounds like
618. Platonic forms aren't necessary when you have manifolds -> ingenious way of defining shapes, definitely. [49] I wish schizoanalysts were as smart about all the abstract metaphors they describe as they were about math.
618. All analyses are infinitely divisible [50] -> I have only known about Bergson for like two minutes' worth of statements and I already do not like his philosophy. I have to admit though, taken out of context this statement is pretty funny. it's one of those statements only a philosopher could come up with, but at least it's creative. rather ironic given the purpose of the statement. this statement was supposed to be a statement that "analyses" were too difficult to think through while intuition was easier. but really it's a very unintuitive statement which doesn't sound much like a description of the intuitive mind at all. to me, nobody would intuitively think of a scientific model in terms of how far it divides things. when he described the infinite ruler, literally, my intuitive thought was "why not just use a variable? just pick an arbitrary distance x and start measuring everything in terms of x". for anyone that actually knows science, you'd intuitively jump to Newtonian physics or quantum physics or the appropriately rounded-off model where processes are already generalized at the perfect level. grade school science exists because science is not difficult to make intuitive.
618. Philosophy is not the elaboration of coherent concepts / Philosophy is not to be conceived as the individual elaboration of coherent concepts (Gramsci) -> Gramsci was trying to obliquely get at the concept that organizing people into groups is more important than the content of a philosophy, which by itself is true, but... quite honestly I think he failed at that. whenever you let people think society contains an ocean of ideas you can just toss writings or actions into, they'll go back to fixating on the exact "elaboration of individual concepts" you don't want them to do. they do this because "popular mentality" inevitably consists of ideas connected directly to ideas, which makes people think that if they can directly design "popular mentality" it must also be made of ideas connected directly to ideas that they can just sit down and design and then tell everyone to believe. which just leads you back to spaghetti books full of concepts that don't necessarily organize anyone.
618. Philosophy is the elaboration of coherent patterns / Philosophy is the elaboration of coherent concepts / Philosophy is to be conceived as the individual elaboration of coherent concepts (MDem) / Philosophy begins at the elaboration of coherent concepts when and if those coherent concepts are Materialist models of physical reality -> once again the real proposition is way longer than the label. the MDem position is that you really can describe reality with just a big pile of concepts, but only under the condition that you know specifically how those concepts slot together and operate in reality. if your concepts are material things instead of abstract ideals, then it genuinely becomes that every movement is just a bunch of connected "concepts", as well as every workers' state and every general kind of repeated historical pattern. if your concepts are "atom", "electron", and "quark", etc, then chemistry is just a bunch of concepts. you can do the same thing to Marxism if you only figure out what the material concepts of human physics are. historical materialism is breaking down the pieces of repeated historical patterns, whatever the pieces actually are.
618. If people see Yeerks invading, governments will act to stop it (Animorphs) -> not if governments consist of Yeerks. Animorphs was so weirdly ahead of its time, it's like, weirdly Gramscian in the strangest ways.
618. Courtship rituals show that birds can make decisions
618. Animorphs: The Graphic Novel
618. Animorphs: The Graphic Novel: The Encounter (v.3) / cite code KAG3
618. clash over food item KAG3/76
618. horror of being overwritten by other individual or identity KAG3/72-73 -> Tobias - runs narratively parallel to - Vanny
618. Space Battle Lunchtime - v.1 - v.3
618. interstellar globalization / "I know you earth folks don't get out much" - v.1/17
618. interstellar globalization produces galactic English/language / "speak of the space devil" v.1/51
618. non-diegetic/narrative object labels / objects labeled in English
618. aliens living on the moon -> marker of a scifi story that aims to be "retrofuture" or deliberately doesn't take itself seriously
618. humanoid alien
618. steel octahedron alien
618. aquatic alien in fishbowl
618. lizard alien
618. general-sense plant -> these exist in real life thanks to algae.
618. general-sense archosaur
618. "it's hard to have a fulfilling career and social life as a geometric hive mind" v.2/21
618. galactic empire has brutal TV shows -> v.2/60; this probably also applies to homestuck, although I only remember Troll movies being mentioned.
618. nutribrick wars / the long-ago millennia health food wars -> v.1/42; the motif of hypothetical life forms fighting over food resources that humans wouldn't usually regard as food
618. Dungeon Meshi - haven't gotten into this series but it's conceptually similar in its worldbuilding methods
618. Amalthea -> moon of jupiter. from greek myth?
618. space whale
618. trauma villain
618. Neptunia -> this character is weird because she seems to interpret deserting an imperialist attack and fighting for fringe planets as a bad thing, like, Stitch bad, Goku bad. I don't think I would change the actual plot given that it's realistic for a character to internalize what their experiences meant at a given time and fail to reinterpret them. the problem is just that the dramatization clearly frames things as imperialism good antiwar bad. it's very easy to end up there if you think of all actions as individual choices. but it easily ends you up at some actions being simultaneously good and evil. v.3/116-117
618. Liberalism is inherently Buddhist -> this is so dumb when Liberalism didn't exist at the time of Buddha. there is really something going on in the weird theories of history non-Communists and fantasy authors use. Wings of Fire seems to model kingdoms as containing capitalism but then it goes for this weird Middle Way bullshit to try to explain the historical process by which nationalities come to coexist
618. middle rank is inherently Buddhist -> this claim is simultaneously dumb, and one of those backhandedly-true statements. if you are using Buddhism to explain Liberal-republicanism, then it can be technically true that middle rank created Liberalism. the problem is that that isn't an inherently good thing.
618. Every population is also a subpopulation -> very hard to ignore when you look at the history of Third-World countries. China and North Korea have both succeeded based on this understanding. they've defended themselves not based on how effectively they've built the proletariat, but how effectively they've administered their country as a subpopulation of the world population and managed to force the world to regard that subpopulation as autonomous in the lack of borders or nation-states ever being truly effective. ironically, even First-World countries believe this, because they constantly treat the world as one big churning pot of population-mush where the mush of many different countries can constantly gang up on smaller lumps of population-mush that for some reason won't neatly mesh into them. First-World countries already believe there are no actual borders or states.
618. The Subject affects ideology as much as classes do -> classes affect ideology because they are part of the creation and operation of free-floating structures or social graphs inside society: feudal manors, connected parishes, regional states connected into a kingdom, corporations, regional subpopulations, etc. manor lords, bishops, barons, corporate owners, people who mediate White supremacy against minority towns, these figures gain power based on the network of people they're conflated with. similarly, the mere state of being The Subject can corrupt people, inasmuch as The Subject is a biological organism that has needs against everything around it, and gains freedom against everything around it. a group of investors in a corporation can become detached until there's a giant protest against them. the exact same thing can happen with individuals merely being The Subject. falsification criteria: there are probably exist some, but I can't think of any right now.
618. If Texas isn't owned, why is a business owned? -> I have never heard anyone provide a satisfactory answer to this.
618. Creating a republic is a transition from networkism to existential materialism
618. higher mind / higher spiritual nature (Christianity) / rational mind (secular philosophy) / superego (psychoanalysis; generic) -> the motif of a "better" part of the mind or personality that takes control over "lower" impulses. this + ?? = Being afraid is a choice.
618. Being afraid is a choice / Most of human problems are because we hide away from the bear rather than being able to face or navigate the bear -> it's really not. it depends on having great levels of information and knowledge about the thing you'd otherwise be afraid of. to face a bear you need a whole lot of knowledge about bears. to face something like Trump mobilizing all the country's weaponry and prisons against immigrants, you have to have a lot of knowledge about how the entire physical structure called "The United States" develops and functions and what could stop those directions of development. and nobody wants to actually have the knowledge of how societies develop, there is a lot of hostility about actually gaining that knowledge and compiling it.
618. In lack of knowledge, fear is the only option / Being afraid is the natural reaction to a lack of knowledge -> as negative as this sounds, it's descriptive rather than prescriptive. the prescriptive angle is that knowledge gets rid of fear and inaction.
618. The United States military picks teenagers so they cannot possibly know what they are getting into, and throws them away after they learn about war [51] -> believable. I think this has probably been happening. the one thing that bothers me about the way this was recounted is how much the focus was on individuals and the individual life cycle. there's a whole big existing, physically-behaving structure called "the United States" that is deciding on wars and rounding up soldiers. if you don't study that actual structure, no amount of psychohistory and analyzing every individual one by one is going to fix it. see also: "History is the progression of family units"
618. How the Gay Rights Movement Radicalized and Lost Its Way [52] [53] [54] [55] -> an absolute piece of work, but pretty valuable as a Nickel.
618. Legislating the definition of gender is equivalent to a revolution
618. A gay relationship isn't an individual, so it can't have rights [56] -> the more I listen to news about case law in the United States, which used to confuse me endlessly, the more I'm starting to think this is the logic behind it. why insist that gay relationships are covered under "sex discrimination", only to fight a right to gay marriage? because you want to break down something that only exists in the context of a social graph of two people down to a study of individuals. for some reason we have to argue that individual A has the right to get married and individual B has the right to get married, even though any reasonable person should be able to realize that defining marriage as a social phenomenon has to be a multivariable function of human interaction that produces something new. Steven Universe was wired, I'm just saying. relationships really are new entities, even if they aren't people exactly. one remaining question: what ideology is this exactly? I feel like you need to divide Existentialism back into multiple things to separate this from the forms of Existentialism that aren't terrible.
618. Che Guevara invading Latin America is the same kind of phenomenon as the United States invading Vietnam or Korea -> notes: A) this claim could be false. B) "same kind of phenomenon" isn't a value judgement, any more than "France and Spain were both kingdoms"; it's a historical-materialist or existential-materialist claim. C) if true, this would re-frame a lot of discussion around Soviet occupation of buffer states being or not being "imperialism", etc, because none of those questions would be moral questions as much as structural "historical chemistry" questions of what happens when civilization inevitably turns into large connected systems or axes of allies. D) this would frame the Cold War as a collision of separate gigantic-scale civilizations based in a particular sociophilosophy (interestingly, this is about the way it's already seen in the United States, minus genuine reterministic modeling of the world), as well as frame the hypothetical conflict between mainstream Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism as a conflict between two hypothetical civilizational blocs.
618. women are people, Marty [57] -> the usually fictional motif of a character invalidating women so badly that either the characters or the reader want to say this
618. People have many subpopulations, so disabilities have many subpopulations [58] -> it seems obvious once you actually say it.
618. Disability diagnoses are relative to cultural norms / Disability diagnoses are culturally relative
618. The DSM changed because experts made up new opinions -> careful with that. sometimes the DSM changes because there are new stacks of factual observations that invalidate older categories and make it a bit clearer what's happening if not necessarily perfectly clear. you can't just go Guattari on the DSM without potentially carrying out your own ableism.
618. Rights-based strategies create a bunch of bureaucrats -> when explained by the right person who actually knows things, I actually have to agree with this one. Liberal-republicanism can seem so pointless at times because although people sort of get to argue over the rights of demographic subpopulations, there is this tiny crust of representatives and experts and owners that actually "receives" the rights when most people don't even really get anything. are you a disabled senator? movements for human rights will probably be perfect for you. are you anybody else? tough luck. this is the thing. I make fun of Trotskyism and anarchism at times because sometimes they really have no idea what they're even saying. but at the core of it you have this very sympathetic problem of the book-intelligent Trotsky figure who should be good for something and is thrown out of his society because this particular crust of really elite representatives who are good at what they do and better at things than anyone else totally invalidates the guy as having any place in the country and leaves him not able to articulate what the problem with anything even is beyond "I think I am mad at The Bureaucrats". and I'm tired of that too. on one hand people need to not have entirely stupid interpretations of Marxism, but on the other, if they would only listen, I don't really want people thrown out like that.
618. Anarchism can understand The State if it understands anarchy / Anarchism can have a reasonable explanation of The State if it has a reasonable model of anarchy -> apply meta-Marxism to anarchism, and a lot of the frustration goes away, as long as you can briefly explain what anarchist secret operations are actually defending. as long as an anarchist population is something in particular, then all the logical contradictions relating to anarchism and The State and hierarchy become matters of how words are defined rather than real problems. the anarchist population that is a particular thing orders and administers itself in a particular way and defends the population in a particular way and everything is logically coherent, it nicely fits into history as a material entity... if you can only explain what the anarchist population actually is at the time all the cats have slain the boars and the dust settles.
618. Any reasonable definition of The State must be able to explain the historical process of national independence movements -> one of the barest criteria for judging whether anarchists are spouting nonsense. The State forms in plurality as populations dividing into plurality differentiate. if anarchists can't explain why a country such as Ukraine would form a nation-state separate from Russia, or North Korea or East Germany would form a nation-state separate from the major axes of Liberal-republican countries, they are not ready to tell anyone else about The State.
618. Wars are hierarchical -> I think there's a pretty good argument for this given any definition of what a hierarchy is. given the medieval definition of a layout of people which is conflated with owning individuals of particular classes, a war easily turns into a Napoleonist phenomenon with one population-government stomping over the top of the other and trying to extract debts or treaties. given the crude definition used by anarchists, a war is the act of leaping one State over another population to enforce a particular way of being, which is to say one population is more important than another. this is the fundamental contradiction that comes up whenever an anarchism tries to build itself entirely out of secret operations. that turns the whole thing into a hierarchical activity putting one Social-Philosophical System over another Social-Philosophical System. this wouldn't be a problem if the SPS in question wasn't an anarchism, and was a Marxism or something. Che can try to make the case that a Marxist war on another country that only takes out the owners is justified, because he's not basing his entire theory on "hierarchy" and whether hierarchy is bad, he is basing the justification for wielding power on how important it is to realize a proletarian civilization. all Marxisms know on some level that they are an incomplete group of people competing against the rest of the world, and the concept of hierarchy isn't good for describing an all-directional conflict, but anarchisms somehow don't know that.
618. Any attempt of a population to govern a separate population is statist -> the major reason I think anarchism can't successfully stop "fascism" / WASP (pronounced WASP) swarms, at least without first turning into something that isn't anarchism in order to be effective. any time anarchism acts as a population to apply force on another population, it's already created a State. this isn't really a big problem to me but for some reason it does matter to anarchists.
618. Civilians are a social construct -> I think this is the major fallacy the deep end of anarchism believes. it's obvious to Marxists that there exists such a thing as civilians, and maybe even that the existence of civilians creates the boundaries between different countable Cultures and different parallel national histories. but it doesn't seem like anarchists find that obvious. they seem to easily devolve into a population of soldiers with no civilians out of some weird tendency to assume that anyone who is a civilian is being programmed not to resist The State — as if there is just one State and not one separate State for every population including some political parties or ethnicities inside national populations. newsflash, deep-end anarchists: you are The State. you've transformed your whole population into The State. the only question remaining is whether that's categorically bad, which admittedly is an open question.
618. secret operations -> the motif of underground operations attached to a particular SPS which may not be known to the whole SPS, and are hidden from the public until the "payload" of the operation comes out. secret operations which have happened within the past five years or so should not be coded as Items, regardless of ideology, although this is only a rule of thumb and any which are old enough to be considered historical and relatively well known to historical-materialist theorist types may be coded along with any generalizations or motifs. the nature of secret operations makes them incompatible with the task of creating a reliable source — either adding citations contributes to the secret operation getting caught, or the entry is too vague and unsourced to be considered useful information.
618. attack everything -> the motif of an ideology's secret operations attacking anything and everything that is presumed to be destroying society based on minimal theory and mostly Lived Experiences. [59] circa 2012-2018
618. secret operation attacks, random people harassed / secret operation made some attacks, random other people harassed by The State -> this is one of my biggest problems with making everything secret operations. the Soviet Union is widely known as a place where people were "reporting each other to stay out of trouble". but this is specifically as viewed from a Trotskyite perspective. if you were a Trotskyite, you'd be hiding out making trouble while The State hunts down random people they think are you, and indeed, perhaps some people are doing everything just not to get caught up in it. but in the end, the Trotskyites' efforts were terribly unsuccessful and resulted in widespread prejudices against Trotskyism for anyone who continued to pick up Marxism — under a decade of attacks resulted in prejudices lasting almost a century. as much as if you ask Trotsky all the secret operations were just a side thing to the effort to ostensibly create a better Leninism, no "other" Leninist ever sees it that way, and you don't even really see Western Marxists lining up with Trotsky raring to create a worldwide Marxism as if Western Marxism and Trotskyism are the same thing but in the end Menshevism isn't. everyone more or less thinks Trotskyites will hurt them. Existentialist-Structuralists and the bourgeoisie, maybe justifiably if Trotskyists knew anything. mainstream Marxist-Leninists are afraid of Trotskyists because they think there will be another secret operation to explode workers' states that basically dumps a cascade of racism on Third World countries for no reason. anarchists are afraid of Trotskyists because if they know anything they will build Hierarchy and The Bureaucracy (ironically). I think the history of secret operations as they have already happened shows that anarchism really isn't what anarchists think it is. no matter how nice or how violent anarchism is, it's always the formation of a new countable Culture, which is localized to not all the world's people and has to have a border because it has new internal content. you can theoretically tear open a revolution on any basis, not worrying about who is and isn't the proletariat, but if you do that you absolutely must know what its internal content is. you have to have rudimentary knowledge of the structure of the new society in order to stabilize the new forming entity which inevitably won't contain all the world's people and will inevitably have a border.
618. Anarcho-nihilism and Trotskyite conspiracies are the same thing / Zinovievism proposition -> I swear that all the stuff Žižek says is indistinguishable from the deep end of anarchism, which is indistinguishable from chaos magic, which is indistinguishable from Trotskyite conspiracy texts. A) history stopped making sense, the future is unknown B) if we Freely Will our favorite future hard enough we can grab it, as long as we don't aim higher than the present state of things suggests C) when culture doesn't feel perfect we are so oppressed D) when the other half of non-capitalism fights back on our attacks to grab its freedom and its future we are so oppressed E) it's more important to endure through the period of chaos and destroy the enemy than to actually achieve any particular goal. if both groups of people totally obliterate each other maybe that's a victory. — I am so damn tired of this the more different places I see it. I do know it's not fascism, as that would have to be at least a little more premeditated and specific. I think this is just some weird phenomenon of societal mitosis where regardless of where classes are at populations simply go insane and rip themselves in two. they think they're achieving something by "doing something" and carrying out attacks, but they're actually going precisely nowhere. the crisis that populations go through is that people stop being able to expand into and over each other even though everyone is expanding, and the easiest, crudest way to resolve it is to just take the population and rip it anywhere so there is one more hard border between all the expansion, or at least so that there is no more expectation that if the new populations expand over each other there won't be war. it's like one of the best results of these "stress fractures" would be East Germany, which is what happens when the proletarian subpopulation or lowest-ranked people all end up on one side of the rift and the high-ranked people end up on the other. this + ??? = East Germany is indistinguishable from an anarchism
618. they suspended habeas corpus??? [60] -> the motif of center-Liberals being shocked that the House on Unamerican Activities would suspend due process and stop sitting on the fence about the worth of factions of people just to defend the population of the United States from treason against the raw bulk of the unelected socially-linked population. breaking news: that's what laws are actually for, and you shouldn't be surprised.
618. Red Spark [61]
618. A Truncated Marxism: On the Ideological Structure of Western Marxism (Boer 2023) [62] -> this looks like a good one, wish I could read it
618. Western Marxism and Its Development (2018) [63]
618. Australian Labor Party
618. Australian Council of Trade Unions
618. The Dominant Ideology Thesis (Turner, Abercrombie, & Hill 1981)
618. There is no such thing as the dominance of capitalist ideology [64] -> cool thought, but I am gonna have to push back on that one. ideologies exist in the form of socially-linked groups of people configuring themselves a particular way (sociophilosophies). some of these ideologies benefit the reproduction of capitalism. some ideologies are neutral, like a socially-linked group of Trotskyists scrambling to try to stoke workers' movements but maybe not figuring it out. some ideologies are particularly bad, like Existentialism-Structuralism. almost everybody believes this ideology just because it's the easiest ideology to subscribe to aside from fascism. yet when people believe Existentialism they go off in every direction competing against each other, thinking that changing their own perceptions of what's possible and Freely Willing really hard can get them whatever they want, and continuing to believe that even when it leads different demographic identities to fight over economic structures and hate each other's identity politics movements. some fraction of them and some small fraction of that with rather specific goals will become territory owners. thus Existentialism generates the bourgeoisie, and it helps them, and it's everywhere, "dominating" the country, but the bourgeoisie don't actually design Existentialism specifically to suit their own interests, they just let it keep spreading around because it helped them get where they are and the lack of good ideologies aids them. there's no need for owners to deliberately promote their own bespoke ideologies to manufacture a particular kind of society, not when people's default stupidity literally achieves the same goal. right-Liberalism goes around every so often but only a select few people believe it. at the same time, "capitalists' favorite ideology" they would much rather see than Marxism can still predominate, and it can still predominate in a replacing, "let's put South Korea over the top of Korea" type way, exactly to the point it is acting in the sense of "bourgeois ideology" mentioned in older Marxist texts. "bourgeois ideology" means something, and Existentialism-Structuralism is basically serving that role.
618. Upper classes create the only visible ideology
618. Upper classes create the only ideology that exists [65] -> yeah. in these two forms the point is fine. if the claim is that a proletarian SPS cannot be generated and some models are saying there is only one society with no plurality of countable ideologies at all, that is clearly not correct. you always see a few people trying to push for everyone that isn't owners and notably people who can't work physically or are arbitrarily pushed out of society like the Stonewall "illegal gay bars being funded by the mafia" incident. the weird thing about the "class consciousness" you actually see is that it is very often anarchist and really bad at recognizing ""artists"" as owners and some other kinds of small shops. the natural class consciousness people develop without being organized is bizarrely a lot more ideological than we want to admit, in the sense of developing into a very specific philosophy rather than just an understanding that the proletariat exists.
618. National borders are a social construct / National borders are always made up ad-hoc before they become accepted / People-groups owning land is a social construct / No group of people actually owns any particular area of land -> a troubling realization but very important. if you find a way to support this claim and use it effectively, then no group of nazis can ever claim to rightfully own an area of land ever again. thoughts: A) while Native American reservations are a problem especially in how artificial and externally-imposed they are, historically they exist because a treaty constructed them as an attempted solution to ongoing wars — two groups of people tenuously came together and fabricated that. B) two or more groups of people came together and fabricated Ukraine in its form as a nation-state rather than a subpopulation. C) "a pure Germany" is a fabrication inside one subpopulation against another. D) Israel is fabricated. E) one of the remaining questions here is if Palestine would be fabricated. note that whether Palestine is fabricated has no bearing on the human rights of individuals, as shown with the creation of Ukraine. F) arguments about why or when it is okay to fabricate a national border to protect the people inside or at least stop fighting them are separate propositions. this is only the statement that all national borders are fabricated on some particular day before they become officialized and accepted by everyone.
618. Farewell to Reality -> contained definition of acceptable models of reality
618. Bolshevism is a far-left ideology -> false for complex reasons. "Bolshevism is a left-wing ideology" could be a true statement, but "far-left ideologies exist" is not. it's even arguable that "far-right ideologies exist" is false, given that the gap between Toryism and fascism is much smaller than people think.
618. The E.U. is a bunch of bureaucrats / The European Union is a bunch of bureaucrats -> thanks Baher. [66]
618. Calling reality true or false is a category error / Asking "if reality exists" is nonsensical; a statement in a proof exists, reality behaves -> in traditional philosophy, it's easy to get caught up in "if reality is truly real", but that whole question is sophistry. imagine Deltarune is perceived as a fully physical world by its inhabitants — basically what is implied by the narrative already. if Deltarune is full of physics, will any of the characters behave as if it isn't real? in order to write fictional narratives we always assume that particular pieces of real-world physics lead to particular reponses. for instance, if the fictional world contains death, fictional people will create ethical theories and standards of behavior around death. what we don't think about is the same pattern may be true of reality. if death behaves within the Factical space of reality, then human beings will interact with death as behaving objects connected by the same overall consistent set of objects and behaviors. all philosophy is the interpretation of what we call Facticity or The Great Behaving, because The Great Behaving is always behaving against us and we are always obligated to behave back. the fact that multiple people all behave in The Great Behaving moots every question about the truth of reality, because whenever you call The Great Behaving not true you potentially call another person not true, or an ecosystem not true. and the fact is that if you burn down the Amazon the toucans will have no fucking idea what set of reasoning led you to do that. if you treat reality as not true, the toucans will only know you're a world-ending disaster.
618. The Algorithm is the same thing as The Market -> very intuitive if like me you grew up with Algorithms all your life. both of them are a disorganized cloud of producers on a certain territory trying to shove themselves into your face before others do. the sinister thing is that many people on Algorithms are not even earning any money; at this point we're just training people that people-gambling for attention and stomping over the top of other people to get attention is inherently good.
618. chaos magic [67] [68] [69] [70] -> TJ Kirk's stated ideology. I'm not satisfied with this answer just yet, because I like to find the internal ideologies inside ideologies that they really evaluate to.
618. invented dice god helped me navigate the world -> the motif of using mythological or "religious" symbols purely as metaphorical models of a chaotic world and the supposed ability to use Free Will to create or discover a desired future. I have no problems with this in terms of whether it's religion. it's clearly just a philosophical ritual. what leaves me concerned about this is .
618. leviathan cross / infinity patriarchal cross
618. Unpredictability is the currency of power -> TJ Kirk. I am not sure what ideology this is. he definitely doesn't know what culture is, and isn't the kind of guy who would discover existential materialism. it kind of sounds like some variety of psychoanalyst bullshit — Jung? the word "shapeshifter" is suspicious — but I'm not sure what it actually is.
618. Humanity has left the era of ideologies and is in the post-ideological period / Previous historical periods were about finding a good ideology and trying to build the world to fit it but this one is not -> I don't think this can be true given that every identity graph has principles no matter how abstract they are. a group of White people tossing out a bunch of arbitrary screen-beliefs as fancy hats for white supremacy is a principle, even if it's one real principle pretending to be fifty that are all made up. to even be in a group of White people is to have at least one principle, just like being in a group of Trotskyists or anarchists is to have at least one principle or you're not in the group and going off to associate with somebody else. I think when you say things like this you've probably bought into some kind of claim that being a nazi can be ideologically neutral because national populations are not political when whole groups of humans as material objects fight each other. I know we all "do things and try to justify it", but... can you really do that with nationalist chunk competition? I don't think you can. this man makes me want to entertain the otherwise stupid anarchist idea that physical populations are made up and leaving a toxic population any way you can is better than trying to stay.
618. History used to be ordered, now everything is breaking to leave something entirely unknown -> this is like. a Zinovievist theory of history? the minimal version of Zinovievism without any Trotskyism in it. confuses me to see it from TJ Kirk when unlike Žižek he is not even pretending to be a Leninist, so this has to have come from somewhere else.
618. Mount Tambora caused Crumbl cookies -> interesting for the reasons in the middle
618. object term -> a noun which refers to an arrangement of matter or arrangement of particular pieces
618. process term -> a noun which is not necessarily a verb but refers to an action or series of actions; a verb referring to material events
618. process adjective -> an adjective which refers to a material process of some series of events having happened. ex.: "subdivided", "polymerized"
618. standard term / meta-ontological or post-linguistic term
618. hypercorrected term -> a term which has been corrected from its standard form in some other ideology to a local, ideology-specific form. Trotskyists hypercorrecting "Trotskyism" to "Leninism" is a great example. anarchists hypercorrecting "anarchist" to "postcolonial" looks to be another example. hypercorrected terms should not be used in Item labels unless there is no standard term or they genuinely make things clearer
4999. I'm not anticommunist, but...
4999. Zinovievize / Zinovievizing / Zinovievism (process noun / nominalized verb, similar to "imperialism") -> to declare another entire ideology a conspiracy based on the whole group of people believing the wrong culture, and attempt to bash the SPS to pieces. I have a bad feeling that given enough time most Anarchisms naturally do this to each other.
4999. I'm a Marxist-Leninist but China needs to be Zinovievized / I'm not anticommunist, but... (Zinovievizing China) -> this feels like one of the biggest blunders of modern Marxism besides people around the world thinking Trotskyism is more valid than any of the Marxisms that have actually worked. like, no, you've lost the plot. one of the major reasons for Marxism is to understand how countries have developed in order to understand how countries can stop fighting each other, and this does neither of those things. you genuinely need some kind of meta-ontology to understand China, which actually deals with the prospect of a totally different Marxism existing and the "correct" Marxism having to exist alongside it, broadly predict what it will do, and take appropriate kinds of actions to unify with it against non-Marxisms.
618. meta-anarchism -> the application of meta-Marxism to anarchism. in practice a lot of my meta-Marxist theory on societies so far is technically doing this, explaining how various anarchisms have failed to properly evaluate themselves to first produce successful theories of existing societies and then produce successful theories of how to build a named Anarchism, and how they could produce more successful theories consistent with reality and capable of evaluating previous largely-Idealist anarchist theories. god, all the time I have had to spend just scrambling to correct the way anarchists understand the historical development of countable Cultures.... why have they spent so long accumulating so much clearly wrong theory on that?
618. Anarchism doesn't explain real societies / Anarchism is an insufficient theory of society
618. It costs zero dollars to not be racist / Not being racist costs money (dismissed possibility) / If it costs zero dollars not to be racist, why spend money on anti-racism education? (rhetorical question; dismissed possibility) -> an unfortunate reality in places like the United States. to have any idea how not to be racist people have to actually form mental models of other groups of people, and every method of doing that from media to travel to university programs costs money. any time that people don't have the power to earn a lot of money and outcompete other people they are at risk of being racist or producing racist children, just because they will become stuck in spending all their energy surviving and focusing on whatever things they can afford that manage to make them happy. and the more generations of that you go through the more racist people get and the more incapable of climbing out of it they get. this is why it is really, really concerning whenever you get anarchists trying to characterize racism in terms of "greedy people" and "corporations getting bigger". people reverting to smaller towns or villages all too easily results in them ending up in the exact kinds of limited-income, limited-opportunity situations that make them and their children incredibly racist. at the same time, it is worth recognizing how Careerism and Existentialism encourage people to compete to create or occupy all of society's slots and how that divides people into incapable people who are at risk of becoming racist and capable people who are at risk of becoming nazis to try to preserve what they've taken. Existentialism is one big lose-lose game that's great for dividing your society into two groups of nazis that both still deeply hate each other.
618. racialized Hatfield attack -> when people become afraid of each other and preemptively attack each other before The Law can intervene specifically based on ethnicity or similar demographic. I pick these item titles a little strategically so nobody can take any of the Items and go "haha, lynching" and attempt to meme racism. "racialized Hatfield attack" sounds boring, and that's a good thing.
618. Emmett Till looks like a hamburger [71] -> the motif of attempting to educate students about racism only for them to already respond with racism.
618. Take It Seriously -> case of: project policy. Ontology category for serious subject matter where it is inappropriate to pull things like funny jamming propositions. it might feel a little unintuitive when this applies. some things like historical periods of racism receive Take It Seriously, but other things like "Celebration axe murder" which may be horrifying but fail to be more profoundly terrible than fictional horror works distinctly do not. Take It Seriously tends to apply to phenomena which generate strong "Sunny" fallacies and present a risk of people refusing to have empathy / honor human rights.
618. Fools Crow -> biography of a Sioux civil chief and medicine man. interesting in terms of historical patterns. happens to contain a bunch of history of blatant racism, simply because over the past century that's what had happened.
618. Our Daily Bread August 2025 - DSV2508ND
618. Ella Enchanted
618. Systems come from experiences growing up [72] / Systems of consistent behavior come from Subject formation -> this is a form of psychohistory. that is what this is, whether it knows it or not. it's using a roughly Lacanian model that it's all about The Subject and early development in an individual and you can reduce all of society down to that. I can't help but feel like psychohistory is terribly reductive. in a world where it is super forbidden to ask why people have identities, psychohistory would probe the whole existence of culture in a mechanical way and ask why people are German. people should know by now that populational identity is a circular thing where being it is having membership in it. a big reason anyone is in religion any more in the United States is they perform the behaviors to have a group of people to be in. the same goes doubly true for Trump fans. they're all just performing those behaviors to form a group, which falls apart and leaves them isolated as soon as they stop; worse, if they fail to perform the set of arbitrary behaviors the Democrats want they'll be thrown out of that and left wholly confused.
618. forced free choice / forcing someone to freely choose something / forcing consent -> this + misogyny = Ella Enchanted
618. If XYZ is freedom, then rape is love / If a forced free choice is freedom, then rape is consent -> generic proposition that a "free" free choice is equivalent to consent and a forced free choice is not consent
618. The United States conquers countries by forcing them to Freely Choose things -> culturocracy + ??? = this.
618. cause-breaking dome / dome problem (Newtonian mechanics) -> this + series of unique events = chaotic system.
618. chaotic system -> a chaotic system is a system which can be simulated as having steps that are individually predictable but where the overall set of steps of the process looks wildly different depending on the unknown initial condition. one example which is somewhat famous now is the "dome problem": a perfectly smooth ball sitting on a perfectly smooth dome has particular physics which are easy to understand when the ball rolls off the dome and goes down a particular path, but before the ball rolls off it's mysterious how long it will take to move or what direction it will go. if I'm understanding all this correctly, the dome is the simplest version of a chaotic system, with just one or two interactions. a chaotic system can have any number of understandable interactions after the first one which depending on the first one knock the system wildly down different courses.
618. Universal declaration of human rights
618. Celebration axe murder
618. The creation of violence is a two-way process / The creation of violence is a multivariable function of two physical objects acting according to game theory -> the claim that Hatfield attacks or "crimes" occur when people hate each other in both directions and absolutely cannot get along. committing active violence in "self-defense" is a more common and attested phenomenon than people want to admit. there don't have to be any Tories hating whole groups of people for violence to happen; there only has to be a pedophile who is not getting brought to justice and an angry former victim with an axe, or a beat-up child knowing his mother has a gun in the house and contemplating whether to fire it.
618. The only way for societies to avoid violence is for all populations to progress in the same direction -> if Stalin-followers progress toward Bolshevism and Trotskyites progress toward Bolshevism, and it's the same unique physical arrangement of parts containing both of them, all is well. if Stalin-followers progress toward Bolshevism and Trotskyites progress toward Liberalism, all is not well. even if one population progresses toward center-Liberalism and one progresses toward Toryism, it's possible the society is headed toward violence and people will murder each other.
618. instructions unclear -> the motif of some statement being cast down that sounds good and necessary but which has a totally different effect on reality than expected.
618. right to housing -> I recommend inputting human rights as motifs because motifs never have to be marked true or false.
618. All people deserve housing / Everyone across the total of two towns deserves housing -> a contradiction. we want it to be true, but it can't be materially true because two million people can never fit in the same space meant for a thousand people. "all people" always live in some particular area, but each town constitutes a separate population such that "all people" is multiple separate groups of people. to successfully receive housing a person has to first pick between the two towns, and in turn may be picking between an entirely separate countable Culture and government, as if every town was a separate nation-state. this has important consequences for any form of "democracy": the Demos is always split into multiple Demotes each creating separate Democracies, and discussions on issues can always become skewed as people get forced into one Democracy or the other.
618. What is consumerism? -> everyone throws around this concept like it actually means something, but have you ever thought about the actual question of how consumerism came to be a problem and how it happens? I cannot remember hearing a single "how" explanation of consumerism, only shallow descriptions of "this is bad and I don't like it".
618. Asserting society's problems boil down to a few villains Choosing to be bad is inherently statist -> this aspect of anarchism and Fanon fans really bugs me. "xenophobia and choosing to do terrible things to another group of people cannot be termed natural" okay. "a small group of people had to actively do this" you're beginning to lose me but, okay, technically correct. "if everybody has the right attitude and coheres together like A Community we can fix this" how? any way of doing that given the first two implications you said effectively creates The State. you have just defined the concept of crimes and criminals and hunting down criminals, and that imperialists and billionaires are criminals. how the hell does having a better attitude or emerging countable Culture make that go away and make you not need what amount to anarchist police or the anarchist national guard that has the explicit authority to kill people for being criminals, deport them, or put them in prison?? every time I think of a real event of millions of people uniting to stop something as uniquely bad and unnecessary, that's either a law or law enforcement. or, well, sometimes it's a highly xenophobic anti-Arab "assassinate the evil monstrous American-slaying threat" mission, AKA an international blood feud. you can have a phenomenon to excise an unwanted "villain" from a population that isn't law enforcement but is pure bigoted violence. this is why every Communist movement is the enforcement of Communist laws: so that nobody is authorized to kill people just because they're another ethnicity or another demographic, and the violence comes to a stop when people are acquainted with the new external borders, internal structural borders, and ideology.
618. Consumerism is the perfection of slavery -> what the hell does this mean. investigate it later
618. All Idealism is actually intuition-ism / Idealism doesn't exist because all Idealists are intuition-ists -> the claim that whenever Idealists try to insist that contradictory things inherently go together, or there are exceptions to things that everyone is inherently supposed to know, that what they are actually doing is operating totally off intuition. they really do have an inner ontology of the way things are supposed to be but they are just really really bad at visualizing it or articulating what it is, so they clumsily try to explain things by listing off all the things those things aren't. this model is useful because it doesn't treat anarchists and Existentialists as stupid just for being bad at describing what things they actually believe and having to resort to describing everything in negative terms.
618. Small businesses can be harmful -> a depressing number of people don't even realize this.
618. Scalpers are small businesses -> this is just a fact. of all things, I had this seared into my mind by Neopets, where most of the residents of the game world can't actually produce anything and you generally make money by scalping. (or in better scenarios, hoarding things that are very old.)
618. Existentialist inspiration porn -> the motif of a "heartwarming" story of everyone in A Community coming together, rich and poor, Black and White and Native-American, all spontaneously exerting Free Will and donations of wildly varying values to do something in precisely the way that no other city in a country of millions and millions of people can possibly do, but where this highly local solution the writers admit doesn't apply everywhere is presented as somehow the way to fix a nationwide problem. this motif does not apply if there is actual repeatable theory behind the local plan which is being replicated in many regions.
618. interdemocracy between eating, breathing space-occupiers -> the only way out of capitalism. Liberal-republicanism very vaguely recognizes the idea of interdemocracy, but not the concept of people actually being living things that eat and occupy space. anarchism partially recognizes people as living, breathing organisms, but totally rejects the concept of interdemocracy. Marxism has never been properly ready for interdemocracy between Marxisms. a "democracy" of existence itself and populations themselves would be a genuinely new thing.
618. the Rarity / benevolent territory-taker / benevolent networkist -> the motif of a high-ranking person or business territory owner of any size acting like they're the only definition of humanity just because they have the power to donate to the poor or they "make an effort to produce quality work". you see this every fucking day when people argue against "AI": taking away the humanity of everyone but the highest-ranking people in order to then argue what being human supposedly is. this removal of humanity as people stratify into territory-takers and followers is the crux of where "colonialism" must come from. every single territory-taker that exists must be a contributor to the creation of empire. but every territory-taker will lie to you and claim they are all capable of doing something nice and the only people that can make arguments about social change, even though they are necessarily the creators of oppression just because they divide society into people with ability and people with disability, people with prediction-power and people with insecurity.
618. Any ideology which would toss one specific Archon in prison to fix a population and change nothing else is an anarchism -> I'm not sure if this is true, but it certainly seems like a decent distinction between Marxist versus non-Marxist ideologies. alternatively, it could be the distinction between Marxism and Existentialism, where anarchism and Existentialism are not the same thing. I think one potential problem with this is it threatens to label Deng Xiaoping Thought a named Anarchism; in practice it tends to run on things like regulating capitalism by finding specific bad actors and bringing down penalties on them while leaving everyone else "free" of state intervention to do capitalism. that doesn't feel like a correct categorization. I think it's fair to claim that anarchism doesn't truly exclude a State from forming in real life, and real-life Anarchisms probably will have States, but even so I don't think a huge party-nation with a parliament building sounds like an Anarchism. I definitely don't know enough anarchist theory to say why. all I know is from the angle of Marxism if you have chunk competition and elite winners of Careerism or investing who take charge of particular chunks, practically speaking those should be the Archons, and anything which is purposefully leaving Archons around materially couldn't construct a logically-coherent realizable named Anarchism as a theory, so it shouldn't make sense to call it anarchism right now.
618. ring of non-competing businesses versus expansion / distinction between stability and expansion -> the existence of anarchist theories seems to come not from any distinction between workers and owners, but from the distinction between a stable ring of non-competing tiny businesses and a chaotic clamor of businesses expanding from tiny to larger. the distinction between tiny businesses and larger businesses appears right before the proletariat proper even comes to exist, and in that sense it's a very archaic conflict from an early stage of populational development.
618. Anything that removes colonialism from an empire is a revolution -> this would be following from the claim that any government emerges directly from a population of people itself and the class or rank structure inside that population; whenever you remove the upper class or the Archon you change the resulting government and the population's entire paradigm about government. colonialism, depending on your definition, is the actions of a few particularly malicious Archons (India), or the expansion of a population onto another continent or country mediated by the highest-ranking people who are the most able to secure territory that the more common people stand behind to get handed the ability to produce a sellable product and feed their kids (United States, maybe South Africa or Ireland, but not India).
618. Filling an area with people in order to instate a government is colonialism -> how do you disqualify Gramscianism from being an instance of this? for that matter, how do you disqualify Liberal-republicanism from inherently being an instance of this even when it's governed by progressives? I would say indigenous or previous people-groups are exempt and they can't forcibly occupy a territory that was invaded by somebody else. but beyond that, how can you possibly argue that an LGBT+black&brown party isn't colonialism unless it dismantles Liberalism and somehow creates a new government that materially isn't colonial? anything that actually, successfully removes colonialism is definitionally a revolution, and nobody wants to acknowledge that.
618. Every class or rank of people uses Christianity to defend their current behavior
618. Christianity is the appropriation of Jewish writings to serve empire -> false because it didn't happen in a straight line like that. Jewish texts were passed to Jewish Christians, who then were Christians, and then I think what basically happened was Christianity was divided into common people and literal emperors and the emperors or upper classes of each kingdom overshadowed everyone else and created the new interpretation. the whole issue of people "misinterpreting" Christianity is bizarrely a class issue from the moment it first appeared all the way through to today.
618. "Settlers" is a Maoist text -> I'm pretty sure this is true. there might be some technicalities I'm missing, similar to the notion that at the time Christianity was created a group of people was splitting in two so nothing was arbitrarily copied and the use of Christianity for modern empires is more complicated than modern empires simply twisting Jesus. I am still confused and trying to figure out how the hell a Communist text was totally appropriated by anticommunists to mean that somehow we can purge racism out of everything and we have to before there can be workers' movements. I still don't understand how that even became "allowed" or "acceptable".
618. Snatching Marxist texts to achieve center-Liberalism is cultural appropriation -> more of an "interesting thought" than a solid argument. relies on the concept of a "culturally-defined Communist" in the sense of an East German, etc., emerging as a nationality whose nationality is then appropriated.
618. Escaping Bolshevism causes the same things to happen anarchically
618. Epic-of-Gilgamesh stories mean that effort is not owned -> a not-obvious interpretation of this story type that I like a lot better. it seems like history got a lot worse the day the Afrikaner attitude arrived that all effort you put into existing is something you inherently own, instead of it being possible that a lot of the effort put into existing is purely fighting against pressure from outside and doesn't represent any kind of progress or creation or ownership at all.
618. Populations continuing to exist is equivalent to immortality -> everything dies, and a great number of living things have a maximum lifespan. but populations are the one thing that is alive and can die and yet wants to live forever and ever. we don't want populations to die and one population to be able to slaughter another out of bigotry. but no population can necessarily live forever. how do you reconcile that? I think that's a really difficult question. but the one thing I know is Epic-of-Gilgamesh type stories are a really bad way to go about it. if Sun Wukong wants to preserve his population... isn't that what every population wants? doesn't every single population not want to be subject to genocide? so, to cast the concept of preserving a population through the lens of an individual king wanting to stay in power just seems totally wrong. existence is not a king, but more like the republic itself. it doesn't make sense to characterize existence as a form of power that needs to be limited as much as something you want to take the locus of power out of and understand as a bunch of connected moving parts.
618. Gender identity cannot possibly be secular / "You think a man magically changing into a woman is secular?" -> found in a comments section on a news story about parents opting out of LGBT+ lessons in school because they were supposedly "porn". (how would you expect them to have gotten into schools if that were true? these people have never seen fandoms and the absolutely gigantic controversies that LGBT+ people get into over a single mistagged tweet that wasn't for kids.)
618. The Magna Carta was the barons creating parliament / The Magna Carta was the nobility Freely Choosing to create parliament -> an example for the Existentialist / anarchist misconception that Liberal-republicanism is baked into a Culture or latent inside a whole countable Culture and is "obvious". this event appears to have happened, but it's the framing. the framing that all the barons and the king simply had to sit down and agree that We Are All The Subject So We All Have Rights. this subtle twisting of the historical event from a concrete struggle of a group of barons versus a king or the slow process of connections to nobility or parishes turning into representative units of people into the act of Everybody Casting Off Archon To Be Properly Human. it says a lot about anarchism and why everyone is so goddamn anarchy-brained.
618. [S0] human right -> a human right is the category of motifs of all human beings deserving something. unfortunately, many human rights are typically conceptualized as "I believe that everybody" statements.
618. [M3] How do people obtain the content of a human right? / In what way do people obtain the material object described in a human right? -> this is a very important question that nearly everybody glosses over. if you ask Existentialists like Deleuze and Guattari, they'd say that simply having Freedom as an individual enables everyone to obtain human rights. but as far as I can see that just generates Liberal-republicanism and many people not successfully being able to make use of Freedom in this way. this is why I get so upset about the thing I call the Existentialist-Structuralist tradition and have made a whole big project to try to study it.
618. [F2] All human beings deserve housing -> this is only "false" because it's an "I believe that everybody" statement, and needs a more precise counterpart which more accurately describes how to obtain human rights within material reality.
618. [F2] All human beings deserve appropriate medication -> this is only "false" because of the question of how.
618. [F2] Human beings deserve hormone treatment -> sub-case of: All human beings deserve appropriate medication.
618. [S] Stalin showing up without any cash -> motif found in center-Liberal attempt to explain the continuing evolution of capitalism, originally found in Stalin: The court of the red tsar (Montefiore 2003). [73] this sounds to me like a PMC model trying to argue for the existence of "The Pigs" as a class. bringing up "Stalin showing up without any cash" is such whiplash against the rest of the argument that makes me question if the speaker actually knows anything about the development of societies if he is characterizing the Soviet Union in ways that could come out of people that clearly know nothing about it.
618. [S2] Gravity can be quantized into four gauge bosons -> when the weak force was quantized into three different particles depending on how you count them, this hypothesis seems reasonable to me. the real question is always how you test it and show that the model lines up with reality.
618. [S2] Global civilization will begin with a single currency / Just as nation-states began with a single standard currency that allowed for taxes, banks, and sherrifs, global civilization will begin with countries consolidating onto a currency -> proposition sitting behind Trump's "new Breton Woods" axis of green and yellow countries; the whole thing revolves around a bunch of countries being connected by the U.S. dollar. to me, the observation that even center-Liberals can blatantly point out allied blocs of countries as a major way this thing works is more interesting. should we instead be looking specifically at the formation of a bloc of insiders and a bloc of outsiders to explain how these axes develop and what they will further develop into? the fact this is about strengthening the dollar's "ally currencies" into a particular cluster of currencies is suspicious.
618. Influencers spreading the ex-gay model is dangerous -> this isn't not true, but is potentially misleading. it suggests individual public figures actually have the ability to Freely Will what everyone else believes and can design everybody's culture better if they only make the right choices, and it's unclear if that's actually true.
618. neo-paganism -> the charcoal swatch can be situationally used for neo-pagan religions now, as long as they have vaguely anarchist values. partly because I just don't know what swatch to use otherwise. I'm tired of putting the blue one on everything, and the green one seems mildly insulting unless it's simply a novel with occult themes.
618. [S2] The history of religion is at least twelve times bigger than Christ / Christianity is just one historical period in a bigger progression of at least twelve totally different historical periods containing no Christian god -> astrological claim that is technically correct, if for somewhat wrong reasons.
618. [S] age of Aquarius -> this just sounds like religious anarchism. am I wrong? this notion that an existing order will be shaken up through the flow of information and "freeing" things. the only thing about all this garbage I actually kind of like is the concept of using zodiac signs to demonstrate how big history is. to say that Christianity was actually small and insignificant because it's only one of at least twelve big historical periods. one of little those moments where fringe science becomes almost wired. like when astrologers and alchemists realized that really big patterns in the universe and really small patterns inside matter they didn't quite understand yet had to be connected somehow. I mean, yeah, they are, whatever is going on near the scale of photons does lead up to the thing we call time which does ultimately lead up to the patterns of galaxies. ancient astrologers just got it a bit backwards really
618. [S2] The heart of Marxism is historical materialism / Proposition zero of Marxism is historical materialism
618. [S2] Escape routes choose people / People don't choose escape routes; escape routes choose people -> this is it. this is my problem with schizoanalysis. they think "lines of flight" are a model of Free Will, but they're not, because no matter where you go, your success in finding freedom, safety, or happiness there depends on the uncontrollable actions people take at the other end. it's really the other people that choose you, not you that chooses your friends.
618. [S2] Intelligence is not advantageous to animal survival / Complex self-aware intelligence is not advantageous to survival -> the claim that human-like intelligence is not useful for understanding the physical world. this is about where you end up if you keep believing that statements about "not generalizing" actually constitute information rather than a lack of information. if that's really true, the human ability to learn was a terrible idea that has mostly led humans to internalize models about things where there is no actual pattern and hampered the survival of every individual. a less intelligent creature would have no prejudices in the human sense.
618. [S2] The United States is an instance of multicapitalism -> here I go coining words again. I have been kicking around this concept for a quite a while in MDem drafts, but up to now it has always been through the lens of emerging nation-states and the development of different forms of "democracy", rather than through the lens of capitalism. multicapitalism refers to the creation of multiple capitalist blocs inside the same country which function as different nations tearing apart the overall country because they are disconnected blocs of capitalists.
618. [S2] Expulsions and schisms are the same thing -> if one person can be a tiny group of people by being a countable Culture, then the major difference is just that an expulsion is one person and a schism is several people.
618. [S2] Liberalism is a large-scale Anarchism / Liberalism is what anarchist philosophy looks like when it realizes into a material population / When anarchist philosophy realizes, it will generate a Liberal State -> follows from "Anarchism is acting as if you are already free". if true, would explain why everyone in the United States is so dead-set on transitioning to Anarchism: it's always been that way from day one.
618. [S2] Marketing was invented by capitalists -> I really doubt this is true when people-gambling seems to be something that emerges by default and pre-dated capitalism, and people-gambling can create the need for marketing.
618. [S2] Marketing was not invented by capitalists -> the inverse claim. may be changed to any currently reasonable hypothesis about where marketing comes from.
618. [F2] Correct knowledge is found because of effort [74] -> no. this is just taking an appeal to authority and removing the specific figurehead so that the person's rank or the person's university is the appeal instead of the person. a person can spend all kinds of effort learning the wrong things and come to incorrect knowledge. it takes something else entirely to come to correct knowledge that is accurate to reality.
618. [S2] Societal progress is relative to a population's own goals -> implied in most mainstream Marxist-Leninist texts, even if some did also jump to particular assumptions about what those goals might be; self-determination was taken more seriously than a country developing the same way as other countries. this point of view makes it easy to define progress, and easy to define countries which are still developing. if a population internally has goals to realize into something else then it is still developing; if a population is completely content with its way of life it is not.
618. [M3] How will your civilization obtain insulin? -> one example of a genuine problem for Anarchists where the current "organization" of the world through primitive Existentialism, chunk competition, and Market Societies is hard to overcome with sheer utopian thoughts and individual will. you get to live in peace in your hidden Anarchist village if you can produce insulin. but all the production operations are taken up by giant patent-hoarding corporations that don't want anyone to know how. what are you going to do?
618. [S2] The United States is one big religion of sex -> Christians are weird sometimes. I clicked up this video thinking it would be like, modern countries worship money, or modern countries worship expertise, or something that made some kind of sense and would make me sigh but nod and say okay, you got me there. no. instead what it comes up with is this. I just laughed and couldn't even keep watching because I just knew it was not going to get any better and it had peaked right there. I can't think of any justification for this statement. I need... better creative inspiration to justify this stupid idea than is probably in this video. [75] ...you know. if the United States worships sex, and Trotsky wanted to ban sex, does that mean the United States is messed up because Trotsky lost?
618. [S2] "The proletariat vs the bourgeoisie" is undialectical / Invoking "the proletariat vs the bourgeoisie" out of context of different levels of set-plurality ignores relativity and is undialectical -> sometimes I love saying outrageous things for one second before I give the much longer description of what they mean. this is the major thing that's wrong with Trotskyism. it doesn't understand the simple concept that because people are lifeforms that eat and occupy space, there can be genuine conflicts between two national populations over the same space or ability to arrange things just because they're alive. each of these cases of real conflicts makes a populational border necessary, and gives all the people in the population the responsibility of defending each other against outsiders. of course, "defense" doesn't have to be violent. it could be millions of people coming together to form the Soviet Union and then making the empire stop and signing a peace treaty. but there does have to be a populational defense in the sense of all the people taking responsibility for the population and agreeing to form it into a particular shape which will bring an end to war. this is the sense in which I hesitate to say Deng Xiaoping Thought doesn't qualify as Marxism. the one thing it actually does is provide a method for defending the Chinese population from foreign capital by requiring it to take on a particular structure and create its own capitalists while refusing only some things from the outside. so... it's doing the most basic thing that Marxism should do as of the time of Stalin but it's just doing it a very weird way.
618. [S2] United States African-American populations should transition to Deng Xiaoping Thought -> really dumb thought that crossed my mind, I have no clue how bad an idea this is. this is a shitpost. anyway. the "logic" behind this is: China has a herd of cats effect. racial subpopulations in the United States have a herd of cats effect. each of them has to line up behind a layer of bourgeoisie possibly wrapped up in a Liberal-republican party because they have to defend their population from getting crushed by the momentum of outside populations. so what if racial subpopulations transitioned to Deng Xiaoping Thought? I have no idea if this makes any sense. I just don't know.
     [edit:] W.E.B. Du Bois was kind of calling for this by another name? [76] well that's something.
618. [S2] Novelty theory [77] -> so. this is silly. the way it's phrased it's bullshit, and the author literally admits it was made on drugs. but looked at from a better foundation? this is just an assembly theory, which isn't not true. the universe is full of a lot of things, and they bump into each other to create new things which follow from the things that already exist but might not be predictable if you don't understand the things that exist. that much is fairly possible to substantiate.
618. [S2] Computation space is largely interchangeable with computation time
618. [S2] A supply chain is like a human computer [78] -> sounds weird at first, but this is specifically in regard to the tradeoff between space and effort. the more you mess with different layouts of people and how effective they are, the more you observe that manufacturing is basically people computing physical objects, in the same sense that a computation can be made of any number of particular layouts of smaller computations, some of which are faster, some of which are more effective, some of which are more understandable from the outside.
618. [S] Chen Jingrun sitting inside shelter solving primes -> the motif of a big historical event going on and someone just being a person rather than their story being used to serve any particular agenda. [79] unironically great. it's so easy to take an incident between a workers' state and some group of people inside or outside it and spin it into the deepest depths of anticommunism, instead of simply reporting what happened in the incident and who was there. you see the slightest implications in the narrative based on what details were chosen of "imperialism!! China trying to control any particular borders is imperialist!" but it's relatively subtle. why don't we tell the actual conflicts like this
618. [S2] Bamboo is a weed
618. [S2] Bamboo is an invasive species
618. [S2] Weeds are invasive species -> this cannot be true but I don't know how to dispute it.
618. Proletarians are a finite resource capital is constantly running out of -> again and again, I keep trying to figure out the connection between the persistence of capitalism and migration within a country. I know there's something in there somewhere. workers in the United States, of the Careerist type that easily stretches back out to contractor, only stay in each area so long before they try to level up to high-quality contractors or new businesses. you only get to squeeze a few years out of each person before the proletariat just runs out, so it's like a pseudo ponzi scheme to keep trying to fill them back in. a local independent/subsidiary sized business definitely disintegrates on its own unless there is very careful attention to it
618. Distrusting scientists equals stereotyping humans -> hate this. facts aren't accurate or inaccurate because people like or don't like people.
618. The concept of truth is mainly for educated people -> what I now believe. you should never invoke the concept of true or false with uneducated people or even people who might be too lost in the weeds of philosophy, and instead always explicitly reference bisimilarity to reality with words such as "accurate"/"inaccurate".
618. Complexity in a theory is not as important as accuracy / A theory is not true purely because it's nuanced [80] -> yes! the Existentialists said something genuinely smart. this is the basic concept behind how propositions are rendered on this wiki. even when models are complicated if you want to become an expert in them, render them simply, break them down to simple distinctions of what they claim, in order to make it easier to analyze whether their most central concepts are accurate or inaccurate.
618. A bunch of crusty reactionaries showing up to the Labor party is the very beginning of class struggle [81] -> thanks Trotskyism. this is. I really have to doubt this. how can you people see regular people saying "Labor is turning into a reactionary party just like the Tories", and then say people joining a reactionary party is a good thing?? let's think up a counterpoint really fast. what if we lived in the timeline where Trotskyists invading the British Labour party actually succeeded and it turned into an inert Marxist party like the Japanese Communist Party (only this one is Trotskyist)? wouldn't people joining that party be a lot better than people joining the Labor party only after it's gone reactionary? like, hell, even if I say bad things about Trotskyism I'd prefer that outcome to having reactionary parties by a long shot. there is some weird subpopulational fuckery going on to create these Liberal-republican parties that definitely isn't the kind of class struggle you expect it to be in this video. from everything I know, it seems like modern populations prefer to try their best to separate into new ethnicities whenever they get upset with all the other individuals in society which they always get upset at really indiscriminately except for a narrow group of people they deem to be demographically similar to them. everything you've said has made me think the Labor party is filtering people out of the pool of people who can possibly bring progress, and the next thing everyone across miscellaneous classes would realistically do is fight the Labor party
618. Insanity is doing the same thing for a different result / Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result -> this weird old saying contradicts the efforts of center-Liberals and poststructuralists to crush stereotypes. what would you say if a racist claimed that insanity was tolerating some particular demographic of people a third time? that said, the concept that "not expecting things to be the same" can fix all prejudices seems wrong to me, because prejudices are often just terrible interpretations of real problems, and doing nothing but crush signifiers seems like simply ignoring the problems.
618. A lack of data means future experiences will be perfect / A bad experience doesn't teach about similar experiences / Bad experiences can't teach anything / People-gambler's fallacy -> a lack of data means it's just as likely bad things will happen as good things. this can be very scary to some people who can't afford to have any more bad experiences.
618. Contractors sell labor; proletarians sell purpose -> the claim that the difference between proletarians and contractors is precisely that everything about a proletarian's daily life becomes patterned around work, including what town they get to live in, what people they're allowed to know and talk to, and what activities they do when not at work. the concept of "time" is a distraction because nothing depends on time, despite what scientists up to now will tell you about physics equations and "determinism". connection and appropriateness for a structure are the things that make capitalism run
618. What Would Joel Do? -> the motif of a videogame story railroading the player into the thing the protagonist would do, as one particular definition of "roleplaying". Joel = The Last of Us.
618. I think, therefore I am / The writer cannot be the writer's hallucination / The writer cannot be a proposition inaccurate to reality -> classic, famous proposition used by Descartes as a basic axiom. one good argument against it is that by Gödel's incompleteness theorem no computer or logic book can reason about the actual computer or things outside the computer and certainly be correct. there's always a causal separation between computer, brain, or logic book and reality itself in the sense that one can say physics "is" the separation between objects.
618. Transgender people think therefore transgender people are -> this is the crux of my problem with current theories on gender identity. this Cartesian construction was overturned for crusty old White men within their own philosophers' groups so it seems strange we should be using it for anyone else. "I think, therefore I am" + gender identity = this.
618. [S] allegory of the cave -> a metaphor for the gap between noumenon and phenomenon. probably greatly exaggerated. the more time goes on and the more science has been done the smaller the gap between "object" and "shadow" seems to get.
618. [S2] Susie being herself can change the Prophecy / Ralsei believes that Susie being herself can change the Prophecy (variation) -> there we go! straightforward Existentialist interpretation of Deltarune. I have to be neutral on this theory "as a model" because there's nothing inherently wrong with this inside the context of fiction. I like it far better than that one early-chapters schizoanalyst interpretation that is infamous in my mind for how bad the original real-life theories are [82] [83]
618. [Z] Color, Communism, and Common Sense (Johnson ??)
618. [S2] Manning Johnson orchestrated a Communist plot to divide Black churches [84] [85] / Stalin planned to use Black people as expendables (sic; referring to a proposed vanguard) -> it appears the main error here is taking the phrase "general conflagration" and not realizing the key word is "general". looks like the substance of the plan is that if there is a rebellion in the United States then it will occur when Black people and all the other workers join together. but in reality, the Soviet Union has made an error because since about the US Civil War its subpopulations don't really spontaneously join together like that. it's always been movements for really specific identities only that on top of that take a really really long time or sometimes go backward. so yeah, "Stalin's" theory was wrong. look at people today and weirdly, the most effective and popular issues for joining people together are negative issues against things, especially a million people against a specific individual. people are very "anarchy-brained" and seem really incapable of comprehending actually creating policies versus exactly and precisely not having something bad that's annoying or frightening them.
618. [S] Highlander school of Communist troublemaking [86] -> this phrase makes me laugh. it's really the cherry on top that it has the same cadence as "Hogwarts school of wizardry". it sounds so official.
618. [Z] Laziness Does Not Exist (Pryce 2021)
618. [S2] Laziness does not exist -> I have my doubts about this. I mean, it's true that the concept of individual effort being connected to the ability of individuals or towns to live is bogus. there are many kinds of effort that are simply wasted, and where "laziness" would have been just as good. primitive Existentialism sucks. but the real problem with people "being lazy" is that towns need a balance of particular things and individuals need a particular amount of connection to other people that recognize them as useful (income) to raise their children. it doesn't seem like the streamers who are arguing that YouTube channels are productive have thought through what would would happen if all the people doing important basic things in other towns turned out to be reactionaries and disconnected from them. so, the only kind of laziness that exists is people being lazy about forming the correct social graphs that are totally resistant to reactionaries. but almost everyone has it.
618. "Infinite growth on a finite planet" comes from births / "Infinite growth on a finite planet" comes from individuals / "Infinite growth on a finite planet" is a bad talking point (births and primitive Existentialism) -> if you listen to Tories long enough, or if you simply look at the way job openings decrease every generation, you realize that the problem of "infinite growth" comes from individual households. individuals want to believe there will always be jobs for them, and things for them to create and contribute to society, the total number of things that exist always expanding. but the reality is that everything is finite. the space in a city for buildings is finite. the number of people you can sell something to is finite. the amount of attention people have to listen to ads and look at things is finite. and at a certain point of development whenever any new people try to elbow their way into society society pushes back. it seems to be true that society wasn't meant to expand infinitely, but in order to effect that every single individual has to miraculously calculate the probability that having babies or creating new things is not best for the population and miraculously pick the correct action. that is really hard to do without Bolshevism and a central government that literally moves people to different cities. infinite growth is tied to disorganization, while to keep growth "finite" you have to genuinely organize it into the same interconnected patterns. you have to give up the concept that civilizations are "made of Free Will" and accept that there is some kind of predictable correct arrangement of a particular set of people which has ways it can be done wrong.
618. South Africa's Black Economic Empowerment program failed / BEE (pronounced BEE) has failed (South Africa (pronounced South Africa)) -> I am not sure if this is true or false but the arguments for it sound very fishy. [87] the people making these arguments really want to crack some walnuts. but could it be true that this program amounts to corporate welfare that hasn't done much of anything? maybe. I'd need to look at it more closely.
618. there are only two genders... -> motif or internet meme of starting a sentence with this and finishing it with something that absolutely should not be the answer and is hard not to crack up laughing at
618. The only two ideologies are small government and big government / There are two ideologies: small government and big government / There are only two genders: small government and big government -> this is so far beyond untrue. it's... provably untrue with just a few historical events. let's say Stalin is in favor of Big Government. well, Trotsky is also in favor of Big Government! he wants all the world's countries to spontaneously form into a world government. by some metrics you'd think that's the biggest government. how many people are even in the parliament or council of soviets?? but the two of them are fighting each other even though they both believe in Big Government. there are more than two ideologies. they're all separate and they all begin from different local sets of interests and goals. how do you even square the notion of small vs big government with the United States fighting over Catholicism? Protestantism and Catholicism also show there are more than two ideologies, once you get to Islam and Buddhism and all the other religions there have ever been.
618. A republic exists for upper-rank people to fight over land -> the claim that Mexican political parties are primarily about allegiances to specific upper-rank people who arbitrarily choose opposing parties just because they have pre-existing rivalries with each other, after which they only pretend to believe what the parties believe. [88] I find this one pretty believable. it matches general patterns of party affiliation in other countries. look at the United States going through a phase of making its parties about who is Protestant or Catholic, or who is the most or least similar to particular "successful" White people. this is the proper response to the claim that conservative parties "stabilize" republics — do you really want people pretending to believe things just to legitimize socially-linked cults around specific wealthy individuals fighting for pure territory and power?
618. Rule and Ruin: The Downfall of Moderation and the Destruction of the Republican Party, from Eisenhower to the Tea Party (Kabaservice 2012)
618. How Democracies Die (Levitsky & Ziblatt 2018)
618. There are four kinds of conservative parties -> the reactionary; the republican; the tycoon; the cult leader. [89] well, that's a claim. I think these categories are not very distinct from each other. also. what makes you think you can control any particular kind of conservative subpopulation and magically make it smarter? saying the United States can choose what kind of conservative parties it will have is just an empty "I believe that everybody" statement.
618. Constructing Democratic Governance: Latin America and the Carribean in the 1990s — Themes and Issues (1996)
618. Democracy is the act of convincing upper-rank people to vote instead of merely capturing the population -> claim about the causes of governments labeled as authoritarian in Latin America. very interesting, but sounds dubious. raises the question of, is a democratic republic even achieving anything whatsoever or is life exactly the same with or without it? seems like a glitch in the model that we should be asking that question.
618. Signifier Case / signifier case -> the motif of presenting a concept In Capital Letters to defamiliarize it as a commonly-accepted word within the same language and offset it as a strange ontological construct which needs to be investigated, or as a specialized academic usage within some particular philosophy. this concept may be considered identical to practices like quoting terms or putting them in italics, but is not the same thing as putting a term in title case simply because it is the title of a wiki article.
618. Getting a job is the act of playing both sides in a genuine social conflict
618. Bilingual boxes will kill hobby shops [90] -> misleading. fails question-begging test. the real issue here is whether or not you can make the corporations themselves print multilingual boxes, not whether produced boxes will or won't be allowed in Canada. this is a democulture issue: is democulture materially possible, or will it devolve into segregation according to what culture each island of people naturally performs and which localized countable Cultures accept which other ones? you'll notice that the hobby shop getting upset is accelerating the exact problem the regulation failed to fix by almost intentionally (we don't know for sure they're bigots from such scant information) choosing the English-only boxes. the other thought that hit me after a while: why doesn't Canada buy its boxes from Europe? odds are those boxes would probably have French on them. of course, we know why. Canada's population is spread across multiple countries into Third-World factories that create things only for particular businesses in Canada but not the rest of Canada — or the same factories are attached to the United States. that's the basic reason.
618. If repression is the problem, Trotsky only needs to tell Stalin his vision of Bolshevism is terrible -> Rothenberg seemed to be claiming (hey now, I literally recommended the book to someone else and neither of us were able to follow all the way through it, so I'm not just lazy) that repression is causing all our problems and that's why "conversations" can supposedly solve everything. but if you apply the Trotsky model that makes no sense. historically, if all the Trotskyites were perfectly honest everyone would laugh them out of the room because of the perception they don't know anything. best case scenario you've got two totally different would-be countries that want to do things totally differently leading one to marginalize the other because people just want to get on with their lives and don't want the other group of people building and living the wrong way over the top of them. worst case scenario one of the countries is many tiny countries of bourgeoisie and it's a blatant lie. on the other hand sometimes people are blatantly racist and think they have an impossible equation to find the superior ethnicity to produce on a given plot of land. you never know if people are doing that, from a different angle, to the Trotskyites.
9901. assume a spherical cow -> the motif of mathematics problems, or perhaps general thought experiments, presenting a test case which makes perfect sense yet to any reasonable person looks unlike reality
618. Language can never touch grass / A book can never touch grass -> every single book is a Cartesian system of reasoning unable to see outside itself, mitigated by the ability of any particular resource to collect more information or reference other things. this entails that copyright is pretty terrible for our ability to understand the outside world and not have prejudices.
618. City of Six Moons -> ontology exercise. fun idea in my opinion.
618. Mother -> RPG with opponents that seem like they should be recruited, ultimately leading to Deltarune. also possibly to IronShard/Aurora if that comes to be
618. EarthBound
618. Mother 3
618. Endling -> animal ecology.
618. In Stars and Time -> trauma adventure, like OMORI.
618. [S] green book
618. [S2] Feral dragons are the only happy ones (Roses in the Flames) -> my crazy theory for what the twist of this story is going to be. everyone is an unreliable narrator and we'll find out that none of the main characters that thought they had it so good is truly satisfied and only the area of feral dragons that's supposedly destroying civilization is held up as satisfied with their lives and in Freedom. maybe it's just me, but all the descriptions of the world the characters give feel disingenuous. I kept thinking, the protagonist speaks like no actual human being and the characters don't talk about anything as if they were experiencing it as much as if everything was a bunch of floating propositions. but then I saw the game get polished from its earlier drafts to where it was a little more convincing. so maybe none of this is bad writing. maybe the game is planning some crazy twist where the things all the characters were saying at first weren't meant to be believable, and were all misdirects. maybe it's here to blow our minds by first setting up a strange, surreal, not-quite-believable setting of dragon capitalism and then the actual point is to shatter those expectations and show that genuinely none of it made any sense and here's the way dragons are supposed to live instead. the funny thing? if that was the point I'd probably like the story. you didn't portray civilizations as utopian, but you did metatransitional realism instead of just assuming dragon tribes are made of culture and Free Will. even if the depicted transition is effectively an Anarchism that is an achievement.
618. [S2] People won't form coalitions just because you "believe that everybody"
618. [S2] If Liberal economics exists because property values are the price to get somebody to willingly give up a social slot that was hard to obtain, how can we know that elections are ever fair? -> A) expensive land areas or buildings are hard-won slots B) elected offices are hard-won slots C) if somebody wants control of a country enough, they will work very hard to stay in and put in allies of the same demographic or belief unless someone somehow paid them not to. whatever that might mean.
618. [F2] Lived Experience is indisputable -> false on a technicality because it can and will be disputed constantly. this is the problem. the problem is that Lived Experience is already getting disputed, but if you propose Lived Experience to solve that problem, it will perpetually be unable to prove itself using itself because the problem is that people can't be forced to consider it proof.
618. [S2] Every lived experience contradicts lived experience -> every time I hear somebody say "you can't contradict lived experience"... no. Lived Experience is something of a paradox because the whole reason people "haven't respected it" is their own Lived Experience has blinded them to seeing others, or for various reasons, having a material incentive to see others. appealing to Lived Experience is a really bad idea.
618. [S2] Some people's "own meaning" is Toryism / Given the ability to make their own meaning, some people will make Toryism -> early-existentialism is a tautology. after being alive for 30 years it kind of shocks me that nobody realizes this. to say people create their own meaning is to say each person builds ontologies of what is important. but people already do that whether early-existentialism ever existed or not, even if there is religion. early-existentialism just characterizes religion from a new angle: if nobody knows what the afterlife is, what will you create? and that leads to a plurality of religions all believing different things while in conflict as material groups of people. early-existentialism never answered the most important question for humanity, which is, what is the meaning of people chunk-competing? the meaning of individual existences is totally irrelevant compared with that.
618. [S2] Constitutional amendments connect politics to history -> case of: Q93 argument for general-sense historical materialism. when you think about it, if constitutional amendments didn't do this, they wouldn't even be doing their job. the United States constitution especially is a narrative about history — what kinds of progress are said to have occurred and issues been solved. but if the daily operation of the United States, every little thing people did, didn't already make sense, then the constitution wouldn't make sense to anyone. in other countries like the United Kingdom there isn't even a written constitution, there is just a bunch of case law. yet the country doesn't fall apart purely because it doesn't have a constitution. every decision doubly has to make sense.
618. [S] freedom-hating atheist -> we need to talk about how bizarre it is that like, everyone has been programmed with "door theory" to the point that many center-Liberals actually believe that there are anti-religion people who actually genuinely hate religious people as living beings and don't want them to have any Freedom. that Richard Dawkins isn't just a xenophobe that should be tossed out of atheist circles, but is bad specifically because he denied people Individual Freedom Of Religion. this stupidity has made me hate Existentialism more than I dislike religion. like oh my hecks invent Christian Bolshevism if you really have to, just everyone please stop telling people that relationships are strictly voluntary. you should know by now that reactionaries reject marginalized groups of people because they think God declared them the enemy (the opposer) of Real Genuine Human Beings and they will get their reward from God for either braving through those people's disappearance or getting rid of them. cooperating with religious people is just dividing the United States into a big ragnarok battle between the god of reactionary-subpopulationals and the god of all the East-German types the reactionary-subpopulationals consider too weak or poor to "really" be White, plus the loudmouths that expel all those people and claim to speak for all society just because they're the best at unrelated things. I think I went over the angry line. anyway, letting people believe all relationships are strictly voluntary and any religious people can Show The Door is very bad for the prospect of getting people to include marginalized groups of people in society without considering it a breach of their Freedom.
618. [S2] Prejudices are not obviously bad / It is not inherently obvious to everybody in an equal way through an equal path that prejudices are bad -> the claim that it is difficult to realize prejudices are bad, even if they are bad. most prejudices that center-Liberals would consider "good" are not obvious as prejudices unless you look closely, but they sure do exist.
618. [S2] All Freedom-respecting theories can be explained to a child / The most Freedom-respecting theories can be explained to a fifth-grader -> follows from "solidarity is optional" plus the claim that every new academic theory about society is ideology. this claim is really interesting to test, but to be frank, it doesn't look too good for this claim when literally Kent Hovind can say this, while ironically any grade-school textbook can explain evolution.
618. [S2] All academic-level theories are ideological / Any academic-level theory is ideological -> the claim that Existentialist-Structuralist periods and basically all of traditional philosophy along with such things as Marxism are ideologies according to a particular definition, although anything that can be taught in a fifth-grade textbook without leaving a lot of questions might not be. if this claim is true, then it would be impossible to claim that a textbook based on insights found in critical race theory (not to say such a thing literally exists, but hypothetically) is non-ideological. if this claim is false, then it could be that a Trotskyist could write textbooks based on insights from Trotskyism and Tories wouldn't even notice that there was Leninism in their textbooks and would just nod and say "that's probably correct".
618. [S2] Critical race theory is an ideology -> although people aren't going to like it, as far as I can tell this is technically true because the theory contains assumptions. theories of ethics are ideological, and theories that say society should be fixed one way instead of another are ideological. this doesn't make them bad, but it does make them ideology. this is an unfortunate thing to combine with the fact everyone believes in Existentialism and the ability for anyone to choose to walk away from anything that is an ideology. get rid of Existentialism, and the problem is solved.
618. [S2] Liberal-republicanism is postmodern / George Washington was a postmodernist -> everybody who isn't already a Marxist would find this really confusing. but here's the thing. if Liberalism is designed to be all political systems, it is definitionally postmodern. people think that there was a particular era of "modernism" and then there was "postmodernism", because they're looking at culture and trying to define kinds of visual expression that they then try to connect back to deeper processes, but they've greatly underestimated how soon postmodernism actually starts within philosophy or politics. postmodernism begins in at least 1776. maybe earlier. believing Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson could exist and get along in the same country is the loose prototype of postmodern philosophies. the general cause of postmodern culture is populations sharding into millions of separate population-societies that all operate separately, and 1776 is about when it begins.
618. [S2] Trotskyism's internal structure differs from Stalin Thought -> add to other proposition?
618. [Z] determinacy game / Gale-Stewart game [91] -> interesting in terms of demonstrating existential materialism. think about how one player forcing the other player to make particular moves and evolve their actions in response to another free-floating agent is similar to Liberal-republican elections and who forces what people or what issues into what parties. this game is like a weird bridge between Existentialism and dialectical materialism
618. [S2] fiction allows people to learn about each other and make them better people -> not always false, but a rather Existentialist model of fiction. for a counterpoint, see "Grimey the neckbeard"
618. [S] Grimey the neckbeard [92] -> this anecdote is very interesting sociologically because it provides such a counterpoint to the "Susie" narrative that coming together around fiction will allow people to learn about each other and make them better people. in this story, letting Grimey into the tabletop group actually just brought out the worst in him and revealed that he was not meant to be friends with the people he was attempting to roleplay with. it did not help make him more empathetic toward the characters or the players through exposure to them, it just shocked all the other people when they were exposed to him and made them want to get rid of him. this is such an important concept. almost every "progressivism" in the United States tries to assume this will never happen to people, especially that it will never happen unpredictably. Grimey the neckbeard + Friendship is Magic = Mud Briar
618. [S2] humans perceive random behavior as malicious / inconsiderate
618. [S2] behaving compassionately requires cultural conditioning / education of specific facts about reality
618. [S2] smashing signs turns behavior random / smashing signs leads to random behavior / poststructuralism is a terrible idea
618. [S2] many acts of marketing perform education / consumerism is inseparable from media representation
618. [S2] god belief is a Cartesian system of reasoning
618. [S2] Solarpunk is a class ideology belonging to empire / Solarpunk equals imperialism / Solarpunk equals colonialism -> please understand that I regard this as a statement that could be false. this is the claim that because the purported cause of British global empire in North America is Britain thinking one country is the world and it's the world, any Anarchism which thinks only about itself and not about its relativistically-gapped relationships with the rest of the world is essentially colonial and cannot be postcolonial. there's some chance this claim could be sophistry. I do not entirely know. this claim is related to: Q?? Pokémon is not metatransitional literature.
618. [S2] Mr. Satan's path is never certain / Mr. Satan's road to victory is never certain / No rest for Mr. Satan / Mr. Satan will always be waiting for fans / If Peter Singer has a charity, getting connections is always a waiting game -> Peter Singer and the Vegeta effect... there's something there. it's immoral for any particular person not to give to charity, or to not watch videos and Like videos and click the YouTube subscribe button. but no particular Goku can Freely Will what any particular Vegeta actually does. so if we've got the earth people over on one side, and Goku and Mr. Satan over on the other side next to an important cause, they'll experience a totally stochastic kind of cooperation with their cause regardless of what people "should" do or what the charity organizers "believe that everybody" should do. any particular charity organizer or thing you're supposed to give to will always be left awkwardly waiting and telling a bunch of people who can't be the ones to give to give as they wait and wait to find the perfect person who actually has the money or is the proper person to be subscribed to the YouTube channel or has the ability to lead whatever they're trying to do.
618. [S2] If Marcuseanism was true, Trotskyism would be true / If subjectivity-Marxism actually worked, nobody would have dropped out of Trotskyism -> it suddenly occurred to me, only in the middle of 2025, that, Marcuse's whole concept of people Subjectively choosing not to be part of capitalism? how does that make sense with the observed fact that so many people drop out of Trotskyism and go back to Liberalism? it's actually a very big thing in Trotskyism to go around trying to educate everyone on Marxism and get them to choose not to be members of capitalism any more. so if that hasn't really worked for Trotskyism, why would it work for Marcuseanism?
618. [M3] Why doesn't Europe have horrific suburban sprawl? / Why didn't Europe end up with horrific suburban sprawl? -> every time I try to explain the weird development of the United States, and how people build cities to create connections but then the cities run out of space and they move way far away from the city to have kids, Europe comes up. but I don't have a good answer to what Europe has instead of suburb hell.
618. [S2] All Cops Abandon Balance / All Cops Are Bolsheviks (in reference to "government control equals Bolshevism" fallacy) / center-Liberals see abuse by police as a matter of exceeding Moderation -> the claim that "ACAB" was accepted as, counterintuitively, a model that police abuse is still a matter of individualized Evil. center-Liberals want to believe that abuses by the police are individuals being Extreme. by default they want to believe that "the police system" is a simple self-contained activity of society, and racist abuses occur when people exceed the Moderate operation of the police system to become Extreme. when they are forced to accept "ACAB", they simply shift over the category lines such that being a police officer is a terrible thing and the worst most Extreme and Immoderate people in society become that category of people. but at the same time people's fundamental ontology of the situation remains the same.
618. [S2] Racists know stereotypes don't apply to everybody / Racists know the stereotypes they use to define people don't apply to everybody
618. [S2] Racists do not hate people because of perceived "bad taste" -> this is an easy conclusion to come to after observing real racists: they hate "bad music" and confusing or "tacky" vernacular. so, the performance of these things must be closer to the actual reason people make bad impressions with racists, right? no. racists actually know that stereotypes don't apply to everybody, which means they ultimately know that calling out "bad taste" will not be a good excuse to hate the entire group of people and will only buy them a short amount of time.
618. [S2] A nation of ideas is definitionally an empire -> takes a bit to explain. a nation must be made of structure; the subpopulations inside a nation must be connected somehow to actually produce a combined population instead of literally producing two or more populations. a person eats and occupies space. any particular chunk of socially-connected people eats and occupies space. conflicts over the ability to eat and occupy space result in violence. The State mediates conflicts over the ability of social chunks to eat and occupy space. when Liberal-republican "democracy" is created the representatives of different chunks all contribute to creating The State, although the representatives do not equal The People. what this means practically is chunks of people compete for the right to submit the set of ideas that will rule everyone. but even if representatives were perfect reflections, The People don't really choose what sets of ideas they believe as individuals, they determine them as whole groups that already enforce group ideas on all their individuals. there is something like a tiny undemocratic "republic" inside groups of people before there is any government at all, or even any capitalists — essentially, The Spanishness Office. (the big mistake people make is less thinking it exists at all than thinking it's controllable.) as a result, the Spaniards Machine sputters along spitting out both what people are going to believe and who people's representatives will be, designing and placing people to obey it while oppressing them at the same time; there isn't even really any "manufacturing consent" step in the middle where people choose to be oppressed, the reason people support bad things is they're literally already part of them from the beginning, before they're educated, before anything. ISAs are the societies while The State is their apparatus. anyway. chunks of people which already contain Spaniards Machines generate representatives that represent the Spaniards Machine, the Social-Philosophical System. this leads to Social-Philosophical Systems themselves pushing each other back and forth fighting over parliament (hegemony politics), and fighting over the country. each Spaniards Machine is a tiny nation of ideas already, even if it may also have racist ideas that it is a superior cluster of White people, or whatever. this means when they fight each other over a republic, and inevitably play hegemony politics of "this is a rust country now", "this is a sky country now and all the rust people have to obey sky rules continuously spat out every day by the sky-colored Spaniards Machine", all they can practically achieve is creating a population-to-population hierarchy of one Spaniards Machine directly ruling the other.
618. A glass of water can unbreak and refill itself given enough time -> funny saying by physics teachers/journalists used to explain the arrow of time. also arguably illustrates exactly why Trotskyism hasn't happened.
618. The Bolsheviks did not have the historical data that Leninism was possible -> what a smart Existentialist would argue every time Marxists claim that some particular non-Marxist movement "hasn't worked yet". what Existentialists really love to do is equivocate the lack of data on any particular event with the concept that Free Will is the only factor that makes the difference in something happening or not happening. however... this is silly. if this were reasonable, then one could argue for Trotskyism and absolutely against any form of Liberalism. because if Trotskyism hasn't happened yet, can you really rule it out if every Trotskyist believes in it hard enough?
618. The Soviet Union occupied East Germany because there can't be socialism in one country
618. academic-level material -> to be used with "field, scope, or group". refers to anything which requires a book's worth of reading by a college-educated person just to understand its terminology.
618. [S2] Not all proletarian class interests are revolutionary [93]
618. [S2] Bordigism is an SPS [94] -> here I see a description of a party with path-finding behavior that Lattices from one group into another. in my mind that's generally a good thing, unless they somehow describe a method of filtering the party together that doesn't actually make any sense. there's only one small problem: the more specific a party's theories are, the greater the potential of accidentally creating a plurality of different named Marxisms that have to study each other as separate systems. you keep seeing this. you see bodies of theory about how to build a reasonable Leninism and discard methods that don't work, but what you don't see is how to navigate a world that might end up with multiple incompatible Leninisms that all have to have additional textbooks on each other.
618. [S2] Organic centralism is a bunch of ill-defined fluff [95] -> was creating a new rating sheet of a YouTube channel. presenter absolutely cracked open a problem I didn't even know existed. it is remarkable how we are at a point where you have to go through a phase of absolutely deciphering old Marxist theory and how it was applied in reality before you can even analyze if it was effective.
618. [S2] If Trotskyism is about uniting the populations of the world, and the CIA undermines populational governments, undermining populational governments does not support realizing Trotskyism
618. [S] approval voting
618. [S2] Existence-philosophy is The Colonizer Attitude -> 1) early-existentialism is the statement meaning comes from the assignment of meaning by individuals. 2) the assignment of meaning by many individuals at a time is near-synonymous with culture. 3) in capitalism groups of people and areas of land are conflated with individuals. 4) capitalism amounts to allowing individuals to assign entire ontological models to areas of land and groups of people and make those people pretend to believe them. 5) when a million White people occupy an area, own pieces of the area, dictate who they will individually sell the pieces of land to and who they will deal with and assert that it "is" the area belonging to a White Culture, early-existentialism is the mechanism that makes intolerance of other countable Cultures possible.
618. [S2] In any particular anticommunist fable, Liberal countries exist -> the generic fan theory that if a story like "1984" continued on it would be ~10 external Liberal countries that show up to destroy the anomalous civilization, just like in real life
618. [S2] In any particular anticommunist fable, other socialisms exist -> the generic fan theory that every anticommunist fable is technically meta-transitional literature and if it went on other kinds of civilizations with particular named ideologies would happen. appears to be the case for The Giver, where people are blatantly constructing Anarchisms.
618. [S2] The Soviet Union exists in the Fantastic Beasts films -> if realistic footage of World War II exists this is technically true.
618. A Tale of Two Cities -> this book is about the French Revolution. I somehow did not know that until today.
618. [S] rebuilding civilization after apocalyptic war -> this can be used in combinations to get Posadism, Adventure Time, one or more SCP stories, etc.
618. [S2] Little Einsteins are rebuilding the world in Europe's image after mutually-assured destruction -> amusing theory. example of how every work of fiction will get read in relationship to what the motivations of a particular thing might be if it existed in real life
618. [S] popular-level text about accepted model / popular-level book about accepted ontological model or research field / popular-level book about accepted theory of material reality
618. [S] popular-level science text
618. [S] popular-level history text
618. [S] popular-level historical materialism text -> haven't seen very many of these. it's my hope to make them more popular
618. [S] popular-level class analysis text -> I'm not sure a "popular-level dialectical materialism text" is even possible. dialectical materialism has been too arcane in its presentation despite the content being unobjectionable at worst. so currently you're more likely to see a clumsy non-Marxist explanation of what people think classes are
618. [S] popular-level dieconomics text -> basically doesn't exist until a workers' state is created
618. [S] global climate change based on average temperature increase -> yes, the label does have to be that long. the thing has always been the same but Tories get so offended that the name ever changed and insist that changing the name is being used to lie to them and protect people's confirmation biases. I'm not making this up. you can't make this up.
618. [S2] Discussions of global warming existed before 1970 / Writings about global warming existed before 1970 [96]
618. The US Clean Air Act wasn't meant to include carbon dioxide [97] -> statements like these are important for a different reason than you'd think: they illustrate how Liberal-republicanism becomes meaningless when people are allowed to make history all about Free Will and interpret objects and phrases any way they want to. Existentialism is the killer of democracy, not its savior.
618. [S] 1960s level of consumption -> trying to retrieve the general context I heard this thing recommended in
618. [S2] Nobody would choose 1960s consumption / No individual would choose degrowth (stabilization to 1960s level of consumption) -> a point that keeps coming up in relation to East Germany: that West Germany was supposedly worth Individually Choosing because it had better growth. terrible, horrible thing to say if you ever later want to argue that individuals should Freely Choose to keep using old items and stop creating product treadmills against the environment.
618. [S2] ordinary people don't care about democracy -> descriptive statement.
618. [S2] Tories don't care if immigrants are claiming jobs, what they actually care about is immigrants taking up housing without meeting some standard of being "productive" -> and it's a very contradictory belief, because many Tories are stuck in their houses old and retired, etc., and can't meet their own standards.
618. why do US people say "inside thoughts" in public -> there are multiple causes
618. privacy is the separation of individuals from society
618. private is a smaller scale than public
618. town squares are public spaces
618. social platforms are public spaces
618. why are social platforms regarded like houses when they are public spaces?
618. social platforms are capitalists parcelling up the smallest scales of society
618. social platforms operate on Filamentism -> the very smallest competing unit is two connected people, not one. either one creator and one commenter/viewer, or a team of creators
618. pacifist route of otherwise violent narrative -> CUT Tree + pacifist route = Sudowoodo
618. violence route of otherwise peaceful narrative
618. Ignorance is not the cause of racist violence -> there are many things people can fail to know without it causing them to commit microaggressions or worse acts of racism. you won't behave in racist ways because you don't know calculus, or because you don't know how to draw animation smears, or because you don't know how to taxonomically identify a particular species of bird, or because you don't know how to build a computer, or because you've never written a book on manufacturing different kinds of lenses. XKCD 1053 illustrates this nicely. equally, many people would probably agree that you could take a hateful person and make them learn tons of history and facts about a group of people and examples of firsthand Lived Experiences without any of it ever making them less hateful. this is why narratives like Zootopia and Undertale don't feel quite right as accounts of prejudice. they're intersubjectivity theories; they assume that just feeding people a lot of information will compel them to change. what seems to be closer to the truth is that every population is constantly trying to mind its own business while trying to aggressively forget the fact that multiple populations exist and populations are naturally in competition because they consist of living individuals. the moment every population growing outward independently causes one population to step over another, the other population feels threatened and gets really really mad, mobilizing every surrounding person of the same socially-linked Culture against the other population. the notion that humans consist of spatial areas rather than socially-linked groups who are the ones that actually construct and enforce all notions of laws and morality is the fatal error that's been eating away at Liberalism. divide White people into many small population-societies based around molecularized theories of the physical workings of industries and towns and there would be no real reason for people to be racist versus letting people in.
618. How is it that while being perceived as shallow video games are the most likely to make people study other countries? [98]
618. Brandish
618. knight of justice / archetypical high-fantasy knight / 勇者 (ゆうしゃ) -> it's arguable there is not a big separation between the high-fantasy knight and the unironic mountain sage. in a series like Dragon Ball or Street Fighter those two just turn into the same thing. sure, a sword character in Street Fighter would be surprising and funny, but look at Tekken where there's a bear or Pokkén [99] where there's a metal bug, and you'd see that there aren't any hard rules on what appears in a fighting game. knight of justice + crisis = hero's journey. knight of justice + postmodernism = conflicted knight of justice.
618. king of injustice / prince of darkness / lord of darkness / 魔王 (まおう) -> king of injustice + ??? = Vegeta
618. conflicted knight of justice -> when a knight of justice or hero's journey type character is stuck in the middle of an unclear narrative which isn't easily solved by "fighting for good". very common and intuitive, almost the second most obvious place to go after knight of justice itself. Live a Live gives one of the most basic examples
618. knight of justice versus Mao -> the concept of archetypical heroes fighting to prevent Communism, with the connotation of the heroes maybe being fantastical or medieval. this has gotta be a trope somewhere. the only thing I can think of is like, MLP's Starlight Glimmer episode where Twilight is totally just defending a feudal order and being the Russian Empire to Starlight's Peter Kropotkin.
618. "strategic essentialism is an anti-essentialist act" [100] -> what? I wish academics would like, speak in logically-coherent sentences. it doesn't matter what words you use but please use them to convey concepts that make any logical sense and are at all comprehensible.
618. German church tax -> an optional tax only for members of churches that actually collect it.
618. German churches run kindergartens / German churches run schools and hospitals -> the observation that religious institutions in Germany are existing mostly as culturally-tinted charities which are funding local social structures more than a place for convincing people to actually believe in religion, leading to the customary "church tax". in some parts of the world, this doesn't cause problems, while in the United States people truly want government programs to be separate from churches. very important to think about when people are pushing for universal health care. in Europe, are localized taxes already picking up part of the cost in most places? is the key to getting health care actually to create local structures as opposed to simply going on and on about how all the individuals in the country should pay taxes?
618. German solidarity surcharge -> color swatch references: Voluntary Socialism. concrete example of people misusing the word "solidarity" to refer to pure nationalistic unity or the notion of people being united by big corporations that do everything paying taxes while all the little people don't get to do much of anything. Germany quite literally replaced Bolshevism with charging people taxes and letting them pat themselves on the back. when you see "solidarity" being appropriated to promote Free Will theories of history, don't let people tell lies.
618. artistic advertisement -> advertisement which tells some kind of story tangentially related to the product, taking the form of a short film, mock TV show episode, etc.
618. Soviet short-film advertisement -> a real thing that happened. the Soviet Union set down a certain mandatory budget for advertising. studios could get more money by making short films instead of ads. suddenly there were a bunch of weirdly artistic ads that only clearly stated their product at the end. some people actually reported the advertising blocks to be their favorite "television show". similar in concept to the notion of "Japanese commercials" where particular kinds of ads sort of just turn into silly miniature tokusatsu shorts, the Geico gecko "show", or Masnick's statement that "advertising is content, content is advertising".
618. Sentient beings are easily separable into standardized tribes / creationism of countable Cultures -> fantasy trope. some people have remarked on the racist or xenophobic implications of this trope in that it fails to capture the concept of anti-essentialism. far fewer people have noticed how it hilariously suggests fantasy worlds are capable of forming international-conference Trotskyism. that would be the funniest Avatar AU. it's many times as nonsensical to apply to Warrior cats. but it would also be one of the only sensible futures for the Dragon Ball universe, speaking objectively. there's something to be said for how to some extent people probably secretly like Pokémon for the Marxist appeal of Pokémon: other fantasy works portray war, conquest and hatred as things that intuitively go on for centuries and centuries, but Pokémon portrays the world as inevitably ceasing war and transitioning to an age of everyone spending their time on "boring", mundane civilizational structures and activities. something to think about. if you were to parse fantasy works as history, what processes do they go through to lead to what kinds of civilizations?
618. The universe is fundamentally made of information -> this is almost demonstrably false. silly argument against it: if that were true, there would be no difference between physical objects and Digimon, and we would have to seriously ask ourselves why you can't create an Agumon or a simulated coffee machine on a computer and then print the simulated coffee machine into the real world as data without having to copy every piece of the coffee machine using things that already exist inside the real world. I saw this claim in Existential Physics that you couldn't simulate a human mind without creating a human mind, and by extension you couldn't duplicate a human mind anywhere else without creating a second individual. the thing nobody realizes is that this is also true of a coffee machine. the most accurate model of how a coffee machine functions would be a coffee machine, in the sense the most accurate model of an Agumon would be a living creature. but you cannot shift a simulated coffee machine into reality without manually duplicating the coffee machine, any more than you can the Agumon. what this means is there is actual physical stuff in the universe between information. you can call every arrangement of things information but that information is always made of stuff. the crux of general relativity is that things are made of stuff. that's why everything can be a reference frame. because there are objects, and all the interesting stuff can only be seen while standing on them. some of the objects are really small and constantly re-divide themselves, because they're hardly big enough to even hold together, and that's okay, because we still see the interactions they create clearly enough that we can stand on them and call them objects. then more interactions and information happen between atoms, and so forth.
618. There can't be a proletariat without first defending the bourgeoisie / There can never be a proletariat without first defending the ring of owners that creates each "community" -> I keep seeing this utterly terrible contradiction in modern Marxisms. they are like, don't listen to the bourgeoisie, the bourgeoisie are always trying to mislead you into doing what's best for them. and then they seem to immediately misuse dialectical/historical materialism to start arguing that you have to defend groups of bourgeoisie against badder groups of bourgeoisie because of some random principle of "community" or something. is this some kind of bad-Materialism fallacy that nobody else has seen but me? or could it be that these arguments are fine but every single person explaining Marxism has totally oversimplified Marxism to the point it doesn't describe reality? I don't actually know which of these things is true.
618. Pinkie Pie was revived by Steven Universe / Pinkie Pie is actually a non-pink pony revived by Steven Universe -> one of the funniest probably-unserious theories I have ever seen. if you were some out-of-touch grapnda who only ever watched one episode of each of these shows you might have a hard time telling whether it's false. a large language model with insufficient data might just see each show as connected to fantasy elements and magic and themed names and tell you it's true. but at the same time, nobody who's actually watched both shows expects somebody to come up with this theory. how we recognize this theory as silly says a whole lot about how we reason. we pick up this completely unspoken intuition watching TV shows that each universe is separate and elements from it don't suddenly exist in other fictional universes. how do we know that? if we weren't allowed to point to corporate owners and copyrights and trademarks and we only had the inner contents of the shows, how do we epistemologically know they're separate? I think the answer tells us a lot about ideologies and whether people will be able to accept new models of how societies work. and not just new Bauplans of mainstream Marxism-Leninism or Kropotkinism or Deng Xiaoping Thought, but fundamentally, inner mental models of things like Menshevism and anti-racism and any change in society whatsoever. but funny enough, I think you begin fixing all that if you get mainstream Marxist-Leninists to coexist with Trotskyists, because the exact same basic difference between inner universes is manifest there.
618. Whether human individuals have Free Will is simply irrelevant -> MDem entry Philosophical Research:MDem/5.2/1111 FreeWill. in particular, this is the claim that even labeling human behavior "deterministic" is irrelevant and possibly incorrect. this will seem confusing until you see the recently-added definition of relaterminism, and then it makes a lot more sense. most definitions of determinism ignore relativity, except relaterminism, which acknowledges the ability of events to propagate out in ripples from any point in the universe and from multiple points independently. if there had been no such thing as human individuals, this would have been harder to discover, but simultaneously, the existence of human individuals has blinded us to the existence of both social movements and the way such things as chemistry, quantum physics, and maybe possibly gravity function.
618. fictional population or species with super form
618. character with super form / character with transformation -> kamen rider & ultraman / Sailor Moon & "duck" etc [101] / Digimon. conceptually you can see the theme of characters upgrading into powered-up versions in Tamagotchi as much as you can see it in Digimon. it's kind of funny Tamagotchi were never portrayed as magical girls. why didn't that happen? either way you see Tamagotchi, then you see the Digimon show, then you see "duck" and "shugo chara". people say magical boys are not given attention on magical girl shows but it's not really true because the "magical guys" were the tokusatsu heroes. but Digimon is glorious because it's like the same thing a third time without gender. some of the characters are magical guys, some of them are magical girls, and some of them are just wolves or dinosaurs. some of them just are.
618. The history of every object is separate unless it isn't / The history of every material object is separate unless it is not -> follows from statements in general relativity and the discovery of gauge bosons. came up in entry "least-action"
618. Companies can produce great numbers of things when there is already a contract to buy them -> grade school chairs. defense contractors. Pokémon games. the logic behind futures markets. there are so many examples of this, of how it's actually way easier to run industries if they go toward predetermined goals rather than being based on the presumed "free choice of individuals" — which doesn't even exist because retail stores also function like smaller, more informal purchasing contracts.
618. forced discourse -> Foucault was the main one that talked about this.
618. Slipping into a discourse is the same thing as having to begin it
618. Human life isn't made of discourses / Human life does not begin at "speech" and speech and discourses are only an outward reflection of the more basic layers -> my beef with Foucaldian theories of prejudices. human life is made of socially-linked humans performing tasks. discourses of any kind always come second. it doesn't matter if you define "discourse" as any ontology made of sign equations, the way it appears these philosophies do. by that definition you've identified a countable Culture itself, and if you want to call that oppressive, you're making use of the same first principles that can easily be used to define racism. even if you haven't gotten all the way to racism yet, I don't see how that can be a humane way to treat human beings. imagine Stalin points to Trotsky and says that Trotskyites have put together an oppressive discourse that needs to be broken up, and they'd better not associate together as Trotskyites and talk about Trotskyist workers' states because being part of that kind of countable Culture is literally always covering up an antisocial underground operation to destroy social progress within the Second and Third Worlds. Foucauldians generally wouldn't like that, so why do they go around saying this?
618. Interaction is not a social construct -> this is the problem with thinking society is made of "discourses". people aren't "dragged into discourse" thanks to someone's malicious Free Choice, they're hit by interactions, where they cannot control interactions by nature of what an interaction is.
618. Social interaction is like gluons -> without being at all conscious or deciding anything, quarks are obligated to interact. physical laws make them do this. whenever two quarks collide they exchange a gluon that carries color "charge" (direction) from one quark to another. if this interaction was considered bad for some reason quark A would not be able to control the collision by quark B. because that isn't how physics works.
     entanglement is one of the only exceptions, but entanglement is just basically what happens when you try to measure the color that each of the quarks is pointing. they are definitely pointing one of the three colors, but the color force is going so fast you never know which quark has which one of them. the outside observation and inside state are wildly out of sync. the only thing you know is the direction of each quark depends on the other two. that's entanglement. the only thing that makes it confusing is that it can operate on strangely large scales for a process that is supposed to be really small.
618. Poststructuralism is not anarchist [102] -> this is such a stupid thing to say because on the inside of it practically all its values are anarchist; it feels like Trotsky trying to say Stalin isn't practicing the real Trotskyism. so it's not anarchist, eh? then most of anarchism has been vulgarized into Existentialism-Structuralism, and it is possibly the only thing anarchism can ever become. claim found in anarchist library's tagging.
618. If everyone wanted someone to choose them, no one would achieve anything -> nah. this isn't inspiring. when there's capitalism a great many people's life stories are about searching all over to get chosen by someone and how inspirational it is to hear about someone getting chosen. what is going to a university and getting hired for an exclusive "opportunity" as one of the brightest experts if it isn't being a chosen one? our fantasy books reflect our societies and class structures.
     edit: gosh. this is false. this is actually false, because if you duplex it, capitalists are waiting for employees to choose them and employees are waiting for capitalists to choose them. everyone is. it's more like if nobody wanted somebody to pick them out as the chosen one nobody would achieve anything.
618. Truth is a zigzag between hypotheses and antitheses -> I found this really neat zigzag chart on... what is probably a scam. the chart is great outside of it being coopted for that weird self-help book though. it showed two sides of a Socratic dialogue bouncing off each other in a zigzag and each of them getting closer to the most accurate model of reality they can have. I like it. the point of a jamming proposition or collision of different propositions isn't that the antitheses have to be strictly correct, it's that they make you think and figure out what is.
618. Something being retermined doesn't mean it's good -> counter to the walnut proposition. if all the countries around the Soviet Union (I know that doesn't have to be the example) retermine it having to be a certain way, that doesn't mean they've all decided that correctly. it baffles me that it's so easy for people to see this with LGBT+ identities and certain really narrow definitions of "racism" and "xenophobia" but at the same time they can't see this. all the cases can be generalized into one pattern: groups of people retermine their individuals as groups, but sometimes you have to join people together to break out of retermination even though in the process they will begin a new subpopulation that retermines itself all over again.
618. Does anti-essentialism apply to Trotskyists? -> subset of: Trotskyism jamming proposition.
618. When people point out "Liberals", they belong to a specific ideology / When people point out Liberal-republicans as a different group, they belong to some specific ideology
618. Marxism is the opposite of center-Liberalism
618. Queer theory is the opposite of center-Liberalism -> subset of: When people point out "Liberals", they belong to a specific ideology. mostly in reference to antinormativity.
618. People created monarchies because they believe in predetermination -> whoa whoa whoa. this isn't simply the truth, this is an Existentialist statement. many versions of Christianity see the Christian god as a Subject that actually responds to the overall state of earth, so no, even the divine right of kings isn't equal to predetermination. it only equals doing the thing the smartest or most capable person ever to exist would do in people's opinion. you can begin to see where all the anti-science propositions come from: that anyone trying to exert control over anyone else OR trying to claim more expertise than anyone else is preaching predetermination. this is a dangerous proposition, because it's exactly what gets science defunded by reactionaries, and climate change scenarios rejected, and disabled people stuck in their houses when people wouldn't get COVID vaccines. all of that ties directly back to Existentialism and how the notions of choices and freedom are absorbed by reactionaries.
618. Choices are identical with character development (fiction) / Choices are identical with Subject formation (real-life psychology)
618. Individuals express themselves through the people around them -> one of the sharpest things I heard in an Existentialist video. you really have to pick this apart and look at it though. at first glance it looks like an acknowledgement of relaterminism: people don't choose everything about themselves, so finding good friends that fill in the gaps in you is important. then you look at it closer and you realize there are much worse interpretations of it. one is that our main character is determining the presence of the other characters and vice versa and they are all choosing to be together. that's a bit disgusting. it allows people to come together and express themselves through their connection and then be prejudiced against other groups of people because being prejudiced is their authentic self. if you think that can't be someone's authentic self at least at one particular moment in time then you have never actually met a reactionary. just like a Goth kid, they will insist that even if it's a phase bigotry is exactly who they are.
618. Individual will is not the same as Free Will -> sounds like gobbledygook until you have seen either relaterminism or The Subject defined as a material Animal.
618. If people don't have individual will, the Soviet Union was inevitable / If people don't have individual will, then the Soviet people didn't choose to create the Soviet Union -> jamming proposition, logical contradiction. why would the Soviet Union exist other than people deciding in some manner that it should exist? but if people don't have individual will at all, it's impossible anyone could have chosen to avoid the formation of the Soviet Union; it was fated it would happen, and First World countries punished people for nothing. when you think it through enough you eventually end up discovering relaterminism.
618. If people don't have individual will, then they didn't choose to vote for Donald Trump / If people don't have individual will, then something outside individuals voted for Donald Trump -> jamming proposition to get people to realize that the question of Free Will and individual will isn't a trivial thing you can answer however you want. MDem v4.3 entry "Determination"
618. early-existentialism is the opposite of predetermination -> some people distinctly seem to treat (early-)existentialism as a single proposition rather than a field of philosophers. the funny thing is that everyone explains the contents of the proposition a little differently. thus making the single proposition back into a field of philosophy containing many propositions. in an act of pettiness, I'll label this statement false in the strict binary logic sense, purely because it can be demonstrated to be a category error.
618. making a choice is the opposite of predetermination -> this one is fairer. it seems probably untrue — you've got relaterminism going on in your head retermining your actions — but is more difficult to decide as clearly true or false.
618. hell as warring states period over definition of sins -> rather inspired. SCP-7603
618. People subject to the laws of a country are citizens of the country / People who are subject to the laws of the United States are citizens of the United States -> part of United States fourteenth amendment
618. Those who control the correct mathematics control the future -> the only way "nonviolence" successfully solves anything in and of itself. say we want Stalin and Trotsky to coexist nonviolently. there is going to be a correct way for this to happen, and many incorrect ways which won't result in it happening. if Stalin solves the correct method for Stalin and Trotsky to coexist as part of one structure, he holds the power. there's nothing Trotsky can say. if Stalin arranges all the Trotskyites into the correct structures and all of them are content with those structures, then whenever the two or so that aren't commit violence, all the former Trotskyites which are already coexisting nonviolently will stop them and squash their rebellion. the future is retermined. people don't choose what the future is; it's calculated from the multivariable function of people that surround each other put together. the sheer power of retermination is why Existentialism has worked the way it does and been so effective at stopping anything else from coming into being.
618. the cause of Property is people seeking to control relationships
618. If victory is not in sight, it is better to wait / "if relative superiority is not clear, it is better not to act" (Guerrilla warfare: A method, 1963) -> I have to reiterate that the Lattice model is mainly focused on like, a wave of strikes or things like that. but, Che Guevara has his own version of a Lattice model for violent situations. I think the more we look at different models of Marxist revolutions or movements the more we'll find the same graph mathematics popping up again and again
618. fictional conspiracy theory -> conspiracy theory speaking about fiction. fiction-internal conspiracy theory would be a separate Item
618. The universe begins with imagination but ends with entropy -> cool proposition in Adventure Time. bad proposition in progressive theories.
618. Much of the "hard work" people do is actually the easy way out -> every time reactionaries talk of "hard work"... isn't there always something missing there? there'd seem to be a difference between Constructive Hard Work and Destructive Hard Work, where most "hard work" is actually the latter one. people working hard for almost literally no reason but to destroy someone else's hard work while doing the same work over again. I wonder what the world would be like if we literally stopped calling Destructive Hard Work "hard work", and told people, no, all of you are doing busywork, that stuff is already done, you're not doing the actual hard work any more.
618. Inside a proletarian civilization, further transitions are about graph arrangements / After creating the dictatorship of the proletariat, all subsequent transitions are about structure more than class -> currently controversial but really shouldn't be. a proletarian society has to actually have policies to build itself. and what are those policies going to be? if everyone's the proletariat, you can't make all your policies based on who is the proletariat or who is the owners, because there aren't any owners to pick on, there are only the factors that make your workers or experts able to do their best work. now, if you're a Trotskyist and you also somehow have a brain, you could argue that all the owners are in other countries so the next step is to overcome other countries, shatter their borders, and join the people of various populations together into a single civilization. fortunately or unfortunately, the Trotskyist perspective has more or less been defeated in favor of every single ideology on the planet considering countries fundamentally separate, some arguing that they are actually separate for "cultural" reasons and others simply realizing that populations have to have autonomy for anything else to happen at finer-grained levels. the other major argument you can make is that the division between workers and experts is a problem to be solved, and if you said that you'd be right. the only issue is nobody truly knows how to solve it because it's connected to chunk competition across the spatial slot hierarchy, networkism, and Social-Philosophical Systems, and up to now nobody understands any of those. defeating Napoleon's Pigs is no easy feat.
618. The Subject is not just a specimen of a more encompassing order -> claimed within an explanation of education. seems to stand in contradiction to most political theories about Subjects, which typically believe The Subject is important and relevant because Subjects are all comparably The Subject and that causes us to have empathy. or how in schizoanalysis The Subject simply joins into bigger Subjects.
618. Groups of people are just manuals on how to be / "we can take the elements in other cultures that are positive and bring that to our own" -> for the longest time I only saw this strongly implied in what people say, until today for the first time I finally saw it said out loud. honestly, I do not think so. that statement may be true of South Korea or China but it's not true of the United States, because the United States really is just a bunch of individuals bouncing around in bitter rivalry and hating and trying to tear apart anything that resembles an institution or a structure. there is no central "United States culture" to even change, it just doesn't exist. There Is No Spanishness Office.
618. City center equals city -> interesting claim made in urban planning discussions by people from Europe. I don't have anything against this idea nor am I making fun of it. at the same time, I have no real idea if it's true or not. each time you show people one of these claims that suburbs are a disaster you get a variety of responses that amounts to people having gone to exactly where they wanted to be individually unless they were physically or financially incapable — you know, primitive Existentialism.
618. Animal testing can end if the right humans buy the labs -> I watched this supposedly inspiring video about rescuing lab cats. [103] the beginning of the narrative was that lab cats are being tortured — they are raised to trust humans, then they are put in their cages with insufficient food and no enrichment, and you can say that because their life is engineered for suffering they learn to comply. sounds uncomfortably familiar; I swear the whole concept of Lacanian discipline and great portions of Existentialism is just this. but at the end of the narrative, the only way to save those cats was for people to pool together some money and buy the building. the cats never cease to be treated as objects, the objects just change hands. and I think that reveals a lot about modern industrial societies. "Filament of people conquer space and control it" is one of the only things that's worth anything. it solves great abuses, after also having created them. how different are collections of workers serving built-up Audiences from collections of lab cats? how do we know when a protest is meaningful versus when people are just chunk-competing over an area meaninglessly and different people controlling it won't actually make anything change?
618. Waiting for a disclosure of meaning gives the one who discloses it power -> no. just, no. if that were true there couldn't be any identity politics movements, because people really do wait at the door of identity politics to get the answers. identity politics says something, and sometimes people reject it for reasons that aren't easy to fathom logically, but if it does catch on, then people just swallow it without questioning it no matter how out-there a particular philosophical justification sounds. whether that's a good or a bad thing doesn't matter, what matters is in real life things work that way. and when that's the case, believing this will create a bunch of reactionaries who are all like, I'd rather not wait for a disclosure of meaning from The Left, I'll just make my own bogus definitions of things instead. (Butler)
618. Destroying signs is no triumph because anyone can do it / Destroying signs means nothing because anyone can do it / Anyone can destroy a sign / There is no real triumph in deconstructing signs because anyone can do it -> literally every reactionary claims that progressive ontologies are becoming the new entrenched signs that have to be destroyed or picked apart. that's like, one of the basic axioms for how reactionaries exist. you have to settle onto some things being true, or else reactionaries will try to claim power and replace other ontologies with their ontologies whenever it's possible for them to do that. the only real way to get out of all this is to go one step higher than poststructuralism and do meta-ontology, presuming that all arrangements of signs "exist" and can be compared to find the points at which they overlap and maintaining "sign power" isn't necessary. I don't fully know yet how that fixes racism, but I've got a fairly good idea how that unites Stalin and Trotsky, or Existentialism and Marxism. there's no huge distinction between sociophilosophy and culture that makes one not the other, so there probably is a way.
618. constantly-changing empty vessel -> one of the first totally abstract concepts I'm willing to make an Item without a real or fictional referent. this pattern is solid enough it's worth noting. it can be used to define class territories. it can be used to define The Subject. it can be used to define entrenched signs, apparently. but there are two major feelings about it: A) plurality of these things is frustrating and inherently causes problems as they collide, leading to some change good or bad whether we like it or not B) plurality of these things is easy to control with enough "ought" statements.
618. The postcolonial project is about constantly smashing signs / Colonial Racism exists within the inability to smash existing signs -> this.... hmm. I don't know whether I feel positively or negatively about it. I think it is true that ontologies can always make errors, and we need the ability to pick incorrect ontologies apart to properly investigate the world and learn what is accurate in a scientific sense. but I have never really liked the notion that signs are an inherent form of power. it takes some unpacking. I have argued that Lacanian discipline is bogus because people can oppressively teach each other the wrong things. but is that all because of signs, rather than people? I'm not sure I'd say that. my thoughts right now are, the video I watched said that letting signs be is allowing metaphysical divisions of reality into arbitrary elements. which I half agree with. but then it said that the notion of breaking up sign monopolies is defeating metaphysics. and I feel like there's an error there. whenever we try to think that power is a deliberate thing somebody grabs and choppify things or push individuals back to stop power grabs and push the world into "balance", I feel like that's the moment we truly construct metaphysics. metaphysics lies not in the construction of specific categories but in the sheer false idea the world can be in perfect balance when it is always growing and changing. modern metaphysics is an empty vessel. a perfectly-balanced wheel of constantly-changing empty vessels that can grow and change and deconstruct themselves but are always in conflict, always hating each other, always trying to smash each other to break each other's power and then accusing each other of being the real power-grabbers. that's what metaphysics is now, not the content.
618. A language is only bisimilar to reality as a whole -> important counterargument to the notion that language does not refer to reality. it does, and it does it almost the way a sign refers to a signified. but only the whole language at once does that. inside the language, terms only refer to other terms. then the whole language serves as a model for the whole reality in a bisimilarity relation.
618. Terms gain meaning from relationships to other terms / Signifiers gain meaning from their relationship to other signifiers -> Saussure. solid hit, home run. should be part of Marxism. what people don't realize is this is because language comes from physics. physics has relationships between things first and then language has them because it is trying to model and mirror and explain physics — or whatever material process it is trying to explain. networks of objects come first, then language and perception come second. this is Hyper-Materialism.
618. Nobody can perceive reality through anything except models / We can never understand reality without using models -> this one... I wouldn't say it's false, it's probably true, but oh boy it's not my favorite. sure, we need to be aware of the plurality of philosophies each perceiving the world through themselves. but I think meta-philosophy is totally possible. I think it's totally possible to step outside philosophies for a moment to actually compare them and ask where they came from. we will easily make errors in the way we do it, but I don't think all philosophy is doomed to be fully locked inside models and effectively inside prejudices such that it is constantly eating itself. I think people primarily think it is because they do not have consciousness of the material phenomena of graph struggle and chunk competition. if they did, they'd realize how silly this all is. they'd go, oh god, why were we promoting philosophies that ask everyone to fight and kill each other as nicely as possible instead of asking how to turn around and become the puppetmasters of chunk competition. why were we doing any of this when we could have stopped what generates prejudice at the source.
618. Human language is rooted in Lived Experiences / "language is rooted in human experience and relationships" -> no. no. human language is rooted in the fact humans belong to social networks. graphs. language has networks and humans have networks and when you are part of a sea of free-floating entities you must physically obtain information about that system while inside it. that is Einstein's theory of relativity. a camera can do relativity just by being physical and being part of the world as it takes a picture. it doesn't have much to do with human "experience". we could all be philosophical zombies and still have language. in certain limited senses, The Subject is a machine and relativity is a piece of the machine.
618. Balancing a fictional universe requires understanding its physics -> the proposition or approach that different characters, etc, with different talents should actually "play" fundamentally differently in ways that would change the structure of the game or narrative. Adventure Time giving its moments to BMO and Ice King near the end, good. Angry Birds movie suggesting that success is purely about trying hard, bad. it's like, the reason so many authors are bad at balancing things correctly is our aversion to historical materialism and the notion that history is based on physics and you get particular paths through understanding each kind of physics.
618. Science turns The Subject into an object but philosophy doesn't -> I genuinely don't think this is true. I really feel like philosophy does turn Subjects into objects if it's doing its job. what does it mean to turn something into an object? it means studying the pieces or processes that compose it and comprehending it as a physical thing. reductionism in the ontology sense: reducing things into a graph of sign equations, an ontology which is plural and not definitive but may go part of the way to explaining how something works.
618. Humanist theories squash The Subject under prejudice / Subject theories are bad because they do too much prejudiced Subject-squashing / Humanist obsession with The Subject is bad because it has too many prejudices -> not making this up, really saw this one. possibly the most Existentialist criticism of Existentialism that I've ever seen. why does nobody ever ever ask if theories centered around prejudice are a prejudice? anyway. I think this highlights some kind of major division inside Existentialism. should I divide Existentialism into humanist periods and... prejudice-obsessed periods?? I still don't quite understand. I study and read and study and read and I still never understand what's going on. trying to understand where the hell these modern prejudice philosophies come from feels like Simon researching the ice crown and turning into an idiot and being stuck there forever.
618. Ice King fits the mountain sage archetype / Ice King is a sen'nin character -> this is a joke proposition but I think it's fun. like when you really think about it is there a good way to separate mountain sage, wizard, and fantasy alchemist? I feel like those three things kind of merge together the way draconic creatures merge together and turn into one big umbrella of dragons. as for the fact Ice King kidnaps princesses... no comment. that's become associated with the more atheist yet unserious definition of mountain sages, but yeah, no comment. this is more about the archeology and immortality stuff.
618. Kimba the White Lion -> this show was great for its treatment of animal civilization, but the weird modernist approach to storytelling and portraying other countries was some of the most imperialist shit I have seen in a cartoon
618. The Lion King
618. lion guard
618. Bravelands
618. My Pride
618. the major split between the concepts of "liberal/Liberalism" and "liberal/liberalization" is whether people are shameless Existentialists -> I have never seen anybody else say this, even considering that they wouldn't use my fancy new word "Existentialists". it's almost like everybody is too trapped in this way of thinking to even notice they're doing it. but here's what it is: people become convinced the stuff in the United States constitution is created anarchically as a thing that is followed by every individual making every other individual do it because they are human individuals. that the United States constitution is like a bible. that if there was no United States government and no elections the constitution would still be true. and in practice that isn't really the case. no individual honors freedom of speech and no church honors freedom of religion. those things are only reliably done by governments because governments contain multiple subpopulations and have to represent all plural subpopulations. the people who speak of "liberalism" and "liberalization" as synonyms are the ones who believe that processes inside social graphs create democracy rather than democracy actually being government and existing in the form of republics — that democracy equals democulture.
618. The main problem with social structures is people are bad at results / Capitalism sucks because people are bad at doing things / Bureaucracy is maddening because people are bad at doing things -> this one needs a little explaining but is very important. ever felt when going through some kind of paperwork process that nothing makes sense, the whole thing is undesigned, and everything is all just a bunch of drifting humans going in every direction that have no idea what they're doing or how to do what you need them to do? that may be literally what's happening. there is a conflict between the fact we need to rely on other people to do things, materially, not just because we "desire things in the Other" psychologically, but because we really can't do everything ourselves and other people really have to do it, this and the fact that in reality other people are just people and often have trouble actually doing the things we need them to do. every time any individual or group of people ever tries to do anything ever there is a complicated tug-of-war between whether it's worse to take on too much ourselves and not trust anyone, or worse to trust other people who may be too imperfect to actually do what we need them to. practically no period of Existentialism ever gets this concept right. it always seems to devolve into these really weird ego-based statements that "you can't rely on others in order to function and grow as you, you have to trust others in order to function and grow as you, impossible contradictions always totally make sense if everybody just wills them to enough". that is not an answer. that is not a model. that is a bunch of mystical nonsense. individual psychology does not get us to dipsychology.
618. Unending happiness simply does not exist / Unending happiness is not a thing / The concept of unending happiness cannot be resolved into a real-world problem -> an important dimension to "utopias" that I never see discussed. if something doesn't actually exist, then people are going to read it as a metaphor even if it isn't, just to have an opinion about it. the human brain chunks models of reality inside visual signifiers, and when people see an imaginary thing they search for the real-world image that matches it and start interpreting it that way. this is how you get the speedrunning guy seeing the image of speedrunning, looking up his mental image of "seeking shortcuts to success", and getting upset. what I never see when someone discusses "utopias" is the recognition that people are doing this. I never see people consciously listing out all the internal real-world signifiers that they think utopia actually means. the... bisimilarands? the analogy targets? the Z Items to the S Items, anyway. one possible "bisimilarand" is addiction. one is imperialism, as shown in the Winter King episode: a population that oppresses another has a much easier time. one is national independence: it is easy to accuse postcolonial Anarchists of "utopia", but they really just want some kind of independent population. all of these "bisimilarands" are very different, and which one you think of is based on your model of society, your social-political-economic ideology. the problem happens when people assume a particular pathway of signifier-bisimilarand-mechanics simply is what something is across fiction and mythology and real life. in one sense, fiction is how we all share and agree on misinformation without realizing that's what we're doing. and this is really popular for Existentialists to do. to assume that particular works of fiction are portraying such things as The Subject exactly the way they work in real life, when necessarily they all come from generalizations and assumptions. fiction argues about "unending happiness". but such a thing is complete nonsense. like, so nonsensical that even speaking of it hypothetically is hard because you have to suspend several things about reality and effectively make up fake prejudices about which real-world things you don't believe in. so what is fiction really arguing about if the thing it's arguing about doesn't exist? it's arguing about prejudices and which sets of prejudices people think are the better prejudices when literally speaking all of them are wrong.
618. People form opinions on fiction by assigning fictional images to real-life targets / bisimilarity in art criticism proposition
618. Any wholly made-up thing will get read as a metaphor / If something is wholly made up, viewers will read it as a metaphor / accidental coding proposition -> follows from "assigning images to real-life targets"
618. "when you're infected you don't want others to get a choice" -> I swear I have heard people say this about Communism. because their bisimilarity process was Communism -> unending happiness -> imperialism, or something vaguely like that. when the process should be more like Communism -> proletarian Social-Philosophical System -> republic. like, the reality is almost boring compared with the fictional misinformation. if you wanted, you could look at it a bit deeper and uncover the potential problems. Communism is bisimilar to proletarian SPS realizes mechanics of republic realizes mechanics of Dark Rhizome is bisimilar to assimilation.
618. The Candy Kingdom is a superstructural fantasy world -> not sure if this is literally true or just a misdirect but it sure is a theory now. there's something to how Fionna and Cake were considered a story in the Ice King universe, but the Candy Kingdom is a story in the Simon universe. do we have a circular Deltarune going on? did Prismo make each universe make up the other universes? it is so interesting that only certain very specific parts of each world become stories. Fionna & Cake e6
618. non-magical magic creatures -> somehow Fionna and Cake and Deltarune are like the exact same genre of thing. Fionna and Cake is exactly the Deltarune of Adventure Time
618. memoir fiction / literary fiction (fiction which is not categorized into a particular genre yet almost invariably becomes a boring slice-of-life story) -> the specific kind of fiction that appears uncategorized yet starts with boring accounts of individual lives. overlaps with or contains slice-of-life fiction.
618. trouble in the bazaar -> literal scenario. when there is an open-air marketplace and somebody absolutely screws it up and gets in trouble. Fionna and Cake ep 3, Wings of Fire the book with Possibility in it
618. worker less welcome than mouse / microaggression against worker's existence (in fiction) -> fionna and cake e1. very interesting episode because at this point we have already had two microaggressions that workers aren't good enough at arbitrary job tasks to belong in their city. this is just it. most capitalism isn't a well-established set of factory procedures workers just need to take over, it's an absolutely floundering mess where nobody knows how to keep businesses in existence but owners and certain subsets of immediately-appointed managers decide to believe there's a right way to exist and harass people about whether they're being people good enough and gradually kick them out of the city if they aren't. capitalism is individuals or tiny groups of individuals exerting their will over spatial territories and then existing and living and multiplying and inviting friends and acting really offended like that existence level of things is being challenged if anything about the person's act of exerting will over the territory and controlling every object in it is challenged. jobs are like this. people treat houses like this. it's a nightmare. it's a mess. at its heart, it's every person behaving like a separate population and slowly expanding as if nothing else exists while there is absolutely not enough space for that to not cause conflict. chunk competition.
618. "Is", "can", and "should" are different things -> a three-way is-ought distinction. first is everything that is exactly as it is, second is what can and will be, the alternate normals at various levels of functional and dysfunctional, third is what you want to happen but may have no existing mechanism of happening. practically nobody these days understands the difference between the latter two. and there's a good reason: everybody tries to define Can and Should through specific ideologies that amount to specific Social-Philosophical-Material Systems. and when two people belong to different sociophilosophies they don't predict each other correctly because they each use their own. they each toss out "I believe that everybody" statements that just plain aren't happening, because they think that Should equals Can.
618. "Symbolic castration" is the same as "inauthenticity" -> this is my biggest problem with Žižek. this utter paradox right here. he is totally sure that the Lacanian model of human development is correct, including forming models of parents to one day become a parent (The Father) and symbolic castration. but then he complains about inauthenticity and Liberal capitalist society forcing people into the inauthentic. the more I look into all this, the more I can't see a difference. I think by any reasonable definition, every single time Liberalism or capitalism makes people chop off part of themselves and fit into it is the same as symbolic castration. I think he is complaining about his own system. which is kind of funny — Žižek is a Zinovievist Trotskyite, while one of Trotsky's biggest problems was projecting onto Stalin the things that Trotsky does, effectively making "Leninism" into this weird never-ending cycle of deciding you don't like Leninism and exploding it to create Leninism that somebody else inside it then explodes again.
618. The world goes on after any particular character narrative -> beautiful trope but has some nasty implications when you ask what influenced it. I like the authenticity of Adventure Time having historical periods that don't have to connect to each other, and a potentially infinite number of historical periods; there's a great poetry to that at the same time there's a certain kind of realism. what I don't like is how it comes down into any particular set of present events. it makes it feel like it's unimportant to have morality because if having patience and surviving things can fix anything, why bother to get other people to be moral instead of holing up in an ice cocoon? you can say that it's possible to accept just anything that happens because you can't control it, but there are some things that really are bad. people being isolated from each other like Simon and Betty really is bad. the collapse of society into warring states or world war really is bad because it doesn't stop the same cycle from happening again. and just walking away from the notion that some things really are bad feels like abdicating the responsibility to make history go the right way. (note: at least a little of this is addressed in Fionna and Cake.)
618. the impending horror of history -> important thought relating to Ironblood series concept, but seen in many existing works. "Come along with me" is a great example.
618. stopping wars with psychoanalysis -> I do not like how this is similar to real actual psychoanalytic theories. it's like. sometimes I sit back and ask myself, am I imagining this whole Existentialist-Structuralist tradition thing? could it be that Lacanianism isn't actually the same thing as early-existentialism? and then I see this garbage. and I'm like. oh god.... Lacanianism says we cause trouble for each other because we individually have fake ideas about reality that need to be cut off. symbolic castration / discipline. schizoanalysis basically says that democulture is the mechanism that cuts off fake ideas and is the rationale for Liberal republics. postcolonial theories say everything is due to prejudices. Lacanianism is talking about prejudices too. it's saying all our fake ideas about reality and refusals to compromise are prejudices. that's what it's really doing. and I hate it. because it diminishes the reality of beliefs and philosophies as actual matters of identity and experience that people truly live their lives by, kinda treating people as mere instruments in a way, mere instruments of building an empire of people who miraculously guess the correct way to behave for people to get along, and haven't even thought it through to figure it out, who have all just been beaten into place like cattle. all the individuals or countable Cultures or ideologies are the instruments and the Liberal republic experts just own them all, like a capitalist owns a group of workers and makes them behave a certain way for their place of work to exist. if the Existentialist-Structuralist tradition were true then Liberalism would be a scam, and it would be a scam. it's a lot better for everyone in it if it's not true, because then nobody can come label them an evil conspiracy to turn countries into oligarchy. when you think about it, there's a fine line between scams and incorrect theories of society. if people don't know they can be forgiven, but if they do know they're labeled conspirators, con men, or any number of uglier names. (adventure time season 10 episode 13-16)
618. A scammer differs from an incorrect hypothesis in that the scammer knows / The difference between an incorrect hypothesis and a con man is the con man knows -> ties back to "corporations are the prediction of history". in a sense, a scammer is just a bad, fake oracle in a world where history actually can be predicted.
618. "Beauty is in the hard work itself and the, oftentimes false, sense of purpose we feel when doing it. It's a fleeting sensation that drives us to repeat our actions in order to capture it again" -> I get that this was used as a joke like it isn't actually as deep as it thinks it is — props to adventure time on that — but also who originally wrote this and why would they think this. this only intuitively applies to art. many things do have literal uses, and our failure to build onto the same literal uses drives a lot of unnecessary conflict in society. (adventure time s10: "diamonds and lemons")
618. "The only friend I have is violence!" -> Adventure Time s9 e7, Dragon Ball
618. The four elements lived in harmony until the fire nation attacked -> Avatar: The Last Airbender, Adventure Time, Pokémon, Wings of Fire
618. The four elements were never in harmony -> one of those lines from 4.3 that I really liked but didn't think was profound, until. until I realized that fantasy stories almost always use elements to argue this really medieval way of thinking that empire can be stopped with metaphysics, and kingdoms will never conquer each other if they just try really hard to Exist In Moderation. that is not a thing. the opposite of it is not a thing either. it's one of those stupid instances of making up a slider and trying to find the made-up middle.
618. "sit tight like a windowpane, and you'll be back to normal" (Adventure Time s9 e2) -> dystopian setting where there is no particular kind of oppression, everything is simply off and everyone acts like it's normal. this is one of the only kinds of civilizational horror stories I actually like. because it never actually brings in any kind of underlying assertion of the way things should be that you have to tease out to figure out how to interpret it, and which can take a long time to interpret properly. instead it's just like, everyone is much too cool with this and we have absolutely no idea what to do. there is a certain kind of created awe within it which by itself makes it compelling, akin to a good fae story, cosmic horror, etc. Adventure Time s9 e2, The Shuteyes
618. Adventure Time s9 e2 -> magic as bending the world to one's will. unfortunately PB becomes this
618. [S2] Every single wrong choice an individual has ever made is due to prejudice / Every single wrong thing an individual has ever done is due to prejudice -> I hated this idea until the day I put up this wiki and came up with the notion of F2 Statements or wording wrong things really confidently. and now it's just funny. I don't think most people take the proposition quite this far. I think you'd have to make the propositions people actually use subsets of this, and I think it's the notion of making it completely absolute that's funny. but just imagine. some random Dave Andrews off in Arizona made a bad desktop application in Rust because he was prejudiced against good programming languages. some Erma Waters over in Newfoundland wrote yet another detective story when nobody needs any more because she was prejudiced against good books. the notion of every single wrong action being a prejudice is quite conceptually funny.
618. If predicting society was impossible, corporations wouldn't exist / If historical materialism was impossible, corporations wouldn't exist
618. my flower left me -> AZ. I don't know what this trope means in terms of any other series but I know it already has a great name
618. it's possible to have political positions without it being a team sport - no. it's not. chunk competition / CCASH and Social-Philosophical Systems / SPS prohibit that. center-Liberal rationalists are so stupid. you know what the worst thing is? this was used to justify Trotsky in the same sentence. Trotsky violently attacked a republic due to his extreme views. I mean, what else do you term an assassination? anybody who doesn't realize hegemony politics currently exists (even if it's not a good thing) and treat it as if it exists is just, hanging out feeling like they owe nothing to a population continuing to exist and it's okay to let every other individual die except maybe a couple friendly businesses they buy things from if current policies benefit their own business. when you refuse to play "team sports" whole nationalities and ethnicities of people cease to be because all the people in them scatter to different capitalist cities. only a few things are more prejudiced than that. every population is based on a molecularized yet competitive process of people building populational structures through free association that at times harm each other and exist in mutual exclusion. you can't just "criticize" these without understanding their physical interaction and the fact that some of them have to be treated as correct and some as incorrect. correct structures bring down regulations on incorrect structures. this is the basis of Liberal democracy. SPS-based democulture. if one person standing by and writing a bunch of Zinovievism could change the world just because they had "good ideas" there would be no need for elections.
618. It's possible to be anticommunist without being racist / It's possible to be anticommunist without being xenophobic against Third World countries -> implicit statement in like, every anticommunist thing ever. no, it's not.
618. Prejudice is the most obviously-bad thing there is / Not doing prejudice is the most obvious thing there is / Prejudice is the most obvious sin / Prejudice is the ultimate sin (claim about obviousness or senselessness) -> I have always been confused why people think prejudice and microaggressions are the most obvious thing ever to never have done when the literal reason people do them is because it's not obvious. some people admit this, when they admit that prejudice is due to "ignorance". but ignorance is the lack of information about what is right and wrong, making it not obvious that it is better to not have prejudices. I think you can also go a step further and say that merely labeling something "inexcusable" is in practice the same as labeling it "obvious".
618. adventure vs daily life - in AT, weirdly. s8 e27
618. cultural exchange -> the concept itself, without value judgements about "Existentialists thinking it will magically fix everything". Take It Seriously.
618. The world needs adventurers to keep culture from stagnating -> Dragon Ball, Adventure Time season 8. there may be a kernel of truth to this in that when different populations interact they learn things, at the very least about the existence of other populations. that said, wow. it's really blown out of proportion how helpful seeing other places actually is. if things are bad at home you won't really find the holy grail somewhere else. your people will still need you to apply the knowledge you find. and as the centuries have gone on, people don't really come back to the places that need them the most, it's just turned into permanent migration out of unsuccessful places to successful places. we really need to talk about the fact that neither Goku nor Finn wants to come home to share their knowledge, both cases begin with assuming home is too far gone, and you can only be a hero through never coming back. (I think I already know what the Existentialists will say. they'll try to claim I'm turning this into a case of "Rudolph was useful". but it's not me doing it. it's the fact people are physical and there are real solutions to real material problems below the level of "discovering better culture". I also know why people make this error. they can't see that any nice group of friends is just a graph and any case of "cultural exchange" is just making the graph bigger. sometimes bigger graphs become easier to operate without becoming more efficient, but they also become more capable of oppressing anybody who actually believes in improving the structure of the graphs. really unfortunate when it comes to worldwide shipping and climate change.)
618. "It's your responsibility to help these misguided Hiders" (Adventure Time season 8 episode 24 "Hide and Seek") -> in just 11 minutes, this episode has so many accidental things to say about dystopian literature and anticommunist fables. one, anomalous societies are bad because they don't allow arbitrary individuals to split off and form another Culture. there is a notion created here of Culture-monopoly. two, some anomalous societies are formed as a matter of group cohesion to make sure everyone survives. this.... is one of the most accurate things a dystopian narrative has ever said, because it's the only anticommunist accusation that's actually just a true fact said in the wrong tone. yes, it is true that North Korea, early China, the Soviet Union, and kinda most workers' states really, formed to make sure people survived, and captured people into party-nations for that purpose. that's actually true. you usually have to read a bunch of Marxist texts to find that out, because most accounts of Third World countries are so stupid they don't even mention that. three. there is such a strange notion in fiction of populational creationism where populations really are made out of culture and they just culture culture culture every day to produce people, rather than people producing culture. thus, the anomalous society made out of one big blob of culture with a bunch of people skewered on top has to capture people back into culture. it's like a parasite, it's gotta get its hosts back. which leads to.... four. if culture shouldn't be capturing people, then Rhizome has inherent potential for oppression. you can't tell me Rhizome is a model of movements and it models this special movement thing people do for a moment and then stop doing. people are physical things and if Rhizome is actually going to change their minds then there's a form of Rhizome when it's expanding and flipping people over and another resting form when it's done. that resting form is the Social-Philosophical System, the loosely-linked network of people that in their daily lives all support anti-racism or whatever the movement is. that's what has to form for people to actually go vote and get other people to vote. but according to this Adventure Time episode resting Rhizome is bad, because all humans have times where they want to break out of an SPS even if its ideas are correct. this episode seems to think that all populations are Cultures and all populations can be bad anomalous Cultures from somebody's point of view leading them to break out of the population and call it dystopian. we'd better think about that kind of thing when we're trying to ask what creates Tories.
618. "In what way isn't a crab a robot? ... I don't understand why BMO's not a crab" -> finally, we get to the real meat of a philosophy encyclopedia: the totally useless questions that still might somehow teach you something. (Adventure Time season 8 episode 22)
618. Fern trying to be Finn is like Finn trying to be a doctor -> a really weird metaphor. it absolutely shouldn't be true, which of course is why it's funny. there really is a correct way to do medicine. but the episode proposes a world where medicine quite literally works like Existentialism (adventure time season 8, episode 15)
618. Men enter into definite relations not of their choosing -> one of the big problems within Marxism these days is Existentialists do not believe this. Existentialists, the majority of all people, instead believe that every relationship is a choice, and every change in relationships is a matter of Free Will. the important consequence is that Existentialists rely on people finding okay bosses versus terrible bosses and okay landlords versus terrible landlords and okay towns to work in versus terrible towns as an important part of the process of building progressivism. Deleuze & Guattari and the notion of "lines of flight" or "rearranging bodies/machines" — this is what is meant by all that
618. Q?977 your friend and the windmill disappeared -> one of the most iconic pieces of imagery in Petscop. somewhat related to "the door that never opened"
618. Futuristic technology is indistinguishable from magic / Any sufficiently-advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
618. All magic is scientific principles presented like mysticism / "All magic is is scientific principles presented like mystical hoodoo" -> one of my favorite ideas ever said in Adventure Time, which is a complete mindfuck if you think about it yet is thrown in there totally offhand. Adventure Time can't be a science fiction universe due to things like Jake spontaneously reimagining significant parts of the world. but if you take the alternate timeline where those episodes aren't true and this one is, it's one of the most single most interesting questions. if magic isn't magic then what is it? clearly, it has to be a new form of physics that doesn't exist in the real world but does exist in the fictional world. a simple set of fundamental rules complete with equations. and to some degree, isn't that observably the case? in a Pokémon game, there is an equation that damage equals base damage times type matchup multiplier. that is a physics equation. it doesn't tell us very closely about how the world works underneath, but neither do a lot of real-world physics equations! until quantum mechanics a whole lot of processes and mathematical information about them were left out. a concrete equation about how something repeatedly behaves is a physics equation. the only way out of that is to invent the term "metaphysics equation".
618. metaphysics equation -> my main reference point for this is video games. but quite honestly, things like mathematics from the time of ancient astrology might count. debatably also Lacanians and schizoanalysts misusing math for metaphors.
618. magic man (Adventure Time) -> incidentally resembles - Slavoj Žižek - metric - disregarding what is normal
618. series of events which is hypothetical inside fiction
618. advancement (virtual pets or characters) / progression (virtual pets) / evolution (Pokémon)
618. level-up evolution
618. Large Hadron Collider
618. IceCube neutrino detector -> I've mentioned both of these facilities about twice or three times in MDem drafts. time to add them.
618. Empathy is an act of science -> empathy is an act of deliberately understanding something from the outside in when it was not previously understood because that knowledge was not had. in contrast to the notion that empathy is this, like, faster-than-light telepathic process where people instantly know the inaccessible facts of another person's existence just because they are both The Subject, and you're practically not allowed to ask any questions about how people are the way they are because it would undermine the power of the fact They Just Are and have the power to out-exist you out of reality if you make them mad
618. Whenever somebody belongs to a marginalized or imperialized group their current position compounds on any effort to get out of it / Frantz Fanon conjecture -> this guy has been used to argue "prejudices" and the notion that colonialism is in our heads, but if you look at what he's actually describing it would seem it's true. [104] I think it isn't too hard to formalize this into a mathematical theory of Populationism or Everybodyism
618. Buffer states always get invaded anyway -> a claim on the Wikipedia article I couldn't agree with more.
618. You can't build Zinovievism in one country / Rhizome requires a global momement just like early Trotskyism -> only when writing a new B-side chapter where the speaker totally believes in Rhizome did I finally realize that the standard version of Rhizome + Multitude theories + scraps of Liberalism was actually rather similar to a world Zinovievism only actually having a little bit of internal content this time, and attempting to be more elaborate and improved. follow-up: "Early Trotskyism is an anarchism"
618. built on the ashes of fae bones -> Wings of Fire Pantala arc; SCP-001 The Queen's Gambit; "pignite" tale. I have a lot of scattered thoughts about this but it isn't productive to put them here. I have dumped them on the "4.4/sundew" entry.
618. (put bootleg names on db characters)
618. D-class benjamin whatsisname [105]: runs narratively parallel to - Kris Dreemur - reason - possessed by player in occult ritual
618. "There is zero difference between good and bad things actually" -> this should be considered the quote or comic, not the actual statement. this was a @dril tweet apparently. [106]
618. There is zero difference between good and bad things -> this one is the statement itself as a claim. there is probably a Nietzsche / BGE quote I don't currently know that applies?
618. SCP-8000 - example of: careerism in fiction; references the 001 proposal with the mallet guy. features signifier: Ghost of Individualities Future
618. physically slaying one's inner child -> Giggleland ep 2, Fatum Betula. I think there's something to be said about the vague analogy between cartoon furries slaying their inner child in Giggleland and the myth of the lion turning against the lamb in Pitch haven / other works like Kimba, Beastars, and Zootopia
618. Don't talk about politics (Sarah Stein Lubrano) -> field: center-Liberal books that make entirely too much sense
618. I am the Cheese (Cormier 1977) -> weird precursor to SCP reports
618. Animorphs: The Ellimist Chronicles (2000)
618. Dactyl Hill Squad (Older 2018)
618. The New Prophecy: Twilight (vol.5; Warriors)
618. The Darkest Hour (vol.6; Warriors)
618. Stealing Home: The Story of Jackie Robinson (Denenberg 1990)
618. The Age of Zeus (2010)
618. Alchemy and Academe (McCaffrey 1970)
618. Decision at Doona (McCaffrey 1969)
618. Crisis on Doona (McCaffrey 1992)
618. Treaty at Doona (McCaffrey 1994)
618. Outcast of Redwall (McCaffrey 1995/1996)
618. Wings of Fire (Todd 1998)
618. Riding Freedom (1998)
618. Winterkill (2022)
618. The Guardian Herd: Starfire (2014)
618. A Month of Sundays (2024)
618. When Things Fall Apart: Heart Advice for Difficult Times (1997)
618. The Quality of Life (1970)
618. Orthodoxy (Chesterton 1908) -> some Christians think this is a profound work of general-sense philosophy, apparently. I have no idea if it is or not. I suspect it's not.
618. Beyond Good and Evil (Nietzsche 1886/1913)
618. The Capitalist Unconscious (Tomšič 2015) [107] -> part of a certain localized underground effort to attempt to explain away all Marxism and Liberalism through molecularized or atomized Lacanianism. I cannot stand this bullcrap. I have so much other stuff to read that's actually good in some way and you throw this shit at me. deliberate Existentialism gets more swearwords out of me than almost anything because there are almost no words in human language for how stupid this is, there is basically nothing else to say. anyway. this is not really a conspiracy or anything, it's just a very very stupid trend that has been slowly hatching itself as everything in First World countries resembling Marxism has squashed and degraded into these bizarre attempts to construe everything through themes of "free will" and "prejudice". like, when I say everything I mean everything. I don't mean people saying "racism is more prominent than capitalist abuse". I mean "resistance to questioning capitalism is literally a prejudice", "resistance to Menshevism is literally a prejudice against empathy for the poor", and Lacanians in particular trying to conceptualize every case of somebody not taking an action and not supporting a progressive movement as a prejudice, like every single thing wrong in the world ever is a prejudice. I cannot stand this. things have to be physical at some point. there has to be some physical object we are or process we are doing that we aren't conscious of the workings of, and some other process whose workings we could replicate instead, or else we'll never become conscious we're doing things wrong. if every wrong thing in the world is a prejudice including capitalism and imperialism, then none of us have human rights just because we're The Subject, because anything about our existence and identity and expression could contain prejudices that have to be smashed away, and thus existence doesn't equal freedom, existence equals inherent un-freedom and mutual exclusion between some identities and localized "cultures". Lacanians can't even agree with themselves, because some of them seem to believe in intersubjectivity / the Shenlong effect and some of them believe Subjects are uncontrollable, which would mean that calling things prejudices or using psychoanalysis on them is useless because the separation or joining between people or groups controls everything and history is all about populational structure. which ironically is almost getting back to historical materialism. so, I've come to halfway like the uncontrollable Subject model because if you're not a Lacanian it does seem fixable.
618. Profit is basically Muten Rōshi -> I gotta admit I don't fully understand Lacanianism, thanks to all the absolute spaghetti every book or talk on it hits you with and makes you decode, but what is this. they make such strange models of things. we're beginning with symbolic castration or Lacanian discipline, where people in incomplete stages of growth form incorrect ideas about being an adult / Father and when people interact with others the incorrect ideas have to be cut off. also known as "desire", also known as "a". then we are throwing in jouissance or climax. the point of that is that to cross people's boundaries you have to do it the right way, and if people try to get there without going the right way, without seeking to know and understand the workings of the person, they get in trouble, and people forcefully teach them the rules of engagement with either that person or society. many kinds of addictions can be taken as crossing boundaries in a different sense, trying to skip to satisfaction without going through the material route that actually produces it. but the Lacanians say that profit is some kind of improper crossing of boundaries or something. whose boundaries? the boundaries of perfectly-shaped "degrowth" growth? the worker's boundaries? the figurative boundary between doing "real" things that are satisfying and becoming obsessed with profit?
618. Addiction results when we misplace the journey and skip to the end / Addiction results when we skip over discovering the correct path through something and skip to the end -> this is probably what the speedrunning guy actually meant. but it was still a really stupid way to apply it. the speedrunning guy seems to believe that only chunk competition and slaughtering other groups of people is the natural way of life that can make us happy, and walking away from that imperative makes us addicted. this is why I don't like Freudian models. because whatever theory of society you have in terms of a Social-Philosophical Bauplan, you're likely to believe your ideology is the only correct way and having any other heretical ideology results in maladaptive escapism or addiction. even Communists fall into this fallacy and don't realize they need to think harder than this. if Trotsky can go around saying Stalin is ignoring the truth just because Stalin's government made his people unhappy, we need to think harder about how anybody actually looks outside any particular Marxism and actually discovers what's true.
618. Historical materialism is the opposite of addiction / If addiction results from skipping over boundaries to get to the end, then historical materialism is the opposite of addiction -> the perfect corollary to "surplus jouissance" that no Lacanian would ever think of. if we make ourselves unhappy by convincing ourselves it's easy to be happy by skipping to the reward and not considering the proper way to get there... is it not also true that the proper way to get anywhere is dictated by physics and the repeated behaviors of the world, and we can only do things the correct way by understanding the way the world works? if we don't understand how the world really works, then we'll never actually know the correct way to get through boundaries or go through a journey and not merely skip to the end. if we never actually learn the correct way, then getting stuck in addicting patterns or escapism isn't actually anyone's fault, it's just the inevitable outcome. we can't exert our will to do something we don't even know. yet Existentialism also wants to tell us the road ahead is impossible to know. if that's true most of us are slated to be addicts. the great majority of all the content on social platforms about "how society keeps us lazy or distracted" is totally and utterly wrong.

Items 1 - 225

Critical concepts and best-known countable philosophies

1. process of Being
2. sea of free-floating entities
3. countable entity
4. countable concept
5. countable object
6. spatially-unique object / unique object
7. spacetime-unique event / unique event
8. series of unique events / timeline of unique events
9. [S0] series of non-unique events / repeatable historical pattern
10. repeating process
11. material-history -> the series of physical events that defines what any particular object or population is; the topic historical materialism studies
12. set of all objects in material reality / Facticity (MDem)
13. countable graph of people / countable set of connected people / countable community
14. countable body of claims / countable philosophy -> particular list of axioms or beliefs which is to be shared by some particular group of individuals; intended to be used to define the term "Social-Philosophical System"
15. countable philosophical framework / philosophy not considered an ideology
16. countable ideology -> the major difference between a countable philosophical framework and a countable ideology is that a countable ideology can be realized into a new Social-Philosophical-Material System distinguishable from other kinds of societies in a countable way; some kind of "countable Culture" or countable political system with its own individual identity and name (USSR, Spain) as well as perhaps its own repeatable but fully distinguishable category (Marxism, Liberalism) is produced
17. revolutionary event / event which creates new regime with new population structure
18. countable religion or spirituality
19. historical account -> subset of: non-fictional work
20. work -> subset of: countable object
21. non-fictional work -> subset of: work
22. fictional work -> subset of: work
23. mythical or legendary work -> subset of: work
24. religious text -> subset of: mythical or legendary work
25. sign / signifier-signified pair
26. signifier
27. signified
28. signifier equation / sign containing signs
29. ontology / graph of associations / graph made of signifier equations
30. ontological model / model of concept or process / オントロジー
31. falsifiable model
32. unfalsifiable model
33. [S0] conspiracy theory / model unsubstantiated by all current knowledge / model proposing hidden individual or group agents with bad motivations
34. [S0] religious cosmology
35. philosophical metaphysics model
36. fictional factical system / fictional world or setting rules construct / fictional physics model / video game physics equation
37. non-fictional physics model
38. falsified or unsubstantiated physics model
39. current physics model
40. civilizational shape (model) / ideological nested-graph model / metaphysical society model (Existentialism) / Particle Theory (MDem) / Bauplan (MDem) / Philosophical System (MDem)
41. [S] nihilism
42. early existentialism / existentialism / existence-philosophy / Existenzphilosophie / existentialist tradition
43. [S] absurdism
44. rationalization for the continued connection of a graph of people / rationalization with a partisan character / rationalization based on existence of in-group separate from out-group
45. logical proof / proof in mathematics / formal logic argument
46. philosophical argument or thought experiment
47. religious apologetic -> subset of: philosophical argument or thought experiment
48. anecdotal argument / argument from Lived Experience
49. observation / original research statement with associated nickel Item or link
50. philosophy or science term
51. [S0] literary motif
52. historical time period
53. historical civilization / unique feudal order / unique dynasty / unique empire / unique republican period
54. unique named relationship / Group Subject (MDem) / relationship / connection / pairing
55. graph theory
56. game theory
57. social sciences
58. population science
59. mathematics
60. field of science
61. life sciences / ecology / biology
62. natural sciences
63. physics
64. astrophysics / physical cosmology
65. quantum physics / quantum mechanics research
66. general relativity
67. special relativity -> subset of: general relativity
68. string theory -> unsubstantiated but awfully neat at the time
69. quantum field theory -> substantiated
70. analytic philosophy
71. field of study diagramming signs and signifiers / semiotics (generic) / structuralist linguistics (generic) / meta-ontology (generic)
72. phenomenology / Husserl's phenomenology (Existentialism)
73. Existentialist-Structuralist tradition -> note, early-existentialism is already Q42
74. structuralism
75. poststructuralism
76. psychoanalysis / Freudian psychoanalysis (generic) / Lacanian psychoanalysis (generic)
77. schizoanalysis
78. alterity theories / postcolonial theories (theories about how colonialism is a prejudice about a group of people in someone's mind)
79. post-Marxism
80. continental philosophy
81. Materialism
82. mechanical Materialism / mechanical philosophy
83. dialectical materialism / diamat
84. historical materialism (specific-sense) / histmat
85. Marxism believing itself to be uncountable / generic Marxism
86. existential materialism / exmat
87. Idealism
88. named nationalism / named fascism / named Identitarianism / nationalism distinguished into cultural category / uniquely Spanish nationalism / uniquely Japanese nationalism / uniquely United-States nationalism
89. spacetime-unique ideology / named ideology -> an "S2" style ideology with a definite Particle Theory / Bauplan, or at least a specific series of axioms; an instance of an ideology as opposed to a pure set category having no particular beliefs; in religion, a denominational religion as opposed to an umbrella religious category
90. named Marxism / Marxism differentiated for country conditions / Marxist sect -> save the concept of named Trotskyisms for the 4000s range
91. named republicanism which is not Marxism / named Liberalism -> Alexander Hamilton & Thomas Jefferson are examples
92. meta-Marxism
93. argument for general-sense historical materialism -> argument for the presence of semi-predictable cause and effect in history, for time itself as a physical process made of repeated physical patterns, and for basic kinds of predictable patterns within populations and societies. basic kinds of arguments which do not bring up class subpopulations but can serve as a foundation for these kinds of analyses
94. claim X is a case of Y / claim something is a case of something else
95. claim X is an instance of Y ideology / claim something is an instance of an ideology / claim something is a case of an ideology
96. reactions journal / reactions file / reactions blog / media thoughts journal -> a file or physical page, or series of microblog posts, etc. where you write down your impressions of something either in terms of emotion or some level of analysis of how or why the thing you're looking at is the way it is. apparently this is a big novel concept to some people that they have to learn at school? for me I learned it from people posting reactions to things on Twitter. and then I just started progressively finding deeper insights on things the more of them I did until I eventually turned into a low-tier Marxist theorist. now I've put up this wiki and begun to encourage people to put these things into thesis portals. don't let the grandiose name turn you away, you can make one for all your reactions to cartoons, or anything. a "thesis" on some serious philosophical theory is just what the very top fraction of thesis portals turn into.
97. data Entity / Wikibase Entity
98. meta-philosophy (field)
99. meta-ontology meta-ontology
100. source -> work functioning as ontology example or ontology description for larger work or later work relative to earlier work; ontology graph taking the form of work
101. printed source / text archived online
102. audiovisual source
103. interactive source
104. non-interactive recording of interactive source
105. commentary on interactive source
106. false interactive source -> Petscop, 3D workers' island, Homestuck
107. book / book which exists in print form -> book - conveyed through construction having parts - volume
108. book compilation
9999. book in book compilation
109. multi-volume book / multi-volume reference text
110. course textbook / college textbook / grade school textbook
112. book chapter / article compiled in book
113. foreword, preface, or introduction
114. article / short story
115. article serialized in magazine or newspaper
116. article serialized in theoretical journal
117. article serialized on blog or substack
118. article serialized in online archive
119. article on miscellaneous personal homepage
120. article serialized in unknown printed source
121. article or chapter in book compilation
122. article, poem, or story compiled in anthology
123. transcribed speech
124. transcribed interview
125. court transcript
126. bop entry
127. bop scrap
128. bop revision entry
129. unfinished book chapter serialized as bop scrap
130. book chapter serialized as bop scrap
131. nameless publisher / independently published
132. general publishing entity
133. publishing organization / propaganda group
134. academic or theoretical journal
135. online book or article archive / not magazine or journal
136. master's thesis
137. non-serialized comic / graphic novel
138. serialized comic
139. multimedia serialized comic
140. animated series / anime / cartoon
141. song with lyrics
142. poem
143. computer or console game
144. short story
145. novel
146. novel in multi-volume series
147. novel in multi-volume series adapted into comic / Scholastic graphic novel
148. online video
149. YouTube video
150. PeerTube video
151. thing part of finite numbered series of things / thing part of collectors' index -> collectors' indices have serialized parts, similar to episodes or chapters; technically, a wikibase Item is an instance of this
152. citation in local Item / work described in Item -> source - conveyed through model having parts - local Item
153. citation in qualifiers / work described in qualifiers -> source - conveyed through model having parts - set of qualifiers
154. citation in external Item / citation in external wikibase / work described at external data item / work described in wikidata Item
155. citation in external wiki / work described or anchored in external wiki article
156. citation buried in other work / work unknown or unconfirmed but referenced in work -> source - conveyed through model having parts - citation
157. video described in qualifiers -> online video - conveyed through model having parts - work described in qualifiers
158. ??
159. numbered series of things / finite numbered collectors' index of things / spatial map of things where all the things have numbers -> equally applies to an index of TV show episodes, a list of wikidata Items, a list of Pokémon, and the periodic table of elements.
160. text / written work (book; story; article; web page) / visual work (comic; animated series) / aural work (audiobook; podcast) -> I think the major thing that this entry excludes is compilations of things. like, a magazine with many articles is not a text, although it is a periodical issue and by other definitions a work.
161. part (book division)
162. ??
163. serialized part -> numbered part which is syndicated or expected to release periodically
164. non-serialized part -> discrete part which may be released in an all-at-once or timeless manner
165. volume -> physical printed book, or book-sized division. I'll say this doesn't refer to science periodical volumes unless they're physically collected into a self-contained book you can browse or something vaguely resembling one.
166. chapter (non-serialized part) -> in reference to novels.
167. episode / chapter (serialized part) -> in reference to works that are entirely planned for serialization, like manga, or some prose stories submitted to magazines which were not treated as standard novels when published later. personally I'd take the bold stance that there's no serious difference between serialized chapters of printed things and episodes of voiced things. but, this Item will have both sense-labels to minimize confusion.
168. ??
169. ??
170. ??
171. ??
172. ??
173. unit for constructing works / unit for constructing texts / unit of work or series construction / serialization unit or unit of work construction -> note that this one is so general that "text" can be a unit for constructing texts, although "volume" or "episode" could also be.
174. atom-like entity -> an atom-like entity is a mostly-indivisible unit which contains the capacity for particular patterns when combined with particular other atom-like entities. a chemical element is the prototypical example: two hydrogens and one oxygen form water. but one hypothesis I am trying to investigate is the possibility that individuals of particular ideologies are atom-like entities, and when put together in various "compounds" they form specific ideologies. I feel like there is some remote possibility that one day there could just be a periodic table of ideologies that is as prosaic and numerical as the study of chemical elements and chemical compounds.
     an atom-like entity is not an entity that can be considered in total isolation from all others akin to a helium atom. I really don't like models like Rothenberg's that imply that, because not even chemistry works that way. chemistry may be reductionist, but the predictable emergences from the elements are the whole study of chemistry.
175. ??
176. ??
177. ??
178. wiki page -> non-serialized part; text not in the form of volume. move these two to later number?
179. MediaWiki category -> non-serialized part which clusters wiki pages
180. analyzing a text for motifs -> there are different connotations to this. Freudians do this because they think motifs reveal the rules of psychohistory. schizoanalysts do this because they think motifs reveal the rules of finding Freedom. Marxists do this because they think many motifs come from the rules of populations and material-history.
181. solid phase
182. liquid phase
183. gas phase -> may be shown as either STM swatch or ES swatch, due to how I like to use "behaving like a room of helium atoms" as a metaphor for Existentialism.
184. plasma phase -> a form of matter where atoms do not remain neutrally-charged and can create electric arcs passing on electrons from atom to atom.
185. quark-gluon plasma -> exotic phase which usually doesn't exist under the current conditions of the universe, which push these particles to stick together.
186. supersolid / Bose-Einstein Condensate
187. phase change
188. phase of matter / non-classical state of matter -> practically, phases of matter are just a continuous way of describing states of matter. they can capture the edge cases like hot ice, liquid crystal, etc.
189. state of matter / classical state or phase of matter
190. software package
191. UNIX-style package / UNIX-style program
192. Free Software package
193. nonfree software package
194. Debian package
195. Arch package
196. Linux package / Linux program
197. Lisp module / asdf system / .asd system
198. emacs package
199. MediaWiki extension
200. phase diagram (chemistry)
201. reading list / unique reading list / unique list of thematically-related works -> "unique reading list" sounds beyond weird as natural language, but it sounds perfectly logical to me after thinking in the language of linked concepts
202. chemistry
203. organic chemistry
204. chemical substance
205. chemical element
206. chemical compound
207. ??
208. quantum number
209. metaphysical slider / hot-cold slider (alchemy) / wet-dry slider (alchemy) / virtue (purported middle of purported slider) / vice (purported end of purported slider) -> a metaphysical slider is a quality presented as having a middle and two extremes.
210. four elements (alchemy) -> these oddly mirror the four states of matter, especially if you count fire as a partial plasma. it's like, a long time ago people thought chemical substances were made out of hot, cold, wet, and dry, and the next level up was solid, liquid, gas, and bright burning things (fire, lightning, plasma). then Newton arrived and we renamed those the states of matter. then science kept going and we realized phases of matter were more complicated than we thought they were and there were a lot of in-between phases like hot ice, supercritical liquid, and so forth, although the four "major" phases of matter were still the most common and important within the bounds of either Earth or the sun.
211. emergence / ergodicity (sic - movement of free-floating entities toward particular patterns which may become consistent structures; MDem 4.3) -> the real-world phenomenon or non-fictional motif of smaller objects functioning against each other to produce larger objects or processes.
212. alchemy / hermeticism / Historical study of chemical qualities and quality-based cosmology -> "Alchemy, the great secret"
213. alchemical symbol / alchemical motif
214. European alchemy / alchemical concepts in Christianity
215. Buddhist alchemy / alchemical concepts in Buddhism
216. consistent repetition or replicability -> component of predictability, used to define "repeating process" and events that are easy to empirically verify
217. Marxist text
218. defined reality -> a specific collection of material objects united by physics, which may be a whole reality or part of a reality. similar definition to a "system", but intertwined with the concepts of relativity theories
219. no real-world defined reality
220. hypothetical object
221. hypothetical interaction / hypothetical process
222. hypothetical series of events
223. ??
224. ??
225. "nickel" Item - video or page used 3-5 times in stacks of examples which has thus passed minimum notability. credit author with "author name string" or "external data item"; if already recorded on Signifier Item which is linked instead of its sources, no need for new item

226 - 900

226. fictional reality / fictional universe / fictional cosmos
227. fictional object / non-unique fictional object
228. unique fictional object -> do not make Items for every single kind of fictional object, just also tag it as the real thing
229. fictional process / non-unique fictional process / fictional physics process
230. unique fictional event / unique fictional process
231. fictional historical event / canonical event / confirmed theory
232. unconfirmed fictional process / unconfirmed fan theory
233. unconfirmed fictional event / unconfirmed fan theory
234. ??
235. ??
236. ??
237. fictional population
238. ??
239. ??
240. earth as relative to fictional world -> wasn't totally sure whether this should be an S Item or a Z Item. mostly, it is quite literally just the real world with all its real-world characteristics, only looked at from the angle of a fictional universe. it's a very literal thing. it's technically used as a motif because everything in a work is a signifier, but... everything in a work is referenced through a signifier. I think this is a Z Item.
241. audience as relative to fictional world
242. ??
243. ??
244. ??
245. ??
246. ??
247. ??
248. ??
249. ??
250. ??
251. ??
252. ??
253. ??
254. ??
255. ??
256. ??
257. ??
258. ??
259. ??
260. source with particular rarity / source at some particular level of abundance
261. source found at library
262. source found at distant library -> sub-case of: source found at library
263. source found at used book sale / used book found locally (comic, video, etc)
264. source found at free bookshelf -> sub-case of: source found at used book sale
265. source found used online
266. source found new locally
267. source found new online -> this is for physical texts that are purchasable through the internet
268. source found new as eBook / source found new as digital audiobook -> this is for non-physical texts that are purchasable through the internet
269. source reprinted online -> this is for texts that are free online, in any format
270. ??
271. ??
272. ??
273. ??
274. ??
275. ??
276. ??
277. ??
278. ??
279. ??
280. statement with no possible backing claims
281. ??
282. ??
283. ??
284. ??
285. ??
286. ??
287. ??
288. misinformation or disinformation
289. ??
290. ??
291. 'pataphysics
292. relativistic gap -> gap between physical objects made of something bigger than quarks. when there are no fundamental interactions such as photons crossing the gap between objects, there is no serious causality going on between objects. great separation between objects in terms of how easy it is for them to interact is relativistic separation: two planets several light-years apart have a difficulty in interacting with each other measured by the fact interactions through physical signals take years. in this, there is a certain inherent connection between relativity and quantum physics. relativity talks about gaps that photons travel across. quantum mechanics talks about gaps photons travel across. this means something for gravity, but nobody knows what that statement actually will be.
293. ??
294. ??
295. ??
296. ??
297. ??
298. transfer of packet between objects / transfer of free-floating packet from one free-floating object to another
299. physical interaction -> critical concept for relativity, and Heidegger's book, because it is arguably the sheer definition of physics existing
300. particle physics
301. fundamental particle / fundamental force quantum / fundamental force packet
302. fundamental particle interaction / Feynman diagram reaction
303. hadron / composite subatomic particle -> nucleons, mesons
304. interaction that assembles composite particles / force that holds composite particle together -> strong interaction, weak interaction, electromagnetism; may be totally synonymous with "fundamental force" except that we don't know what interactions gravity is composed of
305. fundamental force -> strong interaction, weak, electromagnetism, gravity
306. quantum (amount) / quanta
307. ??
308. quantized gravity (hypothetical theory) / quantum gravity model / theory of quantum gravity
309. paraparticle -> [108]
310. boson physics
311. boson
312. boson field
313. double-slit experiment
314. gauge boson
315. scalar boson
316. higgs boson
317. ??
318. ??
319. graviton (hypothetical particle)
320. fermion physics
321. fermion
322. fermion field
323. exclusion principle
324. quark -> color charge
325. lepton -> no color charge
326. ??
327. ??
328. ??
329. ??
330. dark matter problem
331. supersymmetry / SuSy -> unsubstantiated; doesn't have a lot of evidence as of yet
332. neutralino -> unsubstantiated; a supersymmetry solution
333. weakly-interacting massive particle (WIMP) / WIMP (hypothetical particle) -> looks unsubstantiated, but not totally falsified
334. axion (hypothetical particle) -> currently being researched
335. Matter-antimatter annihilation converts dark matter to matter
336. Dark matter particles interact with visible matter through Higgs bosons / Higgs portal hypothesis
337. technicolor Higgs model
338. Gravity interactions are just one big coincidence / postquantum gravity -> [109]
339. dark matter / unknown solution to dark matter problem -> [110]
340. quantum field
341. photon field
342. gluon field / strong field / quantum chromodynamics field
343. W & Z boson field / weak field / flavor swap field / stellar fusion field
344. Higgs field -> scalar field not transformed by relativity
345. ??
346. ??
347. ??
348. ??
349. theta field / axion field
350. physical field
351. scalar field
352. vector field
353. spinor field
354. tensor field
355. classical field
356. electric field -> vector field
357. magnetic field -> vector field
358. gravitational field (classical physics) / gravity field (classical physics)
359. radian (unit)
360. degree (unit)
361. No individual object moves faster than a photon / No object moves faster than gauge bosons / Nothing moves faster than the speed of light in a vacuum
362. ??
363. ??
364. ??
365. ??
366. ??
367. ??
368. ??
369. ??
370. linear algebra
371. matrix
372. linear combination
373. determinant
374. An identity matrix has a determinant of 1 [111]
375. A matrix with identical columns has a determinant of 0 / When a matrix has identical columns the determinant is 0 [112] -> I think this provides some kind of clue as to what "star" is. I don't entirely know what a determinant is or why it has to make columns cancel each other out but I do know it's important.
376. A determinant of a linear combination is a linear combination [113]
377. ??
378. ??
379. ??
380. ??
381. ??
382. ??
383. ??
384. ??
385. ??
386. ??
387. ??
388. ??
389. ??
390. ??
391. ??
392. ??
393. ??
394. ??
395. ??
396. ??
397. ??
398. ??
399. ??
400. reductionism
401. upreductionism (pronounced upreductionism) or ana-reductionism / retermination (relativistic determination or determinism; framed as a new kind of reductionism) / emergence (the subset of emergence which is relatively predictable and involves one scale of things producing a larger scale of things) -> science communicators and anti-science people need to understand the distinction between splitting atoms to find the quarks and attempting to predict atoms from quarks, and realize that the latter is still sometimes possible even if it's a lot harder. let's think about weather models: a lot of big objects like cold fronts and warm fronts interact to produce a weather outcome. when the weather report is correct you've managed to do up-reductionism.
     it's taking all of me to not flip the swatch color to STM from MX and say this is already science. no, I need a science article. a credible science hypothesis in an article will do as far as marking this a motif; you'd need more to mark it Z0 but that would prove it's being discussed in science and not just in philosophy.
402. constructor theory -> a weird and interesting scientific hypothesis that, the more I think about it, the more I doubt could possibly be true. I think humanity has more chance of cracking a model of up-reductionism / retermination than this being a theory that makes sense.
403. cube dimensionality -> the kind of "dimensions" that most people usually think of as dimensions: the real number line extended into a plane, and into a cube, or into a tesseract, with all the infinitesimals in between each corner of the solid.
     cube dimensionality exists on three known axes in real life, so... Z0. there are three of them, you at least know what a fourth one would look like in fiction even if it is not confirmed to physically exist.
404. non-spatial dimension -> easy to comprehend with treed dimensionality where a dimension isn't a whole plane of real numbers. more confusing as the dimension-on-paper gets continuous. I mean, just try imagining a non-spatial dimension that's not time. it took me years and years to ever think of one.
405. There is a probability dimension below time / We live in 3+1+1D (pronounced 3+1+1D) space with a dimension of probability and a dimension of history / We live in 5D space with a dimension of probability below time -> somebody has to have discovered this hypothesis before me. I cannot be the first one. it's too simple, it's too obvious. it's almost too obvious to be correct?? attacking this thing is where the real fun begins, I suppose.
     thought 1: did I rediscover hilbert spaces? I don't think so but I do not even know.
406. ??
407. ??
408. Spacetime can be broken down into a probabilistic process / To find quantum gravity, create a probabilistic version of general relativity [114] -> a tall claim, but one I think is plausible. quantum mechanics is inherently similar to relativity thanks to things like wave functions and fundamental interactions. this all begins at a contradiction of whether and when we can assume that things happen or measure each other independent of our observations (hidden variable theories)
409. Quantum mechanics is secretly a science of ordinary stochastic processes / Quantum systems can be modeled as non-Markovian stochastic processes -> Jacob Barandes; I don't understand the mathematics but it already makes so much sense. technically a hidden-variable theory, but claimed to be much simpler and bring in a smaller area of non-classical behavior [115] [116]
410. time travel
411. world line / correlation shown on Penrose diagram
412. predetermined future -> this concept is so general it could apply to real-life historical theology debates, but I'm coding it as a fictional trope for science fiction reasons.
413. time paradox
414. original timeline
415. desirable future
416. undesirable future
417. future as mathematical superposition
418. treed dimensionality -> the mathematical definition of "dimensions" as how many levels deep you are in a choice tree, or how many columns deep you are in a table. this is not the only definition of "dimensions" nor the most common one. it's generally preferred to define "dimensions" as things that can create whole fields of numbers like a whole real number line that can be expanded out into a plane and a cube of coordinates. I have no issue with that, of course. but, this is the kind of dimensionality that "Item dimension" or "Item dimensionality" refers to in the context of all these numbered Items. the simple depth of a rooted tree that we are referring to as dimensionality.
     the first place I saw treed dimensionality was either in statistics — "n-dimensional analysis" — or in reference to quantum numbers, where once again you have multiple degrees of freedom where things can slide along axes, and it seems possible though not certain that some people are literally confusing them with cube dimensionality and turning them into spatial dimensions.
419. The Hat Man
420. Was this made on drugs?? / How could anybody have made this sober / I want what they were smoking
421. Actual drug trip artwork / Ambien post
422. Flatland (1884) [117] -> I watched the animated movie recently. I have to say, when the commenters labeled it cosmic horror, that's perfectly fair. my first thought is that it was a "look how advanced the aliens are" plot, especially when the Spacelanders want to wipe out the Flatlanders. I think this is exactly the right number range for it.
423. ??
424. ??
425. theory of spacetime with more than 3+1 dimensions
426. Kaluza-Klein theory [118] -> a model that proposes a 5th spatial dimension to explain gravity. the 5th dimension is a tiny cylinder with a radius only 23 times the Planck length. a proton is on the order of 1×10¹⁹ Planck lengths.
     some people try to use this to argue many-worlds, when, do you really need many-worlds if you have more dimensions? [119]
427. reference frame (relativity) -> mostly mentioned in special relativity. but I did have a weird thought of, what if there were reference frames in general relativity, and you basically just squash them really small? they may or may not be infinitely small. the assumption they actually are infinitely small might be leading us to singularities while they are actually a little bigger than "infinitely".
428. Entanglement is four-dimensional [120] -> okay, but the entanglement of what?
     let's take quarks. quarks actually exchange something between them, distributing a particular quantity or directionality around so it sums to zero. that's fairly easy to understand in three dimensions, if you take an oversimplified analogy of a ring of three things bending one direction and bending the other direction to not tip over. this object would be conserving downward forces. quarks, for some reason, are always sending strong interactions to each other, and "giving them back" somewhere else because it's far easier to do that than break a color-confined object apart. it's a little like part of water moving and pulling the rest of the water along with it. that is already a whole object. we can already see the whole object, at least in the form of a proton. where are you putting the color charge?
     this is the kind of thing that made me weirdly suspect string theory was confusing treed dimensionality in the form of quantum numbers adding variables with real spatial dimensions that exist near the Planck length
429. ??
430. fringe science / pseudoscience
431. fringe history / pseudohistory -> I don't even know what swatch to use for this.
432. ??
433. ??
434. ??
435. ??
436. ??
437. ??
438. ??
439. galactic bible -> the motif of a pseudohistory detailing large events between multiple civilizations, where it may be that not a single one of the civilizations or events is verifiable. Atlanteans vs snake people, Mormon bible almost equally fall under this motif.
440. zero game [121] -> a game which essentially is over. neither player has a legal move, and the board may as well be empty.
441. player score point -> a player-specific score tracker in a board game or similar.
442. team score point
443. move in N direction / move in negative direction (game theory) -> these are the more technical definitions of scoreboard points. you can choose to define scoreboards or game spaces in terms of positive and negative numbers, although it results in the strange artifact of star numbers that act oddly like a new version of zero you can multiply. all of this rests on the assumption of a zero-sum game, akin to tic tac toe or checkers.
444. move in P direction / move in positive direction (game theory)
445. space in neutral direction / playable game space in direction which is neither player N nor player P -> while moves in a zero-sum game must go a particular direction, game spaces don't have to. this is part of the definition of "star", although I still don't understand what the full definition is.
446. ??
447. ??
448. ??
449. game rules manual / card game rules sheet / board game rules sheet -> to be used for reference statements, or entries preserving official rules sheet links
450. board game piece / board game card / board game token / card game token / unspecified game card / unspecified game piece
451. playing card / unspecified game card
452. playing card deck -> has three uses. explaining card game mechanics; references; explaining Deltarune / Homestuck
453. trump deck / poker deck
454. pinochle deck
455. tarot deck
456. mahjong set / mahjong deck
457. creature deck / medieval kingdom deck / Arcmage-style deck / Magic-style deck
458. named trading-card-game deck / named deck
459. trading-card-game set
460. chess piece
461. pawn (chess piece)
462. knight (chess piece)
463. bishop (chess piece)
464. rook (chess piece)
465. queen (chess piece)
466. king (chess piece)
467. promoted pawn (chess piece)
468. checker (board game piece)
469. 8 by 8 checkerboard / checker board / chess board -> they are not strictly the same, as apparently one is smaller, but they sure are awfully similar
470. draw deck -> board field, either central or player-specific
471. card suit -> the concept of something that goes in a card suit
472. object-based card suit / playing card suit / season-based card suit / plant or animal card suit
473. elemental card suit / card color
474. numbered card
475. face card
476. resource card / Resident card (Aurora) / mana card / land card / energy card
477. character card which may act as figurehead / character card / creature card / monster card / Theorist card (Aurora)
478. event card / Action card (Aurora) / instant event card
479. continuing event card / Condition card (Aurora) / enchantment card
480. card area / board field -> in general
481. main draw deck / deck / central draw deck / market deck (Tea Dragon Society) -> board field
482. player draw deck / deck / library / character deck -> board field
483. hand / player hand / hand cards / hold (Tea Dragon Society) -> board field
484. character area / creature area / Army (Arcmage) / Member Zone (Aurora) -> implied to be player-specific but not stated to be
485. condition area / permanents area / Condition Zone (Aurora) / terrain area / supporter area -> could be plural
486. figurehead area / commander area / Guide Space (Aurora) / main character area
487. removed from the game / exile zone -> board field
488. prize card area -> central or player, either can exist
489. discard pile / graveyard / GY / Devastation Zone (Aurora) -> implied to be player-specific
490. in-play card area -> superset of: character area, etc
491. stack of connected cards -> solitaire, Member Zone masses/groups (Aurora)
492. modifiable card
493. modifier card / equipment card / enchantment card / power-up card / card eaten by character card -> refers to visually representing cards more than to effects
494. face-up card
495. face-down card
496. generated card / token card
497. modifying token / modifying counter / damage counter / power-up counter / status effect counter
498. free-floating token / board game token -> miscellaneous token placed on some space on table for status purposes
499. transient card / effect card which does not enter play
500. card field / card stat / card metric / card attribute -> superset of: object suit, suit color, number
501. card category / card kind -> Condition, Action, etc. should usually be represented through "instance of" property, this is just to define what a category technically is
502. card suit / card element / card color
503. card name / card title
504. card cost
505. card worth / point value / victory points
506. card power / offensive power
507. card endurance / defensive power / stamina / hit points if same as defensive strength
508. card resource value / energy value / mana value / growth value (Tea Dragon Society)
509. card rules / card basic effects
510. card flavor text -> the concept of flavor text. put especially memorable flavor text in "relevant quote"
511. card with in-play effect / effect permanent / enchantment creature -> could also be a "modifier card", but in some games may take effect in hand / graveyard / etc. a card which has an effect when in something a particular game considers an in-play area
512. card with draw effect
513. card with discard effect
514. card with in-hand effect -> Tea Dragon Society is the only game I can think of that does this, off the top of my head
515. card with in-discard-pile effect / card with in-graveyard effect
516. card with in-draw-deck effect -> never heard of this one but maybe it exists, who knows
517. card with in-deck effect / card with different rules in particular decks / card affected by figurehead card / card affected by main-character card / card affected by commander card / inherently tutorable card / fusion mechanic card / synchro card / pendulum card / card that complements other cards inherently
518. single-use game piece / single-use card / card which is discarded after effect
519. card with unique rules -> superset of: card with draw effect, etc.; card which is not neatly described by set theory statements
520. twenty-sided die
521. face-up card area / card area with cards face-up
522. face-down card area / card area with cards face-down
523. faced-away card area / card area with cards face-up toward one player / face-up card area specific to one player / hidden face-up card area -> this is for coding player hands.
524. card area with cards laid out horizontally / card area with cards separated
525. card area with cards laid out vertically -> superset of/instance of/consists of?: bound stack of cards
526. bound stack of cards / stack of cards which is deck-shaped -> as opposed to informal card stacks in solitaire, equipment-card stacks, etc.
527. ??
528. ??
529. resource card area -> doesn't necessarily exist in game rules but likely to exist on svg images
530. truth value (top level category) / non-binary truth value
531. spring (card suit) -> technically exists in mahjongg as well as Tea Dragon Society
532. summer (card suit)
533. autumn (card suit)
534. winter (card suit)
535. Hackenbush [122]
536. tic tac toe -> seems like a silly thing to be talking about until you realize how complicated combinatorial game theory makes simple things, and then you absolutely won't want to use a more complex game than this.
537. super tic tac toe / tic tac toe with a tic tac toe board on each square -> this thing reminds me of Communist Internationals. there's definitely something to that. like, the small boards are the countries containing the class populations. the large boards are either the global class populations or the rival Internationals. I wonder what is the simplest board game you'd need to represent mainstream Marxism-Leninism versus Trotskyism, making the unrealistic assumption they are both equally powerful.
538. star (unreal number) / star (number-like object in game theory; number that is neither positive nor negative, cancels out itself, and yet can be multiplied) -> this thing is unbelievably interesting to me. it feels strangely like a non-numerical object thrown into the slot of a number. it's like the Missingno of numbers.
     let's see... GIGO / undefined behavior + Pokémon = glitch Pokémon. undefined behavior + numbers = abstract algebra. or something.
539. binary truth value -> sub-case of: non-binary truth value.
540. False / FALSE / F -> formal logic or boolean value
541. True / TRUE / T -> formal logic or boolean value
542. communication rating level / work rating code
543. U / Unknown -> highly implies "probably not false" but doesn't state it
544. NG / Not Good
545. G / Good
546. (communication rating level)
547. (communication rating level)
548. N/A / Not Applicable
549. E / Excepted
550. zero or more
551. one or more
552. exactly 52 / deck of 52 -> subset of: order of magnitude
560. ??
561. ??
562. ??
563. ??
564. ??
565. ??
566. ??
567. ??
568. ??
569. ??
570. ??
571. ??
572. ??
573. ??
574. ??
575. ??
576. ??
577. ??
578. ??
579. ??
580. ??
581. ??
582. ??
583. ??
584. ??
585. ??
586. ??
587. ??
588. ??
589. ??
590. ??
591. ??
592. ??
593. ??
594. ??
595. ??
596. ??
597. ??
598. ??
599. many
600. ??
601. fictional incident, tragedy, or crime / un-true crime
602. ??
603. ??
604. ??
605. ??
606. ??
607. ??
608. absence -> the lack of something that would otherwise be there, usually physically, sometimes within a logical framework
609. inanimate object / countable inanimate object
610. living thing / countable lifeform -> any of a number of kinds of living things, real or fictional, which is not an inanimate object but is countable
611. ??
612. dystopian alien nation
613. Beast (AllDir simulation) / Beast (mathematics) / Beast field atop natural resource field -> vector representation of an individual animal; see scrap MDem 4.4/"starclan"
614. ??
615. ??
616. ??
617. placeholder -> the concept of placeholders
618. proposed Item
619. ??
620. ??
621. ??
622. ??
623. ??
624. ??
625. ??
626. ??
627. ??
628. ??
629. ??
630. ??
631. ??
632. ??
633. ??
634. ??
635. ??
636. ??
637. ??
638. ??
639. ??
640. Pascal's wager / god grid (Christian philosophy)
641. ethics problem involving Trotsky / ethics thought experiment involving Trotsky / Trotskyite variant of existing thought experiment / Trotsky problem (philosophical dilemma which centers around Trotskyite conspirators or early Trotskyism; meta-Marxism) -> there are bound to be some new ones that come up but the variants of old ones can also go on this entry
642. ??
643. ethics problem involving workers' states
644. Trotsky's wager / Trotskyist god grid -> Pascal's wager except with early Trotskyism.
645. ??
646. ??
647. ??
648. ??
649. ??
650. trolley problem -> I swear the principle of these is violated by anticommunist memoirs. think about it. every anticommunist memoir sends the trolley over thousands of people to save one person.
651. single victim (philosophy)
652. trolley (philosophy)
653. trolley sacrifice (philosophy) / fat person (fat man; philosophy)
654. Trotskyite trolley problem -> there are at least two possible "Trotsky problems". one is the god grid with Trotsky where he loses everything if Trotskyism is wrong. one is the Trotskyite trolley problem where there are 1,000 Trotskyites on one track and a million Soviet people on the other track. this entry refers to the "train tracks" Trotsky problem.
655. five victims (philosophy)
656. ??
657. ??
658. ??
658. Communist trolley problem -> this is already a coherent concept but I just don't have a perfect idea of what it means. I think... a Communist trolley problem is simply a trolley problem where all the objects in the diagram are labeled as things that exist in workers' states.
660. morality or ethics / morality (method of distinguishing Right from Wrong; MDem 5.1-5.2) -> I at first wanted to put morality at number 333 but that was already filled up by quantum physics concepts. this will do
661. local morality -> localized conception of morality produced by the motions of a particular countable culture
662. ??
663. class-based morality
664. ??
665. ??
666. moral wrong / Wrong (morality and ethics)
667. moral right / Right (morality and ethics)
668. ??
669. objective morality / ethics (objective study of how groups of people construct morality and what are the best ways to construct morality)
670. ??
671. ??
672. ??
673. ??
674. ??
675. ??
676. ??
677. ??
678. ??
679. ??
680. ??
681. ??
682. ??
683. ??
684. ??
685. ??
686. ??
687. ??
688. ??
689. ??
690. ??
691. ??
692. ??
693. ??
694. ??
695. ??
696. ??
697. ??
698. ??
699. ??
700. ??
701. ??
702. ??
703. ??
704. ??
705. ??
706. ??
707. ??
708. ??
709. ??
710. ??
711. ??
712. ??
713. ??
714. ??
715. ??
716. ??
717. ??
718. ??
719. ??
720. ??
721. ??
722. ??
723. ??
724. ??
725. ??
726. ??
727. ??
728. ??
729. ??
730. ??
731. ??
732. ??
733. ??
734. ??
735. ??
736. ??
737. ??
738. ??
739. ??
740. What are numbers? / What are integers? / What are real numbers? -> has several different technical definitions within mathematics.
741. Integers are multiples of True / using True to construct numbers -> common in programming languages. was not used in the lambda calculus video I watched, which was closer to using sets.
742. Integers are actually functions / using function to construct numbers / using succession function to construct numbers (iterator function; lambda calculus) / Church numbers -> a method used in lambda calculus.
743. Integers are actually sets / using sets to construct numbers -> Peano arithmetic. in a way, using sets to construct numbers is not very different from using an iterator function. it's pretty easy to argue that putting a set around a number is its own kind of function, in the computer programming sense or maybe in a lambda calculus sense.
744. Integers are actually graphs / Integers are actually undirected graphs -> I haven't found a solid application of this aside from the most preliminary descriptions of graph economics and the Lattice model; right now I don't have a single small, obvious demo, so this is currently more of just a "weird thought". this is the concept that depending on what kind of objects you're counting, any particular collection of people or snowflakes or water molecules is better modeled as an undirected graph than a Peano-style set. in the real world, quantities of things are largely important because they either are grouped together or are not grouped together, thus creating separate physical objects that can interact.
745. Numbers are whatever is between two sets / Numbers are whatever is in the middle of a Dedekind cut / Game theory can make a number system / Game theory can be used to create a number system / surreal numbers proposition / Hackenbush numbers proposition -> very interesting. looks like some version of complex numbers with more axes?? or maybe some form of superpositional numbers. I'm surprised I haven't heard of that before. I mean, how can it be that there are all these quantum physics equations and no superpositional numbers regarded as their own objects instead of just error bars? the wikipedia article says it's a weird new form of infinitesimals.
     [edit:] wow, that was not correct. I think the explanations I watched just had a lot of trouble explaining it in a way that made sense. surreal numbers mostly get complicated because the sets get infinite and they're having to number countable infinities.
746. Numbers are secretly error bars -> I had to go over the definition of surreal numbers several times to properly understand that this wasn't what those were.
747. ??
748. ??
749. ??
750. fuzzy logic -> proposition-based logic which uses real numbers from 0 to 1. I don't think this is the only way to do non-binary logic, but it may be one of the easiest ones to explain and demonstrate.
751. fuzzy set -> a fuzzy set is a lot like any set, but its membership uses a non-binary truth value in the form of a rational number from 0 to 1. it's like one big circle with a bunch of numbers or Algebras around it where every object is a particular distance from the center to the outside. and of course, where the exact position around the circle doesn't matter, the circle is for flavor.
     I'm thinking. I think if you threw these into a Dedekind cut, you'd have to define what each number in the set is first. one intuitive way to do it is to draw a real number line, with a ramp of numbers rising off it so you start at zero membership and go all the way up to one or higher if you want. and I think that would be complex numbers; I think one way to define a fuzzy set is to say basically each integer in a fuzzy set is a complex number that only goes up to n+i.
752. ??
753. ??
754. ??
755. ??
756. ??
757. ??
758. ??
759. ??
760. ??
761. ??
762. ??
763. ??
764. ??
765. ??
766. ??
767. ??
768. ??
769. ??
770. people-gambling -> the usually non-fictional motif of sorting through a lot of people to hit the jackpot and find the right people. this motif is inherent in most "job interview advice", as well as some "relationship advice", "product marketing advice", and rants against "social media". however, it also comes up in other unexpected places, like looking through a lot of books on a particular topic to find a book which is considered good or useful for some purpose. most people consider people-gambling perfectly normal. (as much as that totally baffles me.) this is often missed in critiques of "social media" as uniquely bad — if everything in life involves gambling on groups of people like some kind of poker deck, why wouldn't it be obvious for videos or microblog posts to work that way? people-gambling + ?? = Carl Sagan's professors. people-gambling + kaiju = Pokémon. people-gambling + Difference makes you useful = Wackytown fallacy.
771. Dedekind cut / {...|...} -> an operator used for defining numbers, whether the real numbers or the surreal numbers. a number or set can be put on each side, and the result of the operation goes in the middle of the cut.
772. ??
773. surreal numbers -> a grouping of numbers defined in a different way than the real numbers are typically defined. reading books about these things you'll quickly come to the realization that fractions and decimals are a social construct and there are actually any number of different ways to define what number comes before or after a different number or how to divide a range of numbers.
774. Surreal Numbers (Knuth 1974) -> in dialogue format.
775. Winning ways for your mathematical plays (Berlekamp, Conway, and Guy 1982)
776. social event horizon / Vegeta effect / Entei effect -> the non-fictional motif of people having a horizon around themselves which other people cannot pierce through to control, with only a few exceptions for such things as people forming a social structure that makes a decision of how to use all its people. this motif doesn't directly include those exceptions. this motif combines with other propositions to form particular historical or contemporary conceptions of "free will", but it doesn't really have to be used that way if you instead wish to study people through existential materialism.
777. Free Will -> a motif I have never liked because of the fact nobody can actually define it. whenever you try to discuss Free Will the discussion becomes confusing, because what process are we even debating the existence of? worse yet, people who think they can disprove it typically try to counter it with concepts that are difficult to substantiate or falsify. even Sabine Hossenfelder, who is convinced she knows exactly what hypotheses are so up-in-the-air they aren't science, tossed out an unfalsifiable hypothesis to counter Free Will. this entry.... will be a messy one. there will be about 10+ different models associated with what is supposedly the same thing.
778. freedom (top-level category) -> one of the only terms worse than free will in terms of how many definitions it has. genuinely don't use this except to list the category on category pages
779. ??
780. ??
781. ??
782. ??
783. ??
784. ??
785. ??
786. ??
787. ??
788. ??
789. formal logic
790. formal logic operator / logical operator / logic gate
791. NOT (logical operator) / NOT (logic gate)
792. IMPLY (logical operator) / material conditional / → / P → Q -> silly question: do these arrows go the text direction in RTL and vertical scripts? I'd think they would but I have no idea
793. converse (logical operator) / ← / P ← Q -> not always equal to IMPLY operation
794. NAND (logical operator) / NAND (logic gate) -> absolutely everything except an overlap
795. XNOR (logical operator) / XNOR (logic gate) -> there was some reason I needed this in the past. I think it was for tearing apart Rothenberg's set theory chapter.
796. OR (logical operator) / OR (logic gate)
797. AND (logical operator) / AND (logic gate)
798. XOR (logical operator) / XOR (logic gate)
799. NOR (logical operator) / NOR (logic gate)
800. set theory
801. set (set theory) -> collection of elements modeled by mathematical structures; mathematical structure
802. empty set (set theory) / ∅ / {} / void set / size-zero set -> my nemesis ever since Rothenberg bizarrely abused it to explain The Subject
803. non-empty set (set theory)
804. multiset (set theory) -> set that behaves like a programming language array, with non-unique members allowed
805. subset -> set contained in another set; empty set is a subset of most non-empty sets
806. union (set operation) / OR (set operation) -> combination of two sets; empty set causes no change
807. intersection (set operation) / AND (set operation) -> overlap of two sets only; use the empty set, get the empty set
808. symmetric difference (set operation) / ∆ / A ∆ B / XOR (set operation)
809. absolute complement (set operation) / NOR (set operation)
810. set theory axiom
811. set property / set characteristic / set indicator function result
812. Sets are equal if they contain the same members / axiom of extensionality (ZFC set theory)
813. No set can be a member of itself -> true in ZFC set theory, but not all set theories
814. Defining sets based on properties that cannot be true creates a set that cannot exist / There is no set of all sets that do not contain themselves / Russel's paradox / Sets must be defined following the rules of sets in order to be sets (ZFC set theory)
815. A set definition will never outrun the biggest possible set / Sets cannot be defined based on the biggest possible sets / Cantor's paradox -> this one is easy to escape if you want to number countable infinities, because mathematicians simply use other structures than sets
816. bisimulation / bisimilarity -> when two mathematical ontologies have equivalent behavior; when two mathematical objects are functionally indistinguishable regardless of whether they are the same spacetime-unique object; suitable mathematical equality test for Particle Theories / Bauplans
817. hyperset -> a set which definitionally contains itself in a bisimilarity relation
818. hyperset theory
819. ZFC set theory / Zermelo-Fraenkel Choice-axiom set theory (ZFC) -> set theory where sets are "computational" and pointers into the set cause a kind of infinite loop bug in the logic
820. non-well-formed set theory
821. anti-foundation axiom (set theory)
822. [S2] Sets are actually just directed graphs containing the same arrows (AFA) / Aczel's anti-foundation axiom (AFA)
823. [S2] Sets are actually just tree graphs that cannot be rearranged (SAFA) / Sets are trees connecting Quine atoms with no interesting automorphisms (SAFA) / Scott's anti-foundation axiom (SAFA)
824. [S2] Sets are actually just directed graphs with no exact symmetries / Finsler's anti-foundation axiom (FAFA) -> this one sounds pretty similar to the popular AFA if you don't look closely, but it's based on rotating the graph around and renumbering it
825. [S2] Sets are nothing more than baskets of tiny sets / Sets are a proper class based on collections of Quine atoms / Boffa's anti-foundation axiom (BAFA) -> some mathematicians really don't like this one but I don't know enough to say why it would be objectively bad. I'm not even sure I've found a good/correct definition of BAFA yet
826. atom (set theory) / set element that cannot have set-structured members / urelement
827. set-based atom (set theory) / Quine atom (set theory) / singleton / graph node serving as one-element set / graph node mapped to ur-element in binary relation -> Quine atom is one of the most arcane terms I've ever seen and I refuse to use it just yet
828. univocality -> mapping from one unique name or object to another unique name or object. signifier equations sometimes do this, in cases such as technical jargon
829. biunivocality -> a really fancy word for counting. no, I'm serious. a biunivocal mapping exists when one set of unique names maps onto a set of unique elements, as if counting things with natural numbers. Deleuze and Guattari once abused this concept to try to forbid counting and grouping individuals and try to turn them into a non-local beam of photon-people
830. ??
831. ??
832. two indistinguishable iron spheres called Castor and Pollux -> I love when mathematicians actually think of entertaining thought experiments
833. proper class (set theory) / class (set theory) -> the repeated pattern of having a given characteristic or returning a given indicator function result, which is not a set. similar to "class" or "interface" in object oriented programming
834. graph-to-set mapping / exact picture of set -> a concept that comes up quite a bit in defining non-well-founded set theories
835. ??
836. ??
837. ??
838. ??
839. ??
840. ??
841. ??
842. ??
843. ??
844. ??
845. ??
846. ??
847. ??
848. ??
849. ??
850. ??
851. ??
852. ??
853. ??
854. ??
855. ??
856. ??
857. ??
858. ??
859. ??
860. ??
861. ??
862. ??
863. ??
864. ??
865. ??
866. ??
867. ??
868. ??
869. ??
870. graph node
871. disjoint union -> logical combination of internally unconnected graphs/sets. seems like I might have to use it to describe populations some day
872. hypergraph -> a mathematical graph that could theoretically store a 3D model composed of a bunch of triangles, or the collection of all subpopulations in a population including overlapping subpopulations
873. ??
874. ??
875. ??
876. ??
877. ??
878. ??
879. ??
880. graph (graph theory) -> a collection of nodes and node pairs, typically visualized as a path
881. undirected graph (graph theory)
882. directed graph (graph theory) / 𝒢 (variable)
883. cyclic graph (graph theory)
884. acyclic graph (graph theory)
885. tree (graph theory) / tree graph -> acyclic graph, one path between any two nodes, every vertex a particular point in space on a map essentially
886. rooted graph (graph theory) / pointed graph / arborescence / anti-arborescence -> an arborescent graph points away from the root. also: according to Deleuze and Guattari it's basically the devil. you didn't know there was a Good and Evil to graph theory did you, but now you know
887. star graph (graph theory) -> graph with everything connected to a central node. how I often visualize what non-well-founded sets are supposed to be, you just put the empty set in the center
888. ??
889. ??
890. Gödel's incompleteness theorem / Gödel gap (barrier beyond which an individual entity cannot reason without interacting with another object)
891. ??
892. metamathematics -> this is it. Marxism : meta-Marxism :: ontology : meta-ontology :: mathematics : metamathematics
893. ??
894. ??
895. ??
896. ??
897. ??
898. ??
899. casual steganography for fun -> how Spore creatures are stored in an image [123]

901 - 1999

Historical events, texts, etc.

901. MAI reading list / Anti-Imperialist Movement Marxist-Leninist reading list
903. ??
905. ??
907. ??
910. ??
913. ??
914. ??
915. noble coup -> "noble coup" is my colloquial term for a political phenomenon where some particular socially-linked graph of nobility and their allies plot to replace a particular royal family or top of a feudal order. I'm not totally sure what the standard word for this is. one thing I'm closer to sure about is that in the handful of these I've heard about it seems like the nobility easily get divided. it isn't easy for them to all join together and create a new state around the nobility compared to them splitting into competing factions of nobility which may all be tied to a particular religious sect. it's weird how the patterns of nobility have similarities to the patterns of capitalists, and this seems to be partially responsible for the similarities between Catholic and Protestant conflicts in England versus progressive and Protestant political subpopulations in the United States.
916. revolution against feudal order / bourgeois revolution (Marxism)
917. revolution against capitalism / revolution that creates non-capitalist state but does not create feudal order -> this entry allows for the concept of a revolution forming a charcoal workers' state, although as far as I know that is entirely hypothetical right now and has never happened in real life for a period of longer than 3 years. (to be fair 3 years is pretty good compared to a couple months, but it's definitely not 70 years.)
920. ??
921. ??
922. ??
923. ??
924. ??
925. rift, split, separation, schism, expulsion, or fatal controversy / event of serious division between two sets of people / event of serious division between notable individual and group -> thanks Trotsky for showing me that expulsions and schisms are really just the same thing
929. metaphysical thought experiment
930. Materialist thought experiment
931. scientific thought experiment
932. historical-materialist thought experiment
933. existential-materialist thought experiment
934. ??
935. ??
940. jamming proposition or question / jamming antithesis
941. jamming proposition -> seems to be a major component of 'pataphysics, but also of meta-Marxism
942. jamming question -> it bothers me that most people don't think a question is a proposition. it makes the task of non-binary logic unnecessarily difficult.
943. ??
944. ??
945. ??
946. ??
947. ??
948. ??
949. your-choices vs. (pronounced vs.) yours-choice distinction / your-choice versus yours-choices versus yours-choice distinction -> a vital distinction to understand before anyone can properly answer whether "your choices matter". when people say "your choice(s)", are they referring to "your choice" individually, "yours choices" as every individual separately in parallel, or "yours choice" as many individuals combined into one group?
950. tiered levels of grouping / tiered grammatical plurality -> the concept of multiple levels of plural objects (seas of free-floating entities) as they are represented in language or propositional logic. I would say the majority of people are not aware of this concept and constantly gloss over it in both writing and comprehending writing. it is dreadfully common to simply toss out the weasel word "we" with no particular meaning in reference to some really vague group of more than one person and assume it makes total sense.
951. one-member concept / singular term [124]
952. group concept / collective term
953. subpopulational concept / particular concept / particular term
954. populational concept / universal concept / general concept / universal term / general term
955. global concept / global term -> a concept which applies to the largest possible scales of populations or generalizations, such as worldwide
956. concept about many separate individuals in parallel / applying to many separate individuals in parallel
957. concept about many separate groups in parallel / applying to many separate groups in parallel
958. concept about separate subpopulations in parallel / concept about several separate subpopulations in parallel
959. concept about separate nations in parallel / concept about several separate populations in parallel
960. method of defining a set
961. local characteristics or members / intensional characteristics / localized spatially-unique set members or characteristics of said members
962. entailed characteristics or members / extensional characteristics / extensionality across characteristics or subpopulations
963. ??
965. ??
970. ??
975. ??
980. language register / language proficiency level
981. local vernacular term -> applies to contexts such as fandoms and that phenomenon where gender labels were exploding because nobody knew the difference between common terms, vernacular terms, and university-level terms
982. widespread vernacular term -> applies to contexts such as dialects of English
983. uncommon term
984. common term
985. technical term taught in grade school / scientific term taught in grade school
986. university-level term / technical term taught in four-year degree
987. university-level term widespread in particular ideology / technical term widespread in partisan ideology
988. graduate-level term / technical term taught in specialist degree -> one of the only one of these Items to not use "88" to mean anything whatsoever.
989. technical term within local research group / field-specific academic jargon term
990. ??
991. boxed-in theory -> the motif of a theory which has absolutely no idea what meta-ontology is and would never think of analyzing itself as an object
992. meta-theory -> I at first put "MDem reading list" here, but then I found out about metamathematics, and running across more meta-theories makes me so excited
993. MDem reading list -> just so I am not tempted to create another one anywhere else. not the definitive or ultimate one, but one I can compare and contrast with my MDem bibliography entry as a minimal version
994. ??
995. ??
1000. plateau (philosophy) / plateau (schizoanalysis) / thing claimed to have no beginning or end / spatially-unique object which does not remain unique
1001. formatting device -> any kind of device which styles, tags, or structures text. Unicode encoding might count as a formatting device
1002. formatting rule -> a specific kind of formatting device which transforms written text into logical structure and possibly renders into some other kind of transcribed logical structure such as TeX or HTML
1003. basic bop formatting - ad-hoc markup language
1004. Markdown - markup language
1005. HTML - markup language
1006. prototype -> an early version of anything made for testing. not related to markup languages.
1007. Hue list classname - colors used in Hue lists, including any color-codings you can see on this one. not to be taken very seriously, often quickly chosen to distinguish nearby blocks of items from each other. instance of: CSS classname
1008. CSS classname -> instance of: formatting device
1009. Item usable as Hue list classname
1010. unique language
1011. English (en)
1012. French (fr)
1013. German (de)
1014. Spanish (es)
1015. ??
1016. ??
1017. Russian (ru)
1018. Korean (ko)
1019. Japanese (ja)
1020. Chinese metalanguage (zho)
1021. Mandarin Chinese (cmn)
1022. Cantonese (yue)
1023. ??
1024. ??
1025. North Korean dialect
1026. South Korean dialect
1027. Chinese character (hani)
1028. Traditional Chinese (hant)
1029. Simplified Chinese (hans)
1020. uncommon, constructed, or system-internal language / language possibly coded as mis
1021. simple English (en-simple) / en-x-pona / en-basiceng [125] -> I want this to be specifically upgoer-five style with a very small list of words, such that it's only a step or two up from toki pona, yet not so simple it's hard to read. the idea is almost to write the en-simple label and use it as guidance for the tok one. Wikipedia's 8000-word list should be useful
1022. toki pona (tok) -> implied to be either sitelen pona or sitelen Lasina
1023. toki pona, sitelen Lasina (tok-Latn)
1024. toki pona, sitelen pilin / sitelen emoji (tok-pilin)
1025. toki pona, sitelen jelo (tok-jelo)
1026. ??
1027. taxonomic names dictionary (la-sci) - [126] [127]
1028. work citations dictionary (qww)
1029. Wikimedia message ID (qqx) - [128]
1030. (reserved for languages)
1040. (reserved for languages)
1050. ??
1055. ??
1060. toki pona derivative / tokiponido
1061. toki pona but with English / meta toki pona / en-x-pona (motif) / ja-x-pona (motif) / de-x-pona (motif) / ru-x-pona (motif) -> the new simultaneously blessed and cursed language I came up with after messing with toki pona and looking at other people's criticisms of it. you write with a palette of 100-150 content words, particles and grammar patterns not necessarily counting toward the limit as long as you can hold up an introductory language textbook they're in, but you use any language you want, you can pick any words as your content words, and the only rule is that you have to stick to the same palette of unique words for the duration of the text. I imagine this would be relatively easy to use for short articles but gets vastly harder as the text gets longer.
      I am just trying to imagine the concept of doing this with several different languages to get a feel for how each language works and idly wondering if I could somehow test every language on earth what my favorite language would then be. I have no idea. I know that the image of writing a summary of Being and Time in this is hilarious to me, partly because some of the words used in it are already superficially simple but then used to express really arcane or unconventional ideas. I wonder how it would look different in de-x-pona versus en-x-pona. I'm going to say you can cheat by smashing words together to make new words, with the only rule being that you and the audience have to assume they have no meaning until you define them. de-x-pona sounds like a fun language that is probably a little clearer than toki pona or en-x-pona, just because the boundaries between words so clearly separate ontological concepts. I feel like zh-x-pona and ja-x-pona would be capable of the same thing if you throw enough hanzi together though. I wonder if one day we'll know enough about ancient languages that egyptian-x-pona would be possible, or sumerian-x-pona, knowing it doesn't have to be fully as graceful as the original language and only has to be easy to learn in its phonetic form. as far as I'm concerned only the spoken language has to be simple while the writing can be hieroglyphs if that somehow makes the words distinct and the meaning clearer.
1065. ??
1069. ??
1070. fantasy work
1071. ??
1075. ??
1079. ??
1080. speculative fiction
1081. ??
1082. utopian fiction
1083. dystopian literature / dystopian fiction
1084. anticommunist fable / anticommunist parable / "dystopian fiction" created to attack a progressive theory
1085. socialist realism
1086. metatransitional literature / meta-transitional realism / meta-transitional fantasy -> like socialist realism or science fiction, but for meta-Marxism
1087. afterlife fiction / Bangsian fiction
1088. horror work
1089. anti-imperialist fable / anti-colonial fable -> a rising genre of idealistic short stories which is specifically about either a kingdom Freely Deciding not to create global empire or some fictional population fighting against global empire's previous attempt to extinguish it. this concept does not encompass every story with national independence or anti-empire themes. the anti-imperialist fable is distinguished by a bizarrely strong focus on the notion of intersubjectivity and the whole narrative being driven by particular things being morally wrong and/or the universe naturally pushing back against what the narrative considers immoral. [129] I am becoming slowly convinced that the use or implication of this story genre is a major reason Pokémon appeals to people.
1090. hero's journey narrative / adventure story -> in practice, the definition of "hero's journey" is almost the same as the definition of "adventure"; that's probably what we would have called it if we'd just started at the everyday examples of a book about a dog finding its way home and then worked back to the Iliad. I feel like things turned out this way because of people trying really hard to justify their degree in classical antiquity. which it may well be they had to get to convince a bunch of crusty imperialists to let them study the arts.
1091. superhero story / superhero narrative
1092. fictional history
1093. evil empire narrative -> distinguishable from hero's journey narrative because it explicitly involves populations. may simultaneously be an anti-imperialist fable, or might not.
1100. ??
1110. quantum water -> an imaginary metaphor in which quantum fields are literally water that separates into different puddles, and the point is to show how different water would have to be in order to be like a quantum field
1111. tennis ball -> keeps being used as a loose comparison for quarks in MDem scraps, which repeatedly explore how different a tennis ball would have to be to be like a quark.
1112. cue ball
1113. pool ball
1114. ??
1115. ??
1116. ??
1117. ??
1118. eight ball
1120. ??
1121. ??
1122. ??
1123. ??
1124. ??
1125. ??
1126. ??
1127. ??
1128. ??
1129. Every physical constant is actually an equation / Every single physics constant is equivalent to an equation in practice, not solely in mathematics -> this is one of those moonshot hypotheses I may never ever know the answer to, nor anybody in science who said the same thing. but I think it's very very important to contemplate. what if every constant is just an equation of "ten apples fit in a standard apple basket", meaning that the constant specifically describes the way the apple basket is constructed and what it is? we're used to physics equations being more complicated than "y = 10x", but from the point of view of mathematics nobody said they have to be. from the point of view of mathematics, every equation is our outside perspective on a phenomenon, and science models the phenomenon based on what it can observe and test more than what it predicts to be inside.
1130. physical constant
1131. ??
1132. ??
1133. ??
1134. ??
1135. order of magnitude / scale of particular numerical base / power of ten / power of two / multiple of one
1136. multiple of number -> subset of: order of magnitude
1137. precise order of magnitude / repeatable number of things / stoichiometric number / specific average number of things -> counterpart to Property "replicated at order of magnitude"; subset of: order of multiple of number
1138. 1/137 problem (physics) / 137 problem (physics) -> mysterious constant which keeps showing up in a lot of physics equations. does it have a solution in some kind of physical-mathematical object, somewhat like the hypothetical theta field of axions that was to replace a theta constant? currently nobody knows.
1140. ??
1145. ??
1150. Everything is made of something / Physics is when everything becomes other stuff / Physics is the study of everything being made of stuff -> A) the problem of what a black hole is rests on the definition of physics that matter and energy always become something else physical because everything is made of something B) unexpected consequence: knowledge is made of physical arrangements of things, leading to one logical proof against Maxwell's demon.
1151. When matter disappears it becomes something else / When matter disappears from a defined section of reality it usually becomes something else / matter conservation
1152. When energy disappears it becomes something else / When energy disappears from a defined section of reality it usually becomes something else / energy conservation
1153. Knowledge is made of physical arrangements of things -> seems odd to point out but invariably ends up being true. bits are physical arrangements of things. neurons are physical arrangements of things. printed words are physical arrangements of things. bibliographies and bookshelves are physical arrangements of things. data Items are physical arrangements of things. even signs are physical arrangements of things, although they're split across two substrates: the written work and the brain. both written works and brains are physical. the final leap not included in this proposition: ideologies and policies are physical arrangements of things, just as a written work is. knowledge of how to carry out Bolshevism correctly can be stored in an arrangement of words, or it can be stored in a physical population of people increasingly arranged into Bolshevism. however, a population of people which increasingly arranges itself away from Bolshevism and into another arrangement may lack the stored information of how to create Bolshevism the more it already does not resemble it.
1154. ??
1155. ??
1156. ??
1157. ??
1158. Some things can be made of themselves / Some objects are small enough to be made only of themselves and not made out of anything smaller -> the claim that fundamental objects may exist in the universe although they are bound to be very, very small. do they exist as quanta? do they exist as whatever quantum fields are made of? do they exist at the Planck length? nobody knows.
1159. History is made of processes / History is made of objects and transformations / History is made of stuff -> Everything is made of stuff + series of events = this
1165. ??
1170. ??
1175. ??
1180. How do you produce the ingredients of a black hole? / What kind of physical stuff would matter change into if it got into the interior of a black hole? / What kind of black hole stuff is matter converted to when it collides with a black hole? / black hole information paradox
1181. The physical stuff inside a black hole is unstructured energy / Black holes are gravastars; the stuff inside the gravastar is a maximally warped zero point energy -> I'm tempted to say the phrase "like one really giant quark" but I'm not sure that's scientifically accurate, since after all black holes aren't constantly disappearing or re-dividing. so I won't.
1182. ??
1183. ??
1184. ??
1185. ??
1186. ??
1187. black hole
1200. ??
1210. ??
1220. ??
1230. ??
1240. ??
1250. ??
1276. The Good Place
1277. good afterlife / Good Place
1278. afterlife
1279. The Middle Place -> appears in work: Cloud Eight
1280. bad afterlife / Bad Place
1290. ??
1295. ??
1300. ??
1305. ??
1310. organization -> I feel as if this needs to be described more specifically to make it clear it's a material object and more than just a term
1311. action against society by countable group of people / incorrect action by countable group of people -> used in defining what protests are about
1312. street protest
1315. ??
1320. ??
1325. ??
1330. ??
1331. Populations must be studied relative to their own traditions / cultural relativism proposition
1332. ??
1333. ??
1334. ??
1335. ??
1336. ??
1337. subculture -> refers to any subculture, although QID references internet subcultures.
1340. ??
1350. structural racism -> material phenomenon as described by real-world evidence, and not whatever papers and books say, should that somehow be a problem
1351. redlining
1352. ??
1353. ??
1354. ??
1355. ??
1356. ??
1357. ??
1358. existence as empire / socioempire / gentrification results from small-scale empire / chunk competition across the spatial slot hierarchy (near-synonym)
1359. critical race theory / CRT
1400. scientific progressivism -> half-hypothetical, half-already-real concept that progressivism, as defined by Existentialists and Liberals, can be broken down into falsifiable hypotheses in the same sense as Marxist hypotheses of how nation-sized revolutionary movements succeed
1405. ??
1410. ??
1419. drug prohibition / war on drugs / war on drug gangs -> there is a deep discussion to be had about how much a war on drugs isn't actually about drugs and is actually a nationalist local-war campaign on the entire existence of criminals
1420. drug legalization
1430. ??
1440. ??
1450. ??
1460. ??
1470. ??
1480. ??
1481. ??
1482. ??
1483. ??
1484. ??
1485. ??
1486. historical fascisms / nationalist regimes recognized as fascisms by historians -> a somewhat deceptive term explicitly excluding the British imperialist framework but including falangism
1487. Axis powers of World War II -> Nazism, Italian fascism, and Japanese global empire
1488. Nazi germany / Nazism
1489. Fascist Italy / Italian fascism
1490. Falangist Spain / falangism / Francoism
1491. Imperial Japan / Japanese global empire
1492. British Empire / British imperialist framework (hypothetical)
1493. United States global empire / United States imperialist framework (hypothetical)
1494. Identitarian fascism / third-positionism / fascisms rooted in definitions of what culture is -> clearly includes Duginism; appears to include Francoism and United States Toryism, if you strictly define it as "fascisms which are not obsessed with genetics"
1495. new Russian empire / post-Soviet imperialist Russia -> under research; Russia as defined by Napoleonist Bauplan or new regime that took over after destruction of Soviet Union
1496. Duginism
1497. European New Right
1498. claimed characteristic of fascism / claimed warning sign of fascism
1499. list of characteristics claiming to define fascism / definition of fascism -> there are a ridiculous number of these. it may be worth encoding all the list-entries and connecting list-entries to the list, especially items they share
1500. ??
1501. Tea Party axis -> United States Tory movement that emerged in the early 2000s, about 2007 according to some. before the early 2000s United States "conservative" parties had some claim to being right-Liberal parties, but then they went through a hard turn into solely being about taking the United States "back" from immigrants and people of the wrong religion. I use the term Toryism in reference to the concept of a faction that rejects the creation of a parliament because having democracy would give Catholics too much of British society. it's funny. even though the original Tories and Britain's modern Tory party are separate groups of people, they aren't ultimately that different in their values. and it only gets worse when you note the repeated event of some people in the United States choosing a party specifically in the hope it wasn't Catholic. did Toryism ever really have a beginning and an end?
1510. Umberto Eco's list for fascism
1511. cult of tradition -> claimed characteristic of fascism.
1512. rejection of modern culture / descent into depravity
1513. cult of action for action's sake
1514. disagreement is treason -> note that this has to be in a nationalist tone. Trotsky saying Stalin does this doesn't mean Stalin's Marxism is fascism. contrary to what some people may think. if you want to say Stalin's Marxism is bad, that's whatever, but you absolutely cannot act like Bolshevism and fascism are the same thing coming from the concept of a generalized dictator. they are different countable sociophilosophies.
1515. fear of difference
1516. appeal against low-ranks / appeal to a frustrated middle class
1517. obsession with conspiracies / obsession with the plot
1518. enemies are too strong and too weak
1519. pacifism is trafficking with the enemy
1520. in-group superior to the weak / contempt for the weak
1521. die a hero or become the weaklings
1522. machismo
1523. selective populism
1524. nationalistic buzzwords / newspeak
1525. ??
1530. ??
1531. ??
1532. The Prince (Machiavelli 1532)
1540. ??
1550. ??
1560. ??
1570. ??
1580. ??
1590. The Taming of the Shrew (c. 1590) -> Shakespeare play. comedy. notable for "abstract amoral world containing blatant misogyny" structure. trying to explain Dragon Ball made me remember it because I swear this is at least two characters' character arcs
1600. ??
1601. ??
1602. ??
1603. ??
1604. Guy Fawkes
1605. Gunpowder plot of 1605
1606. treason trial / royal action against act of treason -> the general concept of a treason trial. I feel like grossly un-regulated royal actions against crimes with no due process should also count under this motif; it's so easy for that kind of grossly unregulated enforcement to be tightly connected to the entire concept of "treason", just by nature of the thing.
1607. act of treason memorialized forever / act of treason memorialized for so long that people have probably forgotten the full original context for why it was bad
1608. act of treason forgotten forever -> not the kind of thing you hear about much, once again by nature of the thing. if it's been erased from the popular consciousness of course you won't hear about it.
1609. ??
1610. ??
1611. ??
1612. ??
1613. ??
1614. ??
1615. ??
1616. ??
1617. revisionist history (field) -> to be used for actual instances of updating the facts and making them more accurate
1618. progressive anthropology -> subset of: revisionist history (field); in my mind, refers largely to studies of ancient people-groups as done in Magic: a history
1619. inclusive history -> subset of: revisionist history (field)
1620. 1619 Project (2019) -> attempted education project by inclusive-historians
1621. Kimberlé Crenshaw -> one inclusive-historian off in a corner of the United States surrounded by a bizarre amount of controversy and discourse. I swear the whole PragerU video about "people segregating themselves at Black graduation" grew out of her drifting over to a different university when the group of people at the other university didn't want her there
1630. ??
1640. ??
1650. ??
1660. ??
1670. ??
1680. ??
1690. ??
1691. witch trial as town court / witch trial as conflict
1692. Salem witch trials -> odd how these are constantly used as a symbol of "prejudice" instead of probing the material-historical factors of how they happened. you might wonder why I'd insist on putting it that way. but this is how progressive anthropologists framed the "more traditional" concept of a witch trial before the advent of Christianity and more institutionalized court systems: in terms of the material contradictions operating inside a society and the witch trial actually being a detective exercise to find out who caused the tensions without necessarily bringing a terrible fate on them. I halfway feel like the progressive anthropologists are giving too much credit to people's knowledge when people might just be ancient-style astrologists or something and genuinely not quite get how the universe works and be guessing wildly. but if you wanted to interpret everyone as intending to discover (meta-)Marxism then this kind of interpretation is perfectly fair; ideologies can have wrong surface interpretations of why their model is supposedly correct and yet the model be broadly correct.
1693. witch trial as treason -> this appears to develop in response to [L] (pronounced [L]) Wasp swarm 1:(-)1:(-)1s. in simpler societal structures, witch trials are less harmful because conflict in society goes back and forth, in all directions, without violence. as First World countries develop and people cluster together "helping each other" build connected Filaments of individual wealth, there becomes an incentive to treat any offense against the Filament as natural treason, and as always, religion and magic ritual and superstition will then each simply reflect the structure of society.
1695. ??
1700. ??
1705. ??
1710. ??
1715. ??
1720. ??
1725. ??
1729. A modest proposal (Swift 1729)
1730. ??
1735. ??
1740. ??
1741. The German Ideology part 1A: Idealism and Materialism
1742. The German Ideology part 1B: The Illusion of the Epoch
1743. The German Ideology part 1C: The Real Basis of Ideology
1744. The German Ideology part 1D: Proletarians and Communism
1745. ??
1746. ??
1747. ??
1748. ??
1749. ??
1750. United States constitutional amendment
1751. Amendment 1
1752. Amendment 2
1753. Amendment 3
1754. Amendment 4
1755. Amendment 5
1756. Amendment 6
1757. Amendment 7
1758. Amendment 8
1759. Amendment 9
1760. Amendment 10
1761. Amendment 11
1762. Amendment 12
1763. United States people will not own slaves (Amendment 13)
1764. Amendment 14
1765. Amendment 15
1766. Amendment 16
1767. Amendment 17
1768. Amendment 19
1769. Amendment 22
1770. Amendment 23
1771. Amendment 24
1772. Amendment 25
1773. Amendment 26
1774. Amendment 27
1775. taxation without representation
1776. United States constitution
1777. United States independence movement (1776) / American revolution
1778. Amendment 18
1779. Amendment 21
1780. ??
1781. ??
1782. ??
1783. ??
1784. ??
1785. ??
1786. ??
1787. ??
1789. French Revolution (1789-1790)
1790. democracy (center-/right-Liberalism) / democracy as defined in center-/right-Liberal republicanism
1791. metric system / International System of Units (SI) / Système international d'unités (SI)
1792. French Revolutionary Wars -> right after the French Revolution, the republic brutally occupied a handful of other countries to force them into Liberalism (or at least early republicanism). this part of history is always forgotten especially when talking about World War II and the Cold War
1793. Thomas Paine treason trial (1792) -> there's something to be said about this in relation to the Moscow Trials. I'm not sure what.
1794. French First Republic -> very notable given there was a second one
1795. ??
1796. ??
1797. ??
1798. sister republics (c. 1800) / French-revolutionary client states / Napoleonic client states -> republics which relied on French occupation to remain republics, or were fitted with monarchies loyal to Napoleon
1799. Napoleonic empire -> French civilization under Napoleon's dictatorship
1800. Napoleonism (meta-Marxism) -> may give this a different name later. a civilizational structure consisting of one republic — in some cases a democratic republic — and several client states under military occupation and/or client regimes controlled by the central republic. the puppet regimes may be republican or monarchist but they must be loyal to the regime of the central republic. arguably, the French Revolution birthed the Bauplan of Napoleonism and it's still alive and well, the United States still doing it
1801. ??
1802. ??
1803. Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815) -> second try at brutally enforcing early-republicanism over all of Europe. the Napoleonic empire walled away many countries' economies and made them so upset the other countries ultimately kicked out Napoleon and restored the French monarchy
1804. Hundred Days -> Napoleon comes back from exile to rule Europe again; every European country goes to great effort to stop him
1805. Bourbon Restoration -> restored French monarchy which remained until 1830
1806. Sixth Coalition -> Great Britain, Austria, Prussia, Sweden, and Russia, united to defeat Napoleon at the Battle of Leipzig
1807. Seventh Coalition -> Sixth Coalition plus Switzerland and the Bourbon Restoration; each alliance contained many smaller territories too
1808. ??
1809. ??
1810. ??
1811. ??
1812. ??
1813. ??
1814. ??
1815. ??
1816. ??
1817. ??
1818. ??
1819. ??
1820. ??
1821. ??
1822. ??
1823. ??
1824. ??
1825. ??
1826. ??
1827. ??
1828. ??
1829. ??
1830. Indian Removal Act of 1830
1831. Trail of Tears (1830-1850)
1831. ??
1832. ??
1833. ??
1834. ??
1835. ??
1836. ??
1837. ??
1838. ??
1839. ??
1840. ??
1841. ??
1842. Theses on Feuerbach (c.1845)
1843. What is the relationship of Jewish people to German citizens? / Jewish national question / Jewish question (not Nazism)
1844. On The Jewish Question (Marx 1844)
1845. The German Ideology (Marx 1846/1932)
1846. ??
1847. Communist manifesto / Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848)
1848. United States westward expansion
1849. "Go west, young man"
1850. ??
1855. ??
1860. Confederate States of America (1861-1865) / Confederacy / The South
1861. United States Civil War (1861-1865)
1862. Jefferson Davis (Confederate president 1861–1865)
1863. Emancipation Proclamation of 1863
1864. Reconstruction (1863-1877)
1865. ??
1866. ??
1867. Capital volume I (Marx 1863/1867)
1868. Capital volume II (Marx 1863/1893)
1869. Capital volume III (Marx 1863/1894)
1870. Capital volume IV (Marx 1863/1963)
1871. Theories of surplus value -> sometimes separated from Capital vol IV, sometimes grouped into it
1872. (further divisions of volume IV?)
1873. (further divisions of volume IV?)
1874. International System of Units (SI)
1875. ??
1876. ??
1877. Herr Eugen Dühring's Revolution in Science / Anti-Dühring (1877)
1878. ??
1879. ??
1880. ??
1881. ??
1882. The Lady, or the Tiger? -> nice example of ambiguity in literature and the concept that ambiguity can be perilous. if you say it doesn't matter what the door is assigned to, there is a 50% chance the tiger will maul you. if you say it doesn't matter what person A believes or decides is behind the door, then person A knows whether the tiger will maul you and you have no idea. similar concept to: quantum Freddy, quantum leopards; see also: Vegeta effect
1885. ??
1890. ??
1891. ??
1892. On Sense and Reference (Frege 1892) -> early precursor to structuralist linguistics. discusses the concept of how and whether words refer to anything.
1893. ??
1894. ??
1895. Caesar Antichrist (Jarry 1895)
1896. Exploits and Opinions of Dr. Faustroll, Pataphysician (Jarry c.1911)
1900. ??
1905. ??
1906. ??
1907. ??
1908. The National Question (Luxemburg 1909) [130] -> Luxemburg says... the bourgeoisie push for national borders to protect themselves but also to gain an advantage over other countries they are poised to imperialize; "socioempire" technically appears in this text. this text sounds mildly against Deng Xiaoping Thought. borders are weird, they keep dividing countries in the middle of ethnic groups. so the proletariat does not have much to gain from borders specifically compared with the bourgeoisie, although a situational social-democrat program can aim to specifically fix (avoid?) badly-drawn borders. nation-states aren't inherently designed to get along (Marx said this). national populations are not made of ideals. 1800s South America fought itself like an utter mess. Poland only unified as a population to resist capitalism but trying to put a nation-state on party programs was a disaster. ok. so what is this saying with regard to the future for Luxemburg? that whenever you try to protect national populations it is all too easy for the bourgeoisie to take over the task and fail to create something that serves the proletariat? we're trying to solve here if she accidentally said anything about Trotskyism in one country. and I think there are definitely implications here that she would have thought that two Trotskyist states forming and then getting into fights with each other over different Trotskyist theories is highly suspect, or even something to drill into class explanations for. then again that is not a surprising conclusion when the statement that different Marxisms shouldn't be fighting each other should be obvious. but it's not materially obvious to actual on-the-ground history. so has she said anything about Trotskyite conspiracies. I feel like in a way she has said that no group of bourgeoisie can protect a population of people, which in a derived way would apply to a fortress Trotskyism considering where the theorists come from and how few you typically start with historically. she has said that workers' movements succeed on understandings of material processes rather than ideas. which makes Trotskyism baffling because their theory and the shape of their movements has never necessarily been matched at all. if you're Trotsky then you are logically pushing an anti-Stalinist nation-state or a bloc of them in Europe to oppose the Soviet Union and all the pre-republican bureaucrats inside it that you seem to believe are a class problem. so if you're Trotsky you need a border. whether you get all the workers together to do it or not you save Europe when the Soviet Union is simply not allowed there. because then you know Stalin can't corrupt East Germany. of course, if Trotskyists don't like not winning the whole Germany I wouldn't blame them there. the imagined scenario where workers somehow keep the United States from dividing Germany so that the various European countries can try to join together to oppose Stalin is at least less depressing even if it also feels strangely unnecessary. I think one of the most notable things Luxemburg says is you can distinguish a workers' government from a proletarian government by imperialism.
1909. Materialism and Empirio-criticism (Lenin 1909) [131] [132] -> a text that had textbook status in the Soviet Union. worth annotating entry with important motifs / propositions / Lexemes.
1910. ??
1911. Course in General Linguistics (Saussure 1911/1959) -> approximate benchmark for finding the birth of "general-sense" structuralist philosophy (signifier-based ontologies pretending not to be ontologies) within the literal descriptivist study of linguistic structuralism. despite all the bad things one could say about the "Existentialist-Structuralist tradition" that would emerge later, structuralism was not a bad thing in and of itself; it began in the practical study of the elements of language, which is still useful in very similar forms to people of all ideologies to this day.
1912. ??
1913. ??
1914. ??
1915. ??
1916. ??
1917. Russian Revolution
1918. German revolution of 1918
1919. ??
1920. The State and Revolution (Lenin 1918/1920)
1921. Terrorism and Communism (Trotsky 1920)
1922. The trade unions, the present situation, and Trotsky's mistakes (Lenin 1920) -> this is one of my favorite history texts because it just, is so illustrative of all the incorrect things Trotsky did at many different times all wrapped up in one prototypical incident. every time I learn about some other Trotsky incident my mind comes back to this one. did you know about the incident where he couldn't properly slam a metal door? unrelated but very funny. he was always convinced he knew everything but always making dumb mistakes that showed he didn't even know what Lenin or the workers' movements were actually doing. it's two sided. it's funny Trotsky was so arrogant but sad that he was so bad at contributing to the things he thought he believed in. it makes you ask, is there some point at which having standards becomes being mean to people and saying they aren't good enough to be part of a workers' state, that they simply weren't born to be the kind of people you want? workers' states are supposed to be about uniting everybody and getting everyone to stop fighting, so what is our obsession with leaving people behind?
1923. ??
1924. ??
1925. ??
1926. ??
1927. Being and Time (Heidegger 1927)
1928. Terrorism and Communism chapter 8 [TC8]
1929. ??
1930. founding of Communist Party of Vietnam (1930)
1931. ??
1932. ??
1933. ministry rearrangements in the USSR -> makes timelines of ministries comically unreadable, but makes a lot of sense when viewed as graph theory
1934. forced population rearrangements in the USSR -> complicated. some of this was moving isolated farmers into collective farms & social structures; some overlapped with deportations
1935. deportations of nationalities in the USSR -> mainly I think of the Chechen & Ingush incident
1936. The Revolution Betrayed (Trotsky 1936)
1937. Moscow trials
1938. My visit described for my friends (Feuchtwanger 1937)
1939. testimony of Bukharin
1940. death of Trotsky (1940)
1941. World War II
1948. founding of North Korea
1949. founding of People's Republic of China
1950. founding of East Germany (1949)
1951. ??
1952. Lavender Scare / remove the lavender lads from the State Department (1952) -> one of the clearer examples which can be used to argue for hegemony politics; hegemony politics + homophobia = Lavender Scare
1953. death of Stalin -> this is orange in reference to the takeover by Khruschev and the very thin line between the Trotskyite conspiracy and generic anticommunist resistance (which I think is a better label for what happened between about 1953-1970).
1954. On the Juche Idea (Kim Jong-Il 1982)
1955. Juche concept / Juche idea [133] -> every time I find a text that made its way out of North Korea one of my top thoughts is "these need better translators" — I don't mean that in a derogatory way, I just feel like somebody with better knowledge of foreign languages should actually fix up these ontologies and really steelman what they're saying. no reason I can't start doing a bit of it here.
      what will the field code and swatch for Juche-socialism be? I'd assumed it could be coded with ML but now I'm thinking harder about the fact many people don't like it and don't really consider it part of mainstream Marxism-Leninism. I think the crimson swatch is okay due to its dedication to avoiding Deng Xiaoping Thought. so what code? NK? is it appropriate to jokingly turn Kim Il-Sung into an abbreviation? when MZ is a tag it wouldn't really be an insult as much as a relatively normal way to name things. maybe I'll look into how to abbreviate "Juche". Juche means... wow. the meaning is way more complicated than I thought it was. depending on what field a speaker of Korean, Chinese, or Japanese uses it in, it means either The Subject or an overall entity? something like that. and I'm not totally sure that in context it doesn't mean both things, like some kind of weird conceptual pun. this... needs a Term page before I get lost. I'm thinking JC considering it's a word from Chinese that neatly breaks in half.
      Term: 主體
1956. On the Cult of Personality and Its Consequences (Khruschev 1956) -> major "founding work" of the anti-Stalin movement after 1953.
1959. Common Lisp -> first serious Lisp compiler completed 1959.
1960. founding of Cuba (1959-1976)
1961. Bay of Pigs invasion (United States versus Cuba, 1961) [134]
1962. Joint World Congress to reunify the Fourth International (1962)
1964. The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (1900) -> the movie was released in 1939. I do not know if they should be the same Item. I'll say for now you can use the same Item for either with different sense-labels.
1965. Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (1865) / Alice in Wonderland
1966. Through the Looking-Glass (1871)
1969. Stonewall riots (1969)
1970. Settlers / Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat / Read Settlers (slogan) [135] -> Maoist text totally appropriated by anticommunists and stripped of all Marxist content thanks to the existence of Existentialism. until the advent of "read settlers" it wasn't widely apparent that there was a highly established philosophical tradition resistant to change which was opposing Communism. now we know that there is a specific ideology which believes that everything in the world is made of prejudice or non-prejudice as a fundamental building block, way below the existence of the proletariat, way below the fact humans have to eat and have to occupy space, the philosophical tradition where life is primarily composed of morality and culture before you're even a human being or populations even exist. do not trust anyone talking about "hidden biases" or trying to turn "colonialism" into something that's in our minds. do not assume they care about finding out how anything actually works instead of trying to make everything ever about prejudice including things you would never think of, only to find that real people have no empathy and no interest in choosing not to be prejudiced. you think I'm being cynical or hyperbolic, but I'm being highly literal. intersubjectivity is literally an ability many people don't have, and presupposing they have it is sinking all progressivism.
1971. ??
1972. Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism And Schizophrenia
1973. A Thousand Plateaus (Anti-Oedipus vol. 2)
1978. German reunification (1989)
1979. Losing Earth: A Recent History (Rich 2019) -> a recap of climate change investigations and debates. narrative-style and memoir-like, very readable
1980. The Excessive Subject: A new theory of social change (2010)
1981. The End of History and the Last Man (Fukuyama 1992)
1982. Childhood's End (Clarke 1953)
1983. Animal Farm (Orwell 1945)
1984. 1984 (Orwell 1949)
1985. Anthem
1986. The Giver quartet
1987. The Giver (Lowry 1993)
1988. Gathering Blue (Lowry 2000)
1989. Messenger (Lowry 2004)
1990. Son (Lowry 2012)
1991. dissolution of the Soviet Union -> as series of real concrete events
1992. Molecular Marxism / Marxist Molecular Democracy (MDem)
1993. GNU/Linux operating system
1994. mathematical simulation / programmatic simulation / simulation program -> this is an S0 because it is a data structure style thing, while only specific simulations would be Z
1995. virtual pet / virtual pet keychain / virtual pet game
1996. Tapers
1997. Petscop
1998. 3D workers' island
1999. ??

2000

2000. Item with primarily literal associations / Item with literal meaning -> Z items, and S items used as part of fictional facticities
2001. Framework believes model to be incoherent or wrong
2002. Probably no serious symbolism
2003. The Subject (exmat)
2004. social graph connection (non-unique)
2005. connection weight (society models)
2006. graph struggle -> the state of two or more Social Systems (SGS) competing to secure a finite physical or conceptual territory in order to have exclusive ground to realize their desired material arrangement of things or people (Material System or SPMS)
2007. material graph struggle / chunk competition (MDem) -> individuals or Social Systems (SGS) competing to secure a specifically physical territory
2008. mutually-exclusive filament-based construction / Filamentism (MDem) -> stochastic construction of a larger society through many small localized graph struggles
2009. violent material graph struggle / violent chunk competition (MDem) -> graph struggle at the expense of human life.
2010. expulsion from social graph / social rejection (mathematical) / cancellation (Toryism)
2011. class territory
2012. class territory owner
2013. class territory resident
2014. The Communist Necessity (Moufawad-Paul 2014/2020)
2015. feudal order
2016. duke
2017. marquess
2018. earl
2019. count
2020. baron
2021. manor lord
2022. Existential Physics
2023. duchy
2024. march (feudal territory)
2025. earldom
2026. county (feudal territory)
2027. petty nobility
2028. feudal manor
2029. principality / princedom
2030. kingdom
2031. emirate
2032. caliphate
2033. shogunate / bakufu
2034. empire
2035. global empire
2036. imperial colony
2037. site of proxy war / buffer state
2038. republic
2039. supranational federation
2040. business territory
2041. state business
2042. state business ministry
2043. party-nation
2044. workers' state / countable instance of Marxism
2045. countable Marxist movement / countable instance of Marxism
2046. Communist International
2047. plural Communist Internationals
2044. rival proletarian revolution
2045. class subpopulation
2046. nationality subpopulation
2047. demographic subpopulation
2048. ethnic subpopulation / Black community (Existentialism) / Latino community (Existentialism)
2049. religious subpopulation
2050. historical heritage subpopulation / cultural Christian subpopulation / secular-Jewish subpopulation
2051. LGBT+ subpopulation / LGBT+ community (Existentialism)
2052. disability subpopulation
2053. neurodivergent subpopulation / autistic subpopulation
2054. city or town subpopulation
2055. industry subpopulation / Artist subpopulation / musician subpopulation / grocery clerk subpopulation
2056. capitalist ally subpopulation
2057. proletarian ally subpopulation
2058. capable subpopulation / capable layer
2059. [S] class (spatial rank) / middle class / rich and poor -> spatial slot hierarchy; money is capital
2060. [S] class (repeated relationship) / Individuals are comparable because they belong to a class
2061. [S] class (subpopulation) / Classes become powerful through capable subpopulations
2062. [S] unskilled worker
2063. [S] skilled worker
2064. [S] Artisan type
2065. [S] Artisan layer
2066. [S] Careerist / social mobility (center-Liberalism)
2067. [S] Careerist layer / Careerist class
2068. [S] Refuse class / refusariat (outdated term)
2069. [S] labor aristocracy (Maoism)
2070. Liberal representatives / Liberal legislators
2071. Liberal government employees
2072. charity employees
2073. [S] Bureaucrats constitute a class / professional-managerial class / The Bureaucracy
2074. ruling population
2075. leaping State
2076. [S] shepherd ruling population / shepherd sheet
2077. [S] herd-of-cats effect
2078. [S] birdcage model / economy separable from republic
2079. [S] not a matter of black and white cats
2084. [S] worker / group of people said to qualify as "workers"
2085. proletariat / class of workers / working class / group of people who practically functions as capable subpopulation
2086. Proletariat includes unemployed
2087. Proletariat consists of unskilled workers
2088. Proletariat includes skilled and unskilled workers but not unemployed
2089. Proletariat excludes First-World workers
2090. Proletariat excludes Second-World workers -> Trotskyism
2091. Proletariat is singular and multiple countries can unite at once -> Trotskyism, some anarchisms
2092. Proletariats belong to localized subpopulations functioning as nations / Proletariats include Black-proletariat in prison / Proletariats may include center-Liberal proletariat and right-Liberal proletariat -> North-American Maoism, MDem
2093. Proletariats are plural and belong to specific national populations -> Juche-socialism, Maoism
2094. First-World workers will form capable subpopulation -> Trotskyism, Marcuseanism
2095. Second-World workers will form capable subpopulation / Second-World countries will become capable subpopulation -> Stalin's Marxism, MDem
2096. Third-World workers will form capable subpopulation
2097. Any educated people can form capable subpopulation / Proletariat is immaterial to forming capable subpopulation -> Marcuseanism
2098. Third-World countries will become capable subpopulation / First World defined strictly by neocolonialism / First World defined strictly by global structural racism
2099. multiple capitalisms in one country / multicapitalism (meta-Marxism) -> the concept that it is possible for a given country to consist of two or more totally separate populations of capitalists, which only appear to be one population because the borders are fuzzily defined and corporations leak from one side to the other. multicapitalism is suggested as the mechanism for how center-Liberals and Tories can become so divided to the death against each other when all the bourgeoisie should "theoretically" be on the same side. if multicapitalism is real, China would not have multicapitalism but the United States would. one of the few concrete things the CPC would have accomplished in terms of building Bolshevism or transition out of capitalism is not allowing multicapitalism to develop.
2100. countable area of capitalism -> capitalism as a countable object. in real life, it may be hard to pin down where the boundaries of these are, but that just means it's especially inappropriate to characterize capitalism as a "population". in some senses it can only really be an empire-border.
2101. Political economy only remains a science so long as nobody breaks out of capitalism / Bourgeois economists necessarily have a career of maintaining the rest of capitalism -> rock-solid statement by Marx from unfinished Capital vol IV, as well as probably other texts
2102. Different societies contain the same repeated patterns / societies contain repeated patterns in the manner of quantum fields
2103. Societies have developmental processes from one set of repeated patterns to another
2104. ??
2105. ??
2106. ??
2107. ??
2108. ??
2109. shovel (meta-Marxism) -> a metaphorical shovel is specifically a kind of object with a particular size and shape which if it were capable of taking a picture of the world and writing a description of it without deep deliberation over the meaning of what it saw would have its intuitive, unfiltered perceptions skewed a certain way by virtue of its shape, size, and composition. a literal shovel is smaller than a car or city block. a literal shovel cannot see anything materially speaking, but a camera can inasmuch as it can take a picture. a black-and-white camera takes a different kind of picture from a color camera. a shovel cannot see anything but a book can record a perception of the surrounding world, so in a sense, a physical book can see and retell what its author can see. a book cannot think or take a photo, and yet it can speak prerecorded messages which are capable of conveying perceptions that somebody once had. a book contains a shovel dream because its author once contained a shovel dream the day before it was written which was passed on to the book. from the point of view of science, the form the shovel dream inside the book takes is ontology: the creation of a graph of points connected by arrows where the definition of any of the points is largely defined by their relationship to other points. some people get lost in the fact that the book's shovel dream is recorded in "language", and unnecessarily start trying to assign all the qualities of ontology to language. this doesn't really make a lot of sense when large language models can reduce any language down to a mathematical graph devoid of words or phrases where, for instance, it might not be easy to tell English from Japanese at a glance. the fact that a whole language ultimately refers to the whole material world at once is part of what makes language language, as this form of reference allows for language to take on the quality of being a unique identifiable named language associated with a particular country or population in the way most languages actually are. ontology, on the other hand, can be totally disconnected from the material world. ontology can shape itself to become abstract art which does not actually refer to the real world even through metaphor, but which is simply a constructed world of its own that people can perceive through a writer's fabricated shovel dream.
      this is how I get my possibly controversial definition of "abstract art", where abstract art is not a genre and instead artistic abstraction is simply art which either cannot or should not be read as "coding" itself to something in the real world, and all art is either representational or abstract on a wide continuum between the two. say that abstraction is a slider from 0 to 100%, you could perhaps say Pokémon is 70% abstract art. realistically it's quite difficult to measure it that precisely and ever think you have an accurate number, but reviewers can still break down every part of a piece of fiction that they believe to either obviously refer to reality in the sense it could be conveying social lessons or science facts, or obviously refer to nothing. you know, I have another weird idea. maybe we could have rating questions for art that do nothing but rate how "real" the art is, so you can roughly estimate how abstract things are relative to each other. the questions would go something like: is this piece about real organisms? (Pokémon is not, Warriors is.) does this piece portray the organism's ecology realistically? (you can argue White Fang does, but Warriors only partly does and Zootopia blatantly does not.) do real-world cultural groupings exist in the narrative? (if dogs can be Muslim, the answer is yes. if bison are building tepees the answer is yes. if pigs invent the USSR the answer is yes. if rocks are matched up to Black pop stars the answer is yes.) and so on.
2110. shovel dream / object or formation ideology / ideology or consciousness associated with a specific repeatable kind of population which is countable and separable and has a particular kind of internal structure / ideology or consciousness associated with a particular kind of materially-definable Social-Philosophical System -> Hyper-Materialist concept. the motif of a particular kind of object having a particular kind of model of the world and ideology because it is a particular kind of object. almost always the object is a countable, separable population of people, but it's funny to figuratively refer to other kinds of objects to get across a concept that somehow absolutely nobody seems to understand. Hyper-Materialism is when all similar shovels have a similar shovel dream, and all similar rakes have a similar rake dream. a collections of rakes may have its own unique collection-of-rakes dream, but in principle it can be calculated by modeling the interaction of the individual rake dreams. individual people, not being shovels or rakes, can change their shovel dream at will, but changing the shovel dream of one individual may not have much effect on a large group. Marcuse thinks it's as simple as changing all the individuals one by one but that doesn't necessarily go fast enough. you have to understand the existing layout of various kinds of material objects producing shovel dreams and think about what changes in the layout of shovels could produce the right ones faster. the terrible thing is there are no shortcuts here. you can't just go "here are the bourgeoisie, here are the proletariat, they only need to become aware of the possibly wrong model in this text". with the United States objectively not having the class structure described in Leninist texts, organizers really do need to understand the basic concept of shovel dreams and how to identify them and categorize them in the field.
2111. Material causes of capitalism are reflected in ideological patterns of Existentialism / Capitalism can be characterized by diagramming Existentialism and working backwards to the material causes of the ideology
2112. ??
2113. socialism in one country
2114. socialist transition
2115. era of socialism / lower-phase communism -> workers' state
2116. era of communism / upper-phase communism
2117. further transitions (Marx)
2118. creatorism (MDem)
2119. Particle Theory / Bauplan -> ideological nested-graph model
2120. Social-Graph System (SGS)
2121. Social-Behavioral System (SBS)
2122. Social-Philosophical System (SPS) / Particle Theory (MDem) / Bauplan (MDem)
2123. Social-Philosophical-Material System (SPMS) / Particle Theory (MDem) / Bauplan (MDem)
2124. realization / construction of society form
2125. "the hand bone is connected to the arm bone" / "Dem Bones"
2126. receiving node
2127. granting node
2128. Economic processes comprehensible through graph models / Economic processes will one day be comprehended through graph theory / Historical processes comprehensible through graph models
2129. economic graph model
2130. non-Materialist Marxism -> for the longest time I was reluctant to come out and say this phrase. but I think I finally have enough education on Idealism to say Gramscianism and Althusserianism as most people practice them (who are often center-Liberal appropriators, to be fair) are non-Materialist Marxisms. however ironic it may or may not be, Trotskyism is at least Materialist. Trotskyists do correct materialism starting from wrong history. Gramscians begin with at least partial selections of correct history (history about prejudices) and then descend into non-Materialism. ...unless of course they're literally Gramsci, who actually did understand Leninism but just got stuck with too few advanced workers to pull it off easily. it's funny how every "bad" Marxism usually starts with a good theorist and then everyone else who follows that same path does it badly and turns it into what appears to be not even a Marxism.
2131. Western-Marxism about hegemony politics / Gramscianism (motif; meta-Marxism) -> a very basic definition of what Gramscianism is.
2132. Western-Marxism solely about ideas / Western-Marxism that does nothing but talk about "the cage of ideology" / Fisherism (motif; meta-Marxism) -> I needed a term as a foil for "Gramscianism". Gramscianism is the Western-Marxism with at least a tiny bit of potential. Fisherism is the totally inert stuff. named in reference to the book Capitalist Realism by Mark Fisher
2133. ??
2134. ??
2135. ??
2136. ??
2137. ??
2138. ??
2139. ??
2140. ink-brush Marxism -> the motif of a Marxism which tries to characterize "intellectuals", experts, or Director types that aren't owners as their own entire class, to the point something like the Workers' Party of Korea logo with three objects in it is appropriate. as you can see by a lot of things I say on my prototype I partially believe in ink-brush Marxism but not entirely. I think that it's useful to make fine-grained class distinctions, especially in undeveloped countries where there will be either more real peasants or educated-unemployed peasants, but those distinctions don't give people a free ticket to support the non-proletarians and give them all a pass to do whatever they want. the power of ink-brush Marxism is to hand Trotsky responsibilities and make him obligated to support either the Soviet Union or East Germany at his choice rather than letting him go around claiming both of them "aren't Trotskyist enough" and they need to do what he says.
2141. newspaper Marxism / Marxism is when a single Leninist theorist goes off about Marxism not happening fast enough
2142. Marxism is when people own a co-op -> one of those statements that's obviously dumb on its face but takes a long time and a lot of knowledge to properly unpack to know how to teach people that it's wrong. by now, I think one of the major errors here is in not defining Marxism first of all as historical materialism and subsequently accepting that people who don't even hold to general-sense historical materialism are not Marxists.
      beyond that... whew. where it really seems to start is reverse-engineering the Soviet Union and China and realizing they had co-ops once the people were freed. you could attribute this plan to an attempt at a charcoal transition. but understanding the actual logic of how that is "Marxism" is what's truly complicated. it isn't dialectical materialism. it isn't specific-sense historical materialism. you can make a weak, rather watery argument that it's general-sense historical materialism, but you'd be really reaching there, because general-sense historical materialism can argue for Kamehameha to unify the local states of Hawaii into a kingdom; while that arrangement could be better than before you are totally not to Marxism yet. I became convinced for a little while that Wolff was trying to reverse engineer Deng Xiaoping Thought and figure out how the United States could transition directly to that. but I am not sure of that explanation any more, nor do I remember why I found it convincing. I mean, if we go from the hypothesis that Deng Xiaoping Thought is trying to get to Marxism starting at the most concrete levels of survival before trying to build the Leninist or Bolshevik process, you could get from there to co-op. but it still leaves open the question, hey, what about the workers?? why do all Wolff's talks not frame everything as co-op being a way for theorists to survive so they can aid the majority of workers, and why do they oddly frame themselves like being a worker is bad while co-op is the future? you'd think his talks are an Existentialism or something.
2143. ??
2144. Trotskyism: Counter-revolution in Disguise (Olgin 1935) -> Soviet record of the history of Trotskyism up to the first attack. relatively comprehensive, although I would expect no less. it was amusing to me when they got the trade unions incident in there, which had been one of my favorite historical anecdotes — and even better when there were apparently several more factual details to how badly Trotsky screwed it up. good history text. the only problem is I have questions about how complete its class analysis is. of all the statements made, I wouldn't dispute any of them but I do feel like there are some crucial statements missing that might just explain everything. Trotskyism was born out of a churning creek of petty bourgeoisie that could never pick a side? true. Trotsky was never integrated into the Russian revolution? true. I mean, he himself complains about that, so there's no denying it. the behavior of creeks of petty bourgeoisie can be ignored and brushed off as a factor in the motions of history? false. creeks of petty bourgeoisie are not periodically generating entire new competing Marxisms and separating whole racial movements from nation-states to then call all Marxists racist? false. the CPSU tended to totally dismiss these layers of society as people who exist, which actually did make sense in a country like theirs where it was a small portion of the population, but it's a rather terrible thing to present this point of view to other countries where conditions are very different. even if this layer is "unimportant" you still have to understand its behavior, and effectively, give it something to do before it gets into trouble. though Trotskyists literally don't believe it (and we can guess why.) the United States is filled to the brim with "petty bourgeoisie" and the problem only gets worse every time capitalism has a crisis. it's like rather than consolidating the bourgeoisie, crises in capitalism actually result in big corporations exploding, destroying the proletariat, and wildly creating petty bourgeoisie.
2145. Trotskyism is the shovel dream of small owners / Trotskyism is the shovel dream of the petty bourgeosie (small owners; Artisan types; mainstream Marxism-Leninism) -> I think this is only half the explanation but I can't disagree. I think you have to model it as the shovel dream of a separate unique cluster of "petty bourgeoisie", a subpopulation as a countable object, to where there can be plural groups which fail to unify because they're fundamentally separate objects. but at that point you've basically got it. yes, the "proliferation of Marxisms" and "plurality" I keep talking about are some very petty-bourgeois problems. but I can't just walk away from these problems because the oceans of petty bourgeosie that create them all really actually exist and have to be studied. they're the numerous, insular, backward peasants of the modern world.
2146. ??
2150. The Spanishness Office -> within this wiki, first brought up in MDem "democulture" entry.
2151. There is no Spanishness Office -> the concept that culture cannot be changed through any deliberate effort, even by most movements. one could believe there is no Spanishness Office because culture is defined by the borders between populations, or because culture is produced through deterministic factors that individual will can't successfully pilot without a thorough science of society, or for any other number of reasons.
2152. There are ten million Spanishness Offices -> the claim that every time the motif of The Spanishness Office shows up, this is what it is bisimilar to: a bunch of free-floating corporations or institutions which may be conflated with the will of a particular owner, or a Tory Social-Philosophical System that has occupied a free-floating charity, each time raising the problem that the institution has its own "individual will" separate from society which is resistant to Liberal-republican "democracy" and resistant to almost everything. the problem isn't in asserting that there are Spanishness Offices, though there is a serious problem when people think controlling them is as simple as taking over just one when there are closer to ten million they might not successfully secure with perhaps some five million left over and wildly doing their own thing.
2153. Western Marxism is one big distraction -> it can be true there are Spanishness Offices and false that Western Marxists remotely understand them.
2154. ??
2155. ??
2159. ??
2160. ??
2161. Every civilization makes philosophy about itself / Every Social-Philosophical System mostly produces philosophy describing the SPS (pronounced SPS) as it is, and not as it isn't Ontology:Q2101
2162. Capitalism makes philosophy about itself / Liberal capitalism produces philosophy describing Liberal capitalism as it is Ontology:Q2101
2163. A workers' state makes philosophy about itself / A proletarian civilization produces philosophy about itself / A proletarian subpopulation will produce philosophy describing the SPS (pronounced SPS) as it is Ontology:Q2101
2164. A worker subpopulation can explode capitalism / A proletarian subpopulation can burst through capitalism / A proletarian subpopulation can burst a capitalist SPS (pronounced SPS) Ontology:Q2101 / birth proposition
2165. A workers' state can create itself from theory / A proletarian subpopulation can be constructed around the same theory that it would later produce if that theory can be preemptively discovered Ontology:Q2101
2166. A problem shovel will burst a workers' state / A subpopulation generating the wrong theory will burst a workers' state / A subpopulation generating the wrong theory, perhaps because old classes have linked together, or perhaps because people have formed into the wrong structures, will burst a workers' state -> the corollary to classic statements by Marx that nobody really thought through enough prior to 1937.
2167. Not all problem shovels are top hats / Not every kind of subpopulation which generates wrong theory does so because it is a cluster of individual bourgeoisie -> you have to look at this one closely before it makes any sense and doesn't look like garbage. the key is that when classes cause trouble, you need more than classes to do it. Existentialism is more than capitalism, it's the substitution of a few huge corporations with a lot of workers all inside one country for a gigantic formation of millions and millions of petty bourgeoisie across the world all forming one object. Existentialism is a new and rather terrifying kind of object. similarly all kinds of different objects can disrupt the formation of mainstream Marxism-Leninism. detached islands of workers that only consist of workers could pose a problem, especially if there are 5 workers each surrounded by 50 petty bourgeoisie like some kind of minesweeper board. a confused Leninist theorist and a hundred peasants could form a problem structure, which poses unique problems to everyone because its behavior is not the same as 100 peasants alone. twenty petty bourgeoisie at a time could become convinced they're Leninist theorists although they're not actually forming an overall national movement. you could run into a weird situation where discourse is taking the form of blue, brown, and red petty bourgeoisie on individualized YouTube channels fighting each other over viewers. there are so many more new specific structures we know about now, positive ones and negative ones. it really does come to look like a weird form of chemistry where atoms are trying to form a polymer but some chunks of some sizes or shapes react better and some react worse.
2168. ??
2169. ??
2170. advanced worker -> I have been revisiting what this means, for somewhat silly reasons of wondering what is the most appropriate term in other languages and what puns can be made on the word. in the process you invariably dig through some of the most essential stuff for explaining Marxism, and some of the most-high quality sources. in some ways, this is a critically important concept. so it's time to code it.
2171. Lenin said workers never become class-conscious / Lenin said that workers in trade unions only get to trade union consciousness, therefore within the historical process of a Leninist movement and transition into the beginning of Bolshevism workers never extract themselves from rule by the bourgeoisie [136] -> ooh. this is a very subtle one. this is one of those articles where I should be mad but I'm only excited to take the great new fallacy I found, stow it in the framed moth board, and put a pin through it. so, Marxist movements begin with bourgeois class traitors. that's true. that isn't not true. but what happens next is the workers and the theorists join into a party-nation and the party-nation shoves out the bourgeoisie and subsequently the workers don't have to deal with the Liberal-republican, center-Liberal bourgeoisie or the Tory bourgeoisie any more, both of which are a big problem and in the latter case potentially outright violent and terrifying. I think part of the problem here is how crudely old Marxist texts before 1991 described things and how imprecise they were in their language relative to how many levels of complexity real historical processes have. when you look at the real-world historical events nothing is confusing. you see that "class" was a bit of an abstract and misleading word and what specifically happens is particular countable subpopulations filled with a given class have to form. a whole population mostly filled with a new class has to form in order to change a country's ideology. and funny enough the article almost gets that part right. it implies that breaking out of capitalism involves rounding up a lot of workers — so far so good. then... well, it ends, because it wasn't a long article. there's one useful thing here that might be worth focusing on. "Intellectuals receive benefits from the system to toe its ideological line". I'm going to assume because of the premise of the article that this refers to Leninist theorists.
      so let's assume that this is true. traditional capitalists are toeing the line and Lenin is toeing the line, and Stalin and Trotsky are toeing the line. Lenin takes capitalism and he replaces it with a new capitalism which is headed by Marxist theorists. logically there would be two of the new capitalism: Stalin's capitalism and Trotsky's capitalism; this is technically a theory of the Soviet Union containing multicapitalism. to conceptualize Stalin's Marxism and Trotskyism as both creating capitalisms you basically need something like a theory of state capitalism to be able to say that because all the state businesses are in the party-nation but something owns them (the party-nation) then it's capitalism. this brings up the classic question: why is a party-nation owning businesses even a bad thing? how is it different from shouting that Liberal-republicanism is no kind of progress from warring states periods because it's "just nation-state localstateism (pronounced localstateism)" and so it hasn't truly made anyone free? one of the only coherent arguments I think exists is the "world of Alert" argument where corporations are groups of people and making groups of people be part of a population that might potentially fight another one is morally wrong. which, we have to be perfectly clear, that argument only even begins to have any legs when you recognize Stalin's Marxism and Trotskyism and Maoism as separate parallel Marxisms. without that historical data it would be a stupid argument because there would be no good reason to side with the First World over the Second World. it's only when we get to China and the Soviet Union separating and failing to form an International because at different times they call each other revisionist (if I remember right?) that we start to see that there is kind of an argument to be made only if you somehow know what existential materialism is and you're arguing existential materialism and meta-Marxism. which I am pretty sure anarchists don't typically argue.
      starting from this article's premises you can argue Trotskyism, but argue anything else and you basically deny the Cold War and the latter half of the 1900s. why is arguing Trotskyism not denying the Cold War? well, because you said the movement was somehow made of a solid base of workers exactly like it totally wasn't the first time. if Trotskyism was made of workers constantly kicking out their theorists for bad Leninism and refusing to split apart versus joining into an increasingly huger population of people, yet also actually accepting at the end of the day that the workers need Marxist theorists and the concept of countable populations to actually defeat borders and become connected, then it actually wouldn't be all that bad. out of all the forms of Trotskyism there are like fifteen I hate and two I like but the problem is nobody advocates the actually good ones. I wonder if the problem is that I'm naming things that aren't Trotskyism Trotskyism. I have so many civilizational shapes to study the history of and properly distinguish and name.
2172. Advanced workers and backward opportunists [137]
2173. A Retrograde Trend in Russian Social-Democracy (Lenin 1899/1924) [138] -> topic: filtration. this is interesting because to a particularly naïve anarchist this text would almost seem to stand in contradiction to the very important "Lenin's filter" or "pulleys" text. in the pulleys text Lenin tries to explain that unions can't run everything because they aren't the whole movement. in this text he tries to explain that the addition of more things into the movement makes it greater. here he doesn't focus on the filtration step where the movement becomes principled and structured and doesn't go by getting as many progressive bourgeoisie as possible, and instead he focuses on the very simple concept that all the localized movements can combine into one nationwide movement, even if they aren't narrowly about nothing but unions and seem to be taking on new scopes. the localized movements have so much to gain from joining together that it makes less sense not to join them all into one vast Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party than to do it. there's no contradiction in this — the anarchist rejects filtration basically because they can't see the large-scale structure that forms across the two steps.
2174. complicated arrangement of pulleys / "an arrangement of cogwheels ... and transmission belts" / Lenin's filter (concept brought up in texts such as "Trotsky's mistakes") / filtration (meta-Marxist term; concept in many Marxist texts expressed through different ontologies or metaphors)
2175. ??
2176. ??
2177. ??
2178. ??
2179. ??
2180. ??
2190. ??
2199. Deng Xiaoping process / Deng process / multiple economies in one population / multiple socialisms in one population (party-nations allowed but no Bolshevism) / multi-socialism (motif) / multiple Deng Xiaoping Thoughts in one population or country -> it is so hard to come up with a proper, genuinely non-awkward word for this. this is the motif of subpopulations forming into coherent populations with tightly-connected economies that serve as an "endoskeletal" soft border in order to promote their prosperity and continued survival against other subpopulations, and of China ultimately being not an independent population but a subpopulation of the world population. the "missing step before Bolshevism" is this. multi... multisocialism? the thing is that would be misleading about what this actually achieves, which is mainly a populational border inside a populational border or extent. multieconomy? multisocioeconomy? that's reasonably close but it still sounds weird.
2200. retail shelves as global empire / retail empire (MDem) -> the motif of retailers always being a kind of star graph connecting to manufacturers that then connect to workers, often in Third World countries; each retailer is a microcosm of the relationship between the United States and other countries itself. "retail empire" is not in the tiny-civilization sense of "imperial republic of Walmart", more in the sense of the global scope of, for instance, the British empire.
2201. republic of Walmart / people's republic of Walmart -> the motif of large businesses behaving like small governments with departments
2202. imperial republic of Walmart -> the motif of emerging businesses behaving like small governments with departments specifically in order to wildly expand over everything like some kind of miniature Dutch empire finding the best part of Africa before anyone else can get it. the act of delivering a workable service at any cost and taking all the losses, until taking as great a territory as possible becomes a way to survive against the threat of other structures taking it. [139] imperial republics of Walmart are not typically broken up because of the way they operate as units against everything else and don't contain clear merger lines. I think the more of these you point out the clearer the nature of capitalism becomes. capitalism is the act of using people as tools to secure frontier empires against other empires, and it always was that way. capitalism is a social-darwinist fight between miniature countable Cultures to determine what kinds of culture are allowed to live and which ones are softly or formally prohibited.
2203. Socialism cannot endure if it remains poor (Deng Xiaoping, 1979) [140] [141] -> if you cross out the world socialism and replace it with "China" or "progressives" I'd wholeheartedly agree with this. my only real issue with it is whether practically speaking it is or isn't Leninism. it feels like one of those things that isn't not Marxism and yet isn't Leninism. the way I see it Leninism has to regenerate the Material System of Bolshevism in some form and not just get stuck in capitalism. that does, funny enough, make it questionable whether any Trotskyist has ever practiced Leninism. I give them the benefit of the doubt on being "bad Leninists" rather than non-Leninists only because they haven't turned their backs and said that Trotskyism will never be realized unless all Trotskyists undergo a Deng process and create a functioning economy before ever being able to overthrow global capitalism. you do sometimes see me say this kind of thing inside the scope of countries, but always as a loose guideline and never as a hard requirement that is positively and definitely the first step.
2204. Bolshevism always defended countable Cultures rather than a class / Deng Xiaoping Thought is not a deviation from Bolshevism because Bolshevism only defended the Soviet or Chinese proletariat specifically -> this claim doesn't support ideologies like Trotskyism or global anarchisms by itself. it just as easily supports the claim that Bolshevism is broadly correct but most of the time it can only be realized as Deng Xiaoping Thought, and only sometimes realizes into a proletarian civilization. it would also support the concept of multiple Deng Xiaoping Thoughts in one country.
2205. Early Maoism was actually Dengism / Early Maoism was Marxism-Dengism-Maoism / Early Maoism actually succeeded on the basis of being Deng Xiaoping Thought / Maoism is not actually Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, but Marxism-Dengism-Maoism -> this sounds insane at first until you consider the possibility of molecular Deng Xiaoping Thought, where partial pieces of a population join into a Filament surrounding nationalist or bourgeois controlled areas and their mere existence and survival strengthens a Communist party buying it time to build Bolshevism exactly when it benefits the survival of the population. Deng Xiaoping Theorists tend to think that Deng Xiaoping Thought developed out of Maoism. but what if it was really the reverse, that Deng Xiaoping Thought had existed from the very beginning of Maoism and Maoism was an ideology built on it that basically fell off the top of Deng Xiaoping Thought under external pressures on the country? from another angle this does kind of say out loud that Deng Xiaoping Thought is a bourgeois philosophy. it does very much say that. the caveat would be that proletarian philosophies have trouble in an age of the world where chunk competition rules and ethnicities will get annihilated if they forget to structure their populations to defend whole nationalities such as "the population of China" or "the Black population" or "the Democrat voter base" from external attack.
2206. Dengism (pronounced Dengism) is global Gramscianism / Deng Xiaoping Thought is global Gramscianism / Gramscianism is easiest to realize at a global scale rather than inside one country and when it is realized at a global scale it turns into Deng Xiaoping Thought -> I've asked myself and asked myself over and over what it is about Deng Xiaoping Thought that is so helpful and effective to China when on the surface it shouldn't make sense. I think this is one of the most interesting possible answers.
2207. The key to Leninism is assembling a culture (pronounced culture) / The key to Leninism is creating a countable culture / The key to creating Bolshevism is uniting people into the same countable Culture -> I have my doubts about whether this is or isn't true. what this is is a crude, dumbed-down explanation of the Lattice model for normal people. this is the claim that workers unite and possibly or ultimately realize a named Bolshevism when they consider themselves part of the same Culture, while when they consider each other part of different Cultures they fight each other and never form a single proletariat, unless they manage to segregate themselves into groups that do manage to function as the same Culture. if this claim is true, then the most remarkable thing about the Soviet Union was that it united each of 14 nationalities together locally rather than all the nationalities messily fighting each other over the same Russian Empire, and the success of China and North Korea to the extent they had it was partly due to people already wanting to form into the same national population or federation of five major ethnicities.
2208. Deng Xiaoping Thought has failed because if a country's whole purpose has become exports the First-World owners have still achieved their goal -> this one may be subjective, but it's the counter to claims that Deng Xiaoping Thought has fairly replaced Bolshevism — the claim that the point of Bolshevism was not just to prevent a country filling up with foreign investors but to prevent a country turning into an export hub.
2209. Multicapitalism is created when the bourgeoisie fully shove the proletariat out of their turf -> after three years thinking about this, all the phenomena actually observed in real life versus the clear existence of classes — the clear existence of a bourgeoisie of some kind containing traditional owners, Artisan types, and possibly Careerist types, and the clear existence of at least a handful of workers — I think this is the core reason for why the United States is so weird. bourgeoisie secure territory. they hate workers and they hate bigger owners so they try their best to link up into Filaments together and push both of those things out. capitalism transforms toward a sea of teeny businesses that are constantly dying or have to all sell their products inside one really giant business. there is a sea of unemployed people that gets angry for a little while causing noise in universities or making angry YouTube videos or having a homeless protest or a clash between poor towns and cops. this was the 1970s, and it's happening again today. your sea of unused people becomes very progressive although it is mostly defined and linked together by culture — because it has nowhere to work and no money to pay for all the empty houses, there's nothing to strike over and nothing to take back, and you can't practically try to define "the real United States" as all the factory workers brought together in the workplaces who might contemplate Bolshevism but now increasingly don't exist. then after a little while the sea of unused people turns into a second bourgeoisie, a second plural and countable bourgeoisie, and the two bourgeoisies fiercely hate each other for what one did to the other and slowly divide into two separate nationalities. and of course that really only makes things worse because each of those bourgeoisies is incentivized to push everyone who would threaten to create a proletariat off its territory in the name of Freedom — very Afrikaner-style, very "baseline standard of fascism inside Liberalism", very colonial in the particular sense of linking up into a chain of White people that wilfully expands over stuff before anyone else gets it.
      the thing that confuses everyone about this historical period or historical form of a population is that one of these subpopulations chock full of bourgeoisie can genuinely be much more progressive than the other. this, to be honest, happens mostly in hypothetical scenarios versus real ones. the Democratic Party or Australian Labor Party doesn't have much revolutionary potential despite being linked to a couple very progressive causes. the time that multicapitalism would be carrying progressive values would be a much weirder situation like one of the component capitalisms being entirely full of Trotskyists or entirely full of Gramscians who are all Communists. this is theoretically possible given that a lot of variant Marxisms amount to bourgeois philosophies designed by a handful of bourgeoisie for the bourgeoisie. you'd practically never expect it to happen in real life at least in the absence of some very specific conditions that haven't really been seen before. but, you know. it might be at least marginally more likely if every one of the "nice" bourgeoisie could learn meta-Marxism and they could all horizontally join together into what's essentially a planned economy using graph economics, and start restoring the proletariat. that's kind of a moonshot. I don't necessarily like that plan. I feel like a scenario of workers joining together to restore the proletariat by stemming constant migration and uncertainty and taking back physical towns is more solid if it were possible. I do think we're looking at some variety of country-internal Deng process here where people actually have to all sort themselves into the correct graph arrangement with their feet just to be stronger as a subpopulation that produces and provides its own needs and can survive everything the "bad bourgeoisie" does, just to get to the point where revolution is conceivable.
2210. China is secretly a charcoal Marxism / China is secretly a charcoal workers' state -> there are certain moments where "charcoal" and "strawberry" become hard to tell apart from each other if you assume all the anarchist stupidities are taken out to where they at least make coherent sense.
2211. ??
2212. ??
2213. ??
2214. ??
2215. ??
2216. Nation-states are neither natural nor intentionally constructed -> the claim that, excluding all Marxist states, the process of people forming into nation-states is both artificial and largely not at all designed. many people make the mistake of turning undesigned-ness into a simple binary where if something is not designed it must be fully natural in the sense of either ecological or human, and if something is not fully ecological it must be as deliberately designed as a computer chip; you see this fallacy in both anarchism and Western Marxism. this is not the case. something can be totally undesigned and also harmful, just as something like indigenous agriculture could be designed and be ecological. some things which are ecological are undesigned, yet The Subject itself is arguably designed by its actions toward its own needs while being a biological animal
2217. Strikes are acts of courage / Some strike incidents have been absolutely metal / Strikes are perilous -> true fact but don't let it scare you. instead think about how crazy it is that owners look at strikes and can't see them as acts of courage.
2220. wave machine -> a particular kind of mathematical process or Algebra which provides various ways to describe the interaction of two events. named after Wavebuilder, but is actually the principle behind Wavebuilder.
2221. Determinism can form out of non-deterministic elements -> we already know this is possible, at least in a mathematical sense concerning material things that really appear unpredictable versus material things that really appear predictable. the most widely-accepted example right now is quantum mechanics. nobody really knows much about the individual particles, yet as things scale up all the particles form into predictable patterns. this is the key to building models of society and historical materialism.
2222. study of interacting objects instead of one at a time / study of two or more interacting objects instead of one object at a time -> I know the word "system" can be used for this, as in "complex adaptive system", etc. but the word system has been so totally exhausted into meaninglessness in social movements I feel like we really need to break things down more to where they are hard to misunderstand. also, this might be a Z Item because it seems like a realistic description of a kind of scientific field. it seems like it might already exist, even if it exists to a more limited extent than it really should.
2223. Nature is a multiplication table / All physics equations are actually multivariable functions -> here we go. one of the most genuinely solid propositions I've come to in MDem, that unlike everything else I have very little doubt about, and high confidence in. we teach mathematics and Newtonian mechanics entirely wrong. we should be teaching every physics function from wavefunction collapse to chemical reactions to throwing a rock as multivariable functions of objects colliding in the sense of two number lines colliding in a multiplication table style function to produce a three dimensional graph. this is the beginning to how we fix all of physics. this might lead to unifying quantum mechanics, Newtonian mechanics, and gravity. this is it. it sounds absurdly simple, and ridiculous that this could be the answer, but I think this is it.
2224. Punnett squares can apply to anything -> the claim that Punnett squares are just one situational application of a data structure or kind of computation that can be used to model any event with multiple known outcomes
2225. What if you were the variable x? / What if you could put yourself into a lambda calculus function? -> reading the Wikipedia page on lambda calculus, where I shouldn't have been able to find anything new and interesting, I had the weirdest thought. lambda calculus functions just iterate on things. lambda calculus doesn't know what the variable x really is. an individual person could be anything; to Rothenberg this is all The Subject is. so what if people were in lambda calculus expressions? this sounds really silly and yet.... it could be one possible mathematics for existential materialism. you could theoretically use this kind of thinking to describe Bauplans?? could a union be a lambda calculus function. could a movement of a particular shape be a function where people of different ideologies go into it and behave differently. lambda calculus is awkward, and yet... if you had a mathematics with a unified way to define data types and functions relative to each other, and could put any type of object (Algebra) into the right kind of function, you could just throw a person in there. the key to throwing a person into a function is just defining the right kind of data structure to represent the person and then making use of variables that can hold data structures, as well as multivariable functions that can actually work with many free-floating objects.
2226. MDem versus RDem (MDem 5.1; here MDem literally abbreviates "molecular democracy" and does not abbreviate "molecular Marxism") -> the motif of how every single theory of "democracy" generally does one of two things with the notion of people each being a variable "x" — when two individuals "x" and "y" come into conflict, the theory either tries to make some group of individuals form together, or tries to defend the right of individuals that start conflict to be separate and quote-unquote "free". absolutely all variants of Liberal-republicanism are RDem. a lot of Existentialism is RDem, meaning that a lot of anarchism is RDem, and a lot of anarchism will naturally generate Existentialism and Liberal-republicanism. Deng Xiaoping Thought performs MDem only on a national scale, and not on the local scale where it's most needed.
2227. ??
2228. ??
2229. rocket science (Western Marxism) / rocket science (molecular Gramscianism; Western Marxism as seen through meta-Marxism) -> the task of getting everyone to realize that the only thing standing between the United States and an eventual proletarian revolution is that people are convinced that the socioeconomy runs on Free Will when it ultimately does not; the task of making a plan to practically persuade everyone to apply this.
2230. Determinism separates center-Liberals from Communists / Determinism separates Liberalism from Communism / The greatest difference between Liberal-republicanism and Bolshevism is free will versus determinism -> once you understand "determinism" as limited portions of the universe performing "chemical reactions" rather than as universe-wide predetermination, it all clicks into place.
2231. Action transforms the abstract into the tangible / Practice transforms the abstract into the tangible -> the claim that it isn't the desire to do something but the intuitive or educated knowledge of the world and ability to apply that knowledge that allows people to transform their surroundings. this only makes more and more sense when you have a disability: you need knowledge of the reality of your body to dodge it, not just more Free Will.
2232. Determinism can get populations through war -> what is Stalin telling everybody not to fear because Marxist methods will pull through mathematically if not this. Marxism claims, although sometimes fails, to be able to mathematically solve wars and avert them by getting everyone onto the science of the best solution.
2233. Strikes are an act of applied science / Strikes are an act of applied determinism -> pretty much what Marx says, just put a little more bluntly. he says basically that workers' movements as a whole are something you can apply determinism to in order to better know the actual requirements to get the outcomes you want. maybe I'm wrong and that's only in Lenin? not sure.
2234. Being wrong means relinquishing wrong models / Admitting you're wrong requires giving up wrong models -> could be used in the context of either Marxism or science.
2235. ??
2236. White-bread fantasy will teach people history / White-bread fantasy is useful for teaching historical materialism through the concept of generalized historical processes that can be labeled -> this doesn't stand in contradiction to the concept of teaching people that plural histories exist; both can be done. but people really underestimate the value of a work that narrowly focuses on just one real or hypothetical people-group to tell about historical processes and the development of any one people-group at a time.
2237. ??
2238. ??
2239. ??
2240. Faith actually represents free will / Within religion, faith actually refers to confidence in the unyielding Free Will of an individual / The Neverending Story shows that faith, hope, and Free Will are all actually the same thing [142] -> looking at the bible, looking at Lacanian and schizoanalyst and chaos-magic nonsense, I sputtered to get this out, not sure if anyone had noticed it. then one day Lacanians say it unironically in clear words rather than spaghetti. thanks Lacanianism. thanks much for nothing.
2241. Will transforms the abstract into the tangible / Will is what transforms the abstract into the tangible -> chaos magic is straight-up Existentialism with a little ritual thrown on. this is one blatant definition of Existentialism. it has also made me realize, unexpectedly, that the "law of attraction" is Existentialism.
2242. Free will can get populations through war -> what seems to be one of the biggest claims behind Old Testament bible stories... and a bunch of old-style fantasy books. that the sheer will to not back down and to kill people for the army of Good is what brings victory.
2243. Strikes are an act of applied free will -> this is what I was complaining about way back in MDem v3. I had no idea how deep into all of this I'd have to go to finally have words for it.
2244. Being wrong means relinquishing freedom / Being wrong means giving up freedom (en-x-pona) / Admitting you're wrong requires relinquishing freedom -> derived Existentialist proposition, though I don't totally know what it's derived from. the reason people don't like to admit they're wrong. every time people are busy being wrong, they're also busy exerting individual will and effort to do what they want to do and be where they want to be. people are always told, try hard, believe in yourself, and you will surely be allowed to do anything. in practice, this saying isn't remotely correct. it's all too easy for somebody to try hard, go into physics, mess with string theory, create a wrong model, and end up getting bullied out of science simply for not magically being perfect and guessing the correct thing in a world where the material topics of science are getting so utterly esoteric that nothing can properly be tested before it's published. or try hard, try to create art, and suddenly a bunch of Gramscians or anarchists or postcolonial theorists show up and are like, you're not fit to make art, you didn't magically know what every prejudice and microaggression is when speaking in terms of the physical communication of information you couldn't possibly have known. my issue here obviously isn't that there are standards, it's just the way anarchists and Gramscians elevate socially constructed standards to natural law and expect people to automatically know things that require education.
2245. State businesses only hand free will to Stalin / State businesses are bad because they only shift the locus of Free Will to the state-business-owning structure -> world of Alert + state businesses are incorrect = this. I feel like this is one of people's biggest objections against Bolshevism, and argument for why it's "beyond the end of history in the hyper-future". deep down they think the only problem with capitalism is that owners have hoarded all the Free Will, while if workers had some of the Free Will everything would be okay. in reality.... that is not how anything works. in the real world, putting all the businesses into one structure, or even doing the absolute bare minimum of forcing all people to be part of one government instead of multiple governments of multiple capitalisms, actually opens up new routes for giving individuals agency. the Soviet Union was constantly using "proper channels" to fire its managers. the people of China periodically launch complaints on or fire their bureaucrats; literally you can create Marxism without Bolshevism and it works better than Liberal-republicanism. there is a specific reason people like this concept even though it's wrong. they're looking at things from a "world of Alert" point of view where because individuals exist at such a small scale of reality they think people ever joining up into a bigger structure to protect them from capitalists is senseless. they just cannot imagine why a bunch of workers would join into a country to guard against First World capitalists and their capitalists when otherwise everybody would be suffering horribly off in another land First World people can't see or imagine. the fundamental concept of a proletarian civilization or dictatorship of the proletariat is alien to them. now why is this? well, number one: beneath Liberalism everybody believes in Existentialism or anarchism, where everything about a civilization starts at individual Free Will and the "social construction" of individual choices. number two: much of the United States is fundamentally structured as polyartisanal production. everything is built in this way where all individuals constantly have to make choices even if that doesn't truly give them any freedom and only gives them responsibility; capitalists are constantly making choices and experts and contractors are constantly making choices. this leaves people totally blind to the concept that giant capitalists could have more decision-making power than they have and big corporations could be puppeting the republic as its real subunits. the first thing that should be done about this is to stop telling anybody about "the bourgeoisie" as a cloud of individual people and instead change the entire rhetoric to "corporations as whole structures have decision-making power and you don't, while Jeff Bezos directly owns and immediately makes use of the decision-making power you don't have — this doesn't mean you can break up corporations, this means Bezos makes three moves on the chess board for every move you make, and he will do terrible things to you before you even get to fire him". this is the basic solution to the "Spanishness Office" problem: tell people where the major Spanishness Offices are, declare that they will never go away before tragedy comes, and that it's necessary to not just "break them up" and choppify them to pieces but solidly and consistently stand against them for what will feel like a very very long time in Existentialist years. any fallacy as stupid as this one leaves me so possessed to write everything in "upgoer five". not because I think people are actually stupid but because I am just so tired of it being hard to communicate easy concepts to people and I wish making things easier to understand was as simple as writing easier sentences. ever felt that way?? anyway. people standing together in support of a proletarian civilization should not be complicated. and it actually only gets less complicated once you've finally untangled Western Marxism and the "Whiteness" debate and what Spanishness Offices are. there's a super clear incentive for the most stuffy, academic member of the petty bourgeoisie to side with proletarian civilization. but people are blinded from that because they're so damn obsessed with Free Will and Free Will being one of the fundamental mechanisms of society. that's the big hurdle, that's the giant leap, that's it. we practically know what the task of our "upgoer five" is, it's just a matter of getting through the real rocket science and writing up the diagrams. preferably easy ones.
2246. White-bread fantasy only erases histories / White-bread fantasy can only misinform people -> I think it's important to note the difference between "history" versus "histories". plural histories certainly do exist, and they certainly can be erased. but this is used very, very misleadingly by anarchist-aligned types of people.
2247. ??
2248. ??
2249. ??
2250. intelligent design
2251. creationism -> intelligent design which is brave enough to admit it's Christian
2252. Atheism makes people into Communists -> well... kind of, but not directly. it usually doesn't.
2253. Darwinism makes people into Communists -> haven't heard this one but I feel like it's in the back of some people's minds.
2254. Creationists should be Communists -> this is incredibly silly and yet you could totally destroy Idealism by complying with it and successfully arguing this.
2255. ??
2256. ??
2257. ??
2258. ??
2259. ??
2260. society as intelligent design -> with the great prevalence of utopian art and solarpunk alongside anticommunism and these strictly general-sense-psychoanalysis / almost-secular-christian ways of looking like things, I feel this motif is currently very charcoal.
2261. If markets can't be designed, why can animals? -> to be taken as a genuine jumping-off point to different explanations, not as a rhetorical question.
2262. ??
2263. ??
2264. ??
2265. ??
2266. ??
2267. ??
2268. Marxism is the least bad system / Mainstream Marxism-Leninism is the least bad system -> there's a far better argument for this than Liberal-republicanism. mainstream Marxism-Leninism has its problems but it's better than Trotskyist theories, it's better than anarchist theories, it's better than Existentialism cracking open all the walnuts and treating you like until you are physically able to work to the point where all acts of social bonding with others are optional recreation you could literally decide to never do you aren't even human. and of course, it's better than Toryism, or religion.
2269. Democracy is the least bad system / Liberal-republicanism is the best system only compared with all the worse systems
2270. something better than science / if there was something better than science, I'd want to know -> appears in: Demon-Haunted World.
2271. There is something better than science / There is something better than the scientific method -> I think that when you actually get all the way through an overview of everything that is known in science, it's not really easy to invalidate most applied sciences such as evolutionary biology and epidemiology (two that religion typically targets). but if you were aiming at something different from literal ontological models of reality and instead aiming specifically at the scientific method, then there could very well be a decent argument that there is something "better than science". the specific reasoning would be that today's scientific method is bad at actually getting people to accept science. it fails to take into account the scientific, Materialist reasons that groups of people choose unscientific beliefs — drugs are expensive and my unscientific family cares about my life more, my town thinks I'm racist if I don't believe God will save Black people from White people, Stalin's government doesn't have a place to put me so I become useless to everybody if I accept mainstream Marxism-Leninism — and then lead people toward correct answers based on a scientific understanding of society itself and a will to actually structure the process of science based on the findings of science. all of these problems that drive people away from science are real, in that material observational studies could confirm them, and nobody actually needs to invoke "lived experience". the only question is how to present science to people and filter people in and out of science in a way that it will be as effective as sheer social links and the appeal of "poetry" and "culture". often it seems like literally nothing is as powerful as culture and the sheer instinct to sit around campfire mindlessly listening to culture whether it's true or not and whether that particular group actually aids survival or not.
2272. ??
2273. Voting is not a double-blind study / Voting is not comparable to peer review because participants are not blinded to which identifiable party they receive -> Carl Sagan brings up the interesting concept that peer review is blind — "the author doesn't know who the critics are". then in other parts of the book he compares science to "democracy". but when you think about it, voting and peer review is a really weird comparison. it's true that candidates don't know who's voting for them, but for voting to be an actual blind study the ballots would have to hide the names of the candidates and parties so that people have no choice but to vote for policies. that does sound like a better system to be honest. I can already spot a few pain points for it though. you have to describe all policies in language a high-school graduate would understand. you can't let candidates use coded language to describe bad policies; you have to catch dogwhistles and make them spell them out, to the best of your ability. you have to ban listing which policies would raise or lower taxes, or people would find the conservative party from that. things are going to get confusing when it's time to keep ballots from turning into competition between religions. you don't want candidates saying they're Protestant given that this will speak to people's prejudices, but you don't want them using coded language to signal to anti-Catholics as a way of saying the same thing. if the ballots leave off that a candidate is Black or a woman, but the policies say they support Black issues or women's issues, people are going to assume the candidate is Black or a woman "just to be safe" and then not vote for them specifically because of their presumed identity. maybe you would have to ban the policies mentioning specific demographics. but if you do that people are going to hide prejudice behind coded language by saying "school choice" to mean segregation and stuff. I really doubt that there's any way to fix ballots so that they don't inherently encourage scanning the ballot for the most evidently racist option and then voting for it. it seems like it's inherently hard to separate voting from sheer membership in an ethnic group or nationality, and Social-Philosophical Systems always get in the way of Liberal-republicanism ever making any sense.
2274. Democracy is better than science -> this is the fallacy that's hidden deep in Sagan's book — arguably in Trotsky's books too. Sagan is totally for the scientific method at a science journal, but when the Communist Party of the Soviet Union adopts the scientific method and it works almost exactly the way it does in science Sagan gets scared and turns around and says that democracy is better than science. this is totally contradictory with everything else he says. everything he says about science literally argues for mainstream Marxism-Leninism.
2275. ??
2276. ??
2277. ??
2278. ??
2279. Sabine Hossenfelder should be a Communist -> sounds laughable until you see her argument against string theory in universities, and then it's like, put this woman in charge of educating the US or Europe about Trotsky and how he didn't understand the process of coming to scientific consensuses and putting real experts on emerging historical-materialist science in the party, and nobody would get the history of Communism wrong ever again. I swear. everybody would suddenly have a light bulb go off that Liberal-republicanism is based on letting stupid people make objections to real sensible answers and would have this terrible dread-filled vision that oh god, we've been doing everything wrong and there would just be this mass flip over to various Marxisms
2280. Marxism contains both Good and Evil / Both Good and Evil exist inside a workers' state / If Good and Evil exist at all according to some particular definition of what they are, then Good and Evil exist relative to a workers' state population rather than relative to the world outside it / Claims about what is right or wrong within Bolshevism must be evaluated from inside Bolshevism / You are a Communist for the next two minutes (meta-Marxism swatch color) -> the claim that when a workers' state is created, all of the people inside it do not become evil, and instead the concepts of Right and Wrong will be defined relative to that country rather than what another country wants. this is a strangely difficult concept for the United States to understand.
2281. Marxist states are people-groups -> it's crazy that people need to be reminded of this, but they do.
2282. Communist laws are laws / Rule of law in a Marxist state is rule of law / When enumerating Communist atrocities, "enforcing Bolshevism" doesn't count -> I am so tired of the trope that Marxist states cannot have laws. the United States will go around labeling all kinds of things natural crimes and asserting it has the right to beat them up without any established government structure or laws permitting that. in such irony when supposedly absolutely everything inside the United States including its movements has to follow Congress and the constitution and some of us even get mad about case law and try to tear case law out. but as soon as Marxist states have laws that's bad, because they're not United States laws. I'm not sure there even is any such thing as the rule of law when capitalism exists, because the rule of law would be actually accepting that there can be a plurality of rules of law and they usually are not supposed to disturb each other.
2283. Stalin can speak about what is morally right in the Soviet Union -> this doesn't guarantee he will give the right answer, but it is to say that inasmuch as anyone is capable of choosing anything he is capable of choosing to discover the right answer within the information the country knows about itself. inasmuch as anyone can determine what is morally right in the Soviet Union, Stalin can.
2284. Trotsky can speak about what is morally right in the Soviet Union -> this is not an open question due to historical events. Trotsky could perhaps speak about what is morally right inside a hypothetical Trotskyist workers' state, but not about what is morally right in the Soviet Union, because to put it nicely, he blatantly violated that.
2285. Citizens of the Soviet Union can speak about what is morally right in the Soviet Union
2286. Liberalisms commit natural crimes on Bolshevism / If natural crimes exist, Liberalisms commit them on Bolshevism / If natural crimes exist, then Liberal republics can commit them on Bolshevism
2287. Anarchism is definitionally Evil -> follow me through the logic for just a moment. anarchism says that Communism can never be justified to become a party-nation and rule a country. Communism says back that the purpose of becoming a party-nation and ruling a country is in order for revolution to end, and for the new population of people to have a particular set of morals and laws. anarchism scoffs and says a single standard of morality and laws is unjust and terrible. Communism asks how anarchism can justify enforcing itself. anarchism says that to large swaths of the population it may never be justified, but simultaneously that every individual and small patch of the population is justified to itself for its own well-being. anarchism has just said that the great majority of the population will never call it Right but it thinks to itself it is Right. that is almost a textbook definition of what Wrong or Evil means. therefore, anarchism is Evil. anarchism is like the fun and interesting Disney villain that nobody has the guts to support or frame as having rights like everyone else but that everyone thinks is more interesting than the heroes. it's not a total coincidence that shows shoved so many queercoded villains into them when that was the actual societal position of gay and trans people at the time.
2288. Mussolini can define what is morally right in Italy / Mussolini can speak about what is morally right in Italy -> intuitively false, but a little difficult to explain.
2289. King Vegeta can define what is morally right for Saiyans / King Vegeta can speak about what is morally right in the Saiyan kingdom -> Q22,88 as it relates to fiction.
2290. Trotsky can speak about what is morally right inside a hypothetical Trotskyist workers' state -> very complicated. potentially runs into vaguely similar problems to Q22,88 and Q22,89 — obviously not in terms of bourgeois / Roman-style imperialism, but in its own way. at the same time... do we want to squash Trotskyism and tell them they can't break from capitalism and create their own nation just because they haven't been allies of mainstream Marxism-Leninism? that seems a lot like what Trotskyism has done to us. it would seem the ethical thing is to support Trotskyism determining itself so that Trotskyists don't convert back to right-Liberals, which is definitely something that happens.
2291. ??
2292. ??
2293. We're all made of matter and energy, therefore soul -> the claim that because energy is a substance, human individuals must have souls and humanity must be connected to God. this one is marked false becuase energy in particular does not prove a soul.
2294. We're all made of matter and energy, therefore Communism -> the claim that because energy in general is an interaction, an exchanged quantum, bodies and societies must all be made of predictable interactions. atoms exchanging electrons and photons in constant interactions doesn't do much to prove the soul, considering that quarks and photons are kind of the same for every person and they're way too small to be conscious, and they don't prove a god because again, a god would be incredibly complex and fundamental particles are too small and isolated to contribute very much to that, it's like arguing a diode can become a supercomputer just because there are millions and millions of them when they are all separate and not arranged into circuits. however, a whole lot of small things interacting can produce something if it's individuals constantly interacting to produce a society. you'd think societies sound improbable if you were going from the example of quarks and photons, you'd say "societies? how do those remain coherent objects and not just dissolve?", except that we've already observed them existing. so, a whole lot of small things interacting does mean we can be part of something, it's just called a society or a countable culture or a nation-state, and it's wholly material. and also, it's described by general- and specific-sense historical materialism. Communism is more believable than God.
2295. ??
2296. ??
2297. ??
2298. ??
2299. ??
2300. global empire processes / colonialism (process or motif) / endocolonialism (generic) / exocolonialism (generic) -> it will always be the bane of me that they called it colonialism and left the implication that a group of White people existing somewhere is itself bad versus the actual action of doing violence to another population. that makes it especially hard to discuss the purported model that it comes from "greed", because in the case of the United States people left England to avoid having to "greedily" fight and kill other religious sects so they could have at least a little time to "selflessly" exist only through their own work and tent of freedom poles. that's all people are going to see when you try to discuss "greed" and reparations.
2301. Something that exists is more perfect than something that doesn't -> true of mainstream Marxism-Leninism versus Trotskyism, not true of God.
2302. A unicorn existing is impressive / Something with no way of existing existing is more impressive than something that can easily exist / A unicorn existing is extraordinary, although that does not imply it is likely / A unicorn existing on earth is miraculous -> used in Douglas Gasking's joke argument against God. I love how this overall discussion that was supposed to prove God was so bad at proving God that it instead birthed a definition of miracles and fantasy creatures.
2303. Extraordinary events must have happened
2304. Extraordinary events are unlikely
2305. A Marxism that exists is more perfect / A Marxism that exists is more perfect than a Marxism that doesn't -> it's strange how many people get this wrong.
2306. ??
2307. ??
2308. ??
2309. ??
2310. Awful people also have human rights / Bad people have the same human rights -> I don't like it when people use this to prop up Existentialist arguments. but taken by itself I totally believe it. rehabilitate criminals. redirect Trotsky. don't be mean to reactionaries in ways that will not be productive.
2400. Palestine is not complicated -> what it says. there are weird philosophical problems that you can get into with the United States and analogies about Ireland or Trotskyism, but there is no real way to complicate Palestine. Palestine is a matter of not killing the Palestinians. and that's it. but you want to know what's terrible? Rothenberg literally had a chapter about complicating Palestine. this is why I say so many bad things about Existentialism. I may love to talk about hypothetical civilizations, but not in order to pretend that's how you solve Palestine.
2401. needlessly complicating Palestine -> see: Palestine is not complicated
2402. ??
2409. In a world where all Palestinians were racist, it still wouldn't make sense to kill them -> you hear a lot of stupid arguments that Israel = Jews (how can it, when people now live in so many countries?), but you don't often see people address this. empire is not about whether people are nice people. bad people also have human rights.
2410. A monarchy spanning two continents is global empire -> not easy to dispute. an empire which is global in scope is global empire.
2411. A monarchy extending over a sovereign nationality is global empire / A monarchy spanning two nationalities is global empire -> murkier but often true. the Russian Empire extending over Ukrainians ultimately revealed itself to be global empire when it happened again. Spain or France conquering Haiti is global empire because even before we get to all the suffering it's an intercontinental distance. tangent: can we acknowledge how stupid arguing over Columbus is? regardless of what Columbus did or didn't do himself he marked the beginning of global empire in Haiti. look at Ireland and it becomes more than obvious that a few people appear before a lot of people appear. arguments about Columbus exist because people hate historical materialism.
2418. ??
2419. A country killing populations that stand in its way is empire / A country trying to wholly exterminate other countries or tribes is colonialism -> hard to argue with. these days you could demonstrate it with a console RPG and no history books at all.
2420. The United States killing Native Americans in frontier wars was empire -> kind of obvious. "Manifest Destiny" describes the shape of an empire speaking in the old medieval sense, so it's kind of an admission of guilt. we get a very important truth from this: killing groups of people that stand in your way is empire.
2421. England occupying Ireland was global empire -> straightforward. the definition that filling Ireland with English people so they can all link together and realize the British Empire is global empire or "colonialism" materially. the British Empire is global empire, and the British Empire is the intended result of the process.
2423. ??
2424. ??
2425. ??
2430. ??
2431. Supporting Deng Xiaoping Thought is postcolonial -> makes a lot of sense when argued from inside China. if China doesn't maintain a Deng process then practically it gets swarmed by foreign investors, its government gets gutted, it doesn't get to have its own government or be its own nationality or associated group of ethnic groups, and it never gets to have democracy — it doesn't get any kind of democracy. on the other hand, the Deng process allows China to detach from global empire at least to some extent. if one country gutting another country's government and not letting it have a government or democracy is colonialism, then Deng Xiaoping Thought is postcolonial. I don't think there's a good argument against this if you're going to go around claiming that colonialism is simply a physical, material process of the world and of humanity which exists regardless of what ideology everyone has and doesn't need to be analyzed through Marxism. like, that's a meta-Marxist position on history that supports Materialism and supports the notion that countries are material and history is material. it doesn't support Idealism the way everyone wants to think it does. the notion that things can be neutral of all ideologies is kind of an inherently Materialist position, inherently promoting objectivity and the sciences while implicitly suggesting that the humanities could be irrelevant in any particular case and Liberal-republicanism could be utterly wrong about any particular thing.
2440. ??
2444. ??
2450. ??
2460. ??
2470. ??
2476. ??
2480. ??
2487. "modest" proposal -> a terrible idea framed as a great idea, either for comedy or to make some kind of point. used several times in MDem scraps to create B-Side chapters or scraps. original essay "A modest proposal" from 1729
2488. Returning land doesn't work / Returning farms to Black South Africans Will Never Work -> reactionary tries to claim that there is an equation for what race of people should own farms ... going for the angle that this will make the world worse because being Black is as destructive as being Stalin. (which, if true, would mean that Black South Africans are rebuilding their country and making it stable.) honestly goes to show that when people said Communism "will never work" it isn't unreasonable to think they did mean to imply that Russians or Chinese people controlling industry in their own region instead of people from other countries — I hate the word greed, but — greedily slurping up everything anyone has created will never work. ... (complete prototype notes after watching through claim again)
2489. Freedmen having democracy doesn't work -> there was a version of Q24,88 during US Reconstruction because of course there was. and it was even less true. in reality Southern Blacks were almost the ones rebuilding the thing but people still got upset
2490. The concept of "scarcity" is prejudiced / Scarcity is prejudiced (searchable) / Liberal-republican economics is legalized racism / Liberal-republican economics is the study of how to legally eliminate Black people from the United States / Liberal-republican economics is the study of how to legally wipe China off the face of the earth -> the claim that racism, anti-immigration, and other prejudices begin precisely at the concept that human populations can be studied and constructed through "the allocation of scarce resources", because it is ridiculously easy to vulgarize that into kicking some particular group of people off a plot of land and handing it to someone else being "more productive" or "more efficient".
2491. Everyone can change their racist uncle / If Free Will could end colonialism, everyone could change their racist uncle -> one of the single greatest ignored contradictions in United States discourse. if individuals have Free Will, then it's safe for everyone to directly debate reactionaries. if individuals don't have Free Will, and all of people's actions are retermined through either interactions between parts of their body or the relaterministic development of Social-Philosophical Systems, then it's fundamentally important to rearrange people at minute social levels to get them to think any differently. even a progressive party taking over a country at large scales will do nothing to change how people think if you don't rearrange the people themselves.
2492. People argue about Columbus because they hate historical materialism / Arguments about Columbus exist because people hate historical materialism -> really, really important. Marxists believe that people fail to see global empire because they don't understand the material patterns of history or societal development. Existentialists believe that people fail to see global empire because they are ""prejudiced"". they start invoking this weird little Artisanal ideal of a tiny ring of friends from different countries listening and learning, like that can fix global empire. then the more you look into it, the more you see it's actually just an appeal to Free Will and the notion that a rational actor will Freely Decide not to be Evil. but then you get to the problem of, how do you get somebody to accept any particular definition of Evil as real? you have no guarantee that any particular human being won't Freely Decide that being whatever you think is Evil is better. so Existentialists believe that Free Will leads to a bunch of people spontaneously Freely Deciding to change history, but in reality, what you get is a bunch of people arguing that Columbus arriving in Hispaniola means nothing for the future arrival of Spanish empire because individual human actions are arbitrary and can't be used to predict history. even after those events have happened, when it's hundreds of years later and we have the results, they say this. this is what Existentialism leads to. denial of global empire. identifying the causes of global empire requires rejecting Existentialism.
2493. ??
2494. ??
2495. ??
2496. ??
2497. ??
2498. Freeing Lithuania means The South should be free / If Lithuania has the right to be free-floating, so did the Confederacy / If Lithuania has the right to be free through sheer borders instead of being part of anything else, so did the Confederacy -> the claim that specifically under Existentialist theories of society, there is no good justification for keeping Confederates from national independence, and only for an anti-slavery treaty, maybe after The North drops a nuclear bomb. let's be perfectly clear: this shows that Existentialist theories are bad theories of history, not that there should actually be a Confederacy. it's more realistic to concede that buffer states have to side with some other country, and hope there's one with a really good philosophical position. if you take that view then you can argue the Confederacy doesn't get to be free because if the United States has a good philosophical position it's good to be part of the United States. in that scenario postcolonial theories of the United States as opposed to of United States territories are dead. really, postcolonial theories of the world are a little bit dead too. but that's not too bad a price to pay because those theories have never made sense. every group of people wanting to make any other group of people do anything is potentially a nationality-subjugating colonizing power and potentially a dictator-haver in somebody's eyes. so thinking you can organize a group of people to enact a postcolonial theory to force somebody to stop doing anything and to do anything else is contradictory. anarchism can be totally logically coherent if you allow that its purpose is to also create anarcho-fascism, while postcolonial theories of a First World country just can't.
2499. The US South is a nationality held in colonialism -> first of all: I make absolutely no assertion this claim is true, I only think it should be investigated for its accuracy or falsity. what is the definition of a colony? a colony is a population of people forcibly held under the government of an empire for the benefit of that empire. in the prototypical examples, people may be turned into slaves or slaughtered to take whatever "assets" their area "had". colonies in general can be very screwed up. but not all colonies are the same. in some cases, England can descend on Ireland and start granting the whole thing to new or existing Protestants, and it takes a while for it to affect the whole country. there's nothing okay about that; it does amount to a medieval cold war where they're trying to eliminate the Irish because the Irish stand in their way. but think about it a bit. after the US Civil War, a lot of the development of the United States has revolved around chunks of socially-linked people trying to control parts of the US so they can further realize their vision of the US over the whole US. most notably racist reactionaries trying to drive people out of areas to have more control, but in modern times, also White center-Liberals trying to occupy as many slots as possible and do the same thing to reactionaries. that realization process of doing hegemony politics to supposedly defeat racism is a lot like the colonial process of realizing the British Empire over Ireland. mathematically speaking. and if you think this sounds really stupid? maybe it is. but I think in general like 90% of the people studying "colonialism" are trying to define an incoherent thing and have no idea how to distinguish it from things that aren't it. empires are real. messed-up wars to snatch people's lands are real. but how do you even tell whether groups of people should be somewhere or shouldn't? there's no Liberal economics for whether an island should be inhabited by one group of people or another group of people; there's no equation that says this island does best when Irish people or English people have it, barring some futuristic Marxist equation about empire bringing inevitable suffering or about the notion of self-contained areas and degrowth. the hard reality is that primitive accumulation is always happening and never stops happening. the sheer biological growth of populations prompts them to senselessly expand into each other and over the areas they each believed they owned and nobody really knows how to properly make sense of that. when do you deserve to live anywhere regardless of who you are, and when are you deliberately refusing to understand the existing population or trying to destroy it? the Protestants leveling Ireland to then realize the British Empire seems like a fairly clear case of going too far. but where does it actually begin? when do people belong to populations and people-groups regardless of how much they think they're individuals? when are people actually individuals who should be considered minority demographics? could Trotskyists be unfair "colonizers" of the Soviet Union just because there's a good argument both that they are taking stuff away from its otherwise united population to build their own rival civilization and they utterly refuse to understand Soviet culture? how do you know what Culture is supposed to own a region? with that in mind, could it be that people's approach to handling United States reactionaries is genuinely incorrect if they never really wanted to be part of the United States at all and yet everyone is trying to bleed their population for social programs and order their people to behave particular ways and say they shouldn't have representatives in the government they were traumatically forced to be a part of? these days Liberal democracy feels more like a weird new form of colonialism people are attempting to use "for good rather than for evil".
2500. ??
2505. Graph struggle can be used to establish standards / Machiavellianism is the assertion that graph struggle can be used to establish standards -> Plantagenet kings; Ukraine war; Gramscianism. model combines or unifies models: social graph - medium or vessel for - code of behavior ; graph struggle - instance of - method for distinguishing Good from Evil ; graph struggle - has logical result - social change
2506. ??
2510. ??
2532. ??
2540. ??
2590. ??
2599. How to know a crow: The biography of a brainy bird -> non-fiction semi picture book. one of those things I entered in here mostly because I liked the pictures — much like with comics or TV shows. but this is also a simple example of a "nature documentary" and how to pick Signifiers or real-world concepts out of one.
2600. animal home territory (ecology) -> relevant to describing real-world crow behavior, Warriors series, chunk phenomenon.
2601. individual animal
2602. ??
2603. ??
2604. ??
2605. ??
2606. ??
2607. ??
2608. ??
2609. Animal populations are countable -> this is really easy to demonstrate with the distinction between ring species and separate populations capable of speciating.
2610. petty bourgeoisie -> the non-fictional motif of a particular definition of a non-proletarian class mainly seen in mainstream Marxism-Leninism but maybe in Trotskyist texts. (that was a weirdly repetitive sentence but I'm not fixing it.) I think Trotskyists might get the definition a bit wrong versus what mainstream Marxism-Leninism says, though I'm not positive about that. I do know Trotskyists have this weird implied belief that them existing cancels out the existence of any other petty bourgeoisie because they're the good ones so bad ones must not exist any more.
2611. Indie games are the petty bourgeoisie
2612. Andrew Hussie is a member of the petty bourgeoisie -> again somebody people have become neutral about due to his tone-deaf "very White" writing early on. the Berdly style of writing, we've all done it, there's only so much shame in it.
2613. Scott Cawthon is a member of the petty bourgeoisie -> nobody necessarily likes him as a person (and they don't know him, so that's not an insult either, technically) but they definitely talk a whole lot about how a game made by one person can "change the landscape of games".
2614. Trotsky was a member of the petty bourgeoisie -> claim given in Trotskyism: Counter-revolution in disguise (Q21,44). a concept that always stuck out at me from the first moment I heard of him and that as a result I have to pretty much agree with.
2615. If Cuba contains a private sector, it contains the bourgeoisie -> this should be a prosaic statement but it apparently needs to be said. why does Cuba contain a bourgeoisie? there is a big, sprawling discussion to be had about why exactly workers' states give up and start regenerating the bourgeoisie. is this a process that stops on a particular date in history, or is it more similar to a life history event that occurs in the life cycle of an individual which thus needs to be countered continuously at each moment society regenerates? with meta-Marxism I have been slowly leaning toward the latter, toward the hypothesis that even if defeating the bourgeoisie in a Communist revolution can help, it isn't a one-time process. this does, fortunately or unfortunately, open up vague possibilities of there being methods to block the regeneration of the bourgeoisie in a charcoal-tinted transition process. it had better be pretty good though, given that anarchism itself has a tendency to regenerate the bourgeoisie.
2616. A private sector is not the bourgeoisie [143] -> wow! that cannot be true. out of all the things in Deng Xiaoping Thought, a great number of them are up in the air, but this is the first one I've seen that seems false on its face. like, you can claim the bourgeoisie is not bad or is not dangerous, and that maybe gains legs in a Trotsky situation, but you can't just say the bourgeoisie is not the bourgeoisie, because that's a logical contradiction against models that have previously worked.
2617. Toby Fox is a member of the petty bourgeoisie / Toby Fox was a member of the petty bourgeoisie in 2016 -> let's just drop some uncomfortable truths that should be perfectly obvious to any Marxist but are not obvious to any normal progressive who talks about "trans rights", "abortion", "the Republic of Gilead", and "fascism". (none of these are bad topics by themselves, but the thing is that you can probably already hear in your head the exact framing and the tone they're said in. that's the problem.) the great thing about this ontology project is we can drop as many of these ridiculously-specific claims as needed.
2618. ??
2619. Everyone in Deltarune is the petty bourgeoisie -> Asgore sticks out the most when the word "shop" is put next to him immediately but like, everything is a tiny business or teeny government institution. it's kind of just logically true the second you start thinking about it.
2620. United States people are born the proletariat -> I think there is significant evidence to consider this not true or very misleading. A) Stalin's interview described the United States as full of "skilled workers" that were "not relevant". B) currently the entire concept of progressivism is defined and controlled by the petty bourgeoisie; every "progressive" gets absolutely fierce and hostile at you if you so much as define progressivism starting with Materialism instead of Idealism. C) there is a copious discourse in right-Liberalism and environmentalism about "small businesses" and how there are supposedly enough small businesses to combat climate change by getting rid of big businesses. if true that is an absolute cascade of small businesses, a small business tsunami. D) every piece about "gen z" acknowledges that people are primarily doing gig work instead of actually getting employed. E) YouTube channels have exploded and along with them has exploded a terrible tendency for everyone to conflate tiny businesses with "labor", partly thanks to an unholy alliance between YouTube channels and "artists" that all have no idea what employment is.
2621. United States people are born the petty bourgeoisie / United States people are born the petty bourgeoisie, not the proletariat -> this claim refers especially to people born in suburbs. it may not apply to the entire United States at once. if it applies to significant regions of the United States as considered separately from other regions, then it should be considered true, although more propositions can be created to narrow it down and make it more precise.
2625. ??
2630. ??
2635. ??
2640. ??
2645. ??
2650. ??
2655. ??
2660. ??
2665. ??
2666. Why isn't your theory forbidden? / If your theory can overturn all hierarchies, why hasn't it been forbidden as a threat to the existing order? -> a question Existentialists never seem to seriously ask themselves. really felt this trying to read Foucault. there are a few anarchists that pass this bar only technically and dubiously by being willing to Zinovievize society for nothing in return. not the way I would prefer that a theory fix itself, but, back to Existentialism. why does it act like it's the most radical thing ever when it never stops to ask what it is or isn't disrupting
2670. ??
2675. ??
2679. If mathematics is purely arbitrary, Krillin can punch Chiaotzu for any answer
2680. Mathematics is an arbitrary painting from deterministic brushstrokes / Mathematics is an arbitrary house of deterministic cards -> equations work only one way but our choice of equations to use as models is arbitrary.
2681. Does two flames plus two ice cubes equal four ice cubes? -> jamming question to trip up philosophers who say that "two plus two must necessarily equal four" rather than realizing that mathematics is true according to definitions of regular rules. mathematics is one big field of multivariable equations, such as "z = x + y", which always work the way they have been defined to work, but cease to work that way as soon as we use a different definition, which is rather frequent. if we assume one flame melts exactly one ice cube, the flames and ice cubes problem can be phrased with negative numbers, and we have changed the definition of adding objects into subtracting objects just by saying that the same integer that can contain 2 can contain -2.
2682. ??
2683. Amazon bleeding authors is stealing / Letting Amazon bleed authors is stealing -> by itself, this isn't not true — I mean, the small shops are hard at work and the big mall owner is bleeding them into the ground with little benefit to them. reads like r/accidentallycommunist
2684. ??
2685. ??
2686. ??
2687. ??
2688. Amazon bleeding authors is readers stealing / Letting Amazon bleed authors is stealing (implying that the readers did it) / When readers let Amazon take huge cuts of books that readers refund, the readers are stealing rather than Amazon / "Reading and returning a book is stealing" [144] -> there are days when I really wish I could delete "stealing" from the English language. I swear that whenever businesses use the word stealing it absolutely ceases to mean anything at all. I think part of what bothers me so much about the word stealing is.... in daily life, the word "stealing" is racist, and is used to justify shooting criminals to death, basically slamming them out of the United States and this mortal coil supposedly blessed by God straight into Hell. United States people have firmly established that people who "steal" aren't human beings and they all "deserve" to be burned in one big fire. so. uh. I wish people would stop using that word so casually to accidentally imply that every single person who can't afford a book is the spawn of Satan and basically deserves to be put in a gas chamber to protect the White race. that is almost the official, accepted connotation of the word "stealing" now. I'm sick of that, but I don't have the power to change what stealing means, so all I can do is tell people to drop the concept of stealing and not be in favor of that being a concept.
2770. Taxes are the same as buying a product / Taxes are basically the same as buying a product -> very common, but seems dangerous. if taxes are just buying a product, and we recall that buying a product is the act of dishing out a fraction of a social slot, then taxes are basically the same as handing out social slots. the withdrawal of taxes is the withdrawal of social slots. partisan arguments over taxes are arguments about the creation of social slots. most importantly, replacing taxes with private funding changes almost nothing; the only thing that changes is exactly one sponsor with one specific partisan viewpoint and set of requirements is connected to the "product" at a time.
2771. dark forest -> I mainly know this motif from the context of science fiction. I don't know if it's been widely used before that.
2772. Smart aliens don't send signals / dark forest hypothesis (SETI (pronounced SETI))
2773. Trans visibility is a dark forest / Transgender visibility makes surveillance and identity policing easier (Beauchamp 2019) [145] -> yeah, that's about accurate. sad as it is.
2774. Anti-racism is a dark forest -> one of the major motivations that has made Gramscianism so popular.
2775. ??
2776. Goku cannot decide what Vegeta does / Goku cannot Freely Will what Vegeta does
2777. ??
2778. Vegeta will inevitably do what Goku wants / Shenlong effect / Goku effect
2779. cat in superposition inside box / Schrödinger's cat
2780. quantum moons / objects have no color / Reality isn't real / funny metaphors for causality gaps / funny metaphors for stark-divisions jumped by fundamental particle interactions
2781. quantum dice / quantum coins / funny metaphors for wave functions
2782. quantum shoes / funny metaphors for entanglement
2783. box filled with overlapping lions / quantum Social-Philosophical Systems
2784. Starlight Glimmer paradox / Trunks paradox
2785. quantum lions (ally) / quantum Goku -> mathematical model in which potential allies that could extend a node into a graph appear in a probabilistic wave function of whether they will actually turn out to be allies; finding out someone is an ally requires quantum measurement
2786. quantum leopards / quantum Vegeta / quantum William Afton -> mathematical model in which hazardous enemies of a given graph node attempting to form into a graph appear in a certain probabilistic wave function of whether somebody will turn out to be a hazard or insistently unaligned versus an ally; finding out someone is a hazard requires quantum measurement, and this can sometimes be devastating because it gives said non-ally information and power that could aid the non-ally's graph in expanding and oppressing outsiders of that graph
2787. quantum Freddy -> similar to quantum William Afton, but with an absurd extra layer of precision; modeling hazards as unpredictably showing up at some particular point in 2D space according to the collapse of a probabilistic wave function
2788. Communist Bardock
2789. quantum Yamcha -> I don't have a good definition for this one but I thought it was funny. my working definition is, a node that when you collapse the wavefunction turns out to be useless for building graphs but is not hazardous
2791. ??
2792. Lattice model
2799. ??
2800. Subject-internal perception / Lived Experience (exmat)
2801. Subject-internal interpretation
2802. Subject-external interpretation
2803. map and territory fallacy
2800. Every citation should contain price information / Every citation should contain cost information -> I really do mean every citation in the world, not just every bop-format citation. field: graph economics.
2801. plagiarism
2802. What is plagiarism? / Who owns the ability to repeat factual information? / Who owns the ability to repeat literary motifs? / Who owns the ability to independently repeat culture in another nation-state / Who owns the ability to independently repeat culture in another nation-state without paying another country that it happens also wants to overthrow your government and destroy national sovereignty? -> everybody thinks they know what plagiarism is. anyone who owns a business or has a doctorate has absolutely no idea what it actually is or what it isn't; it's almost like the more educated you get the more confused you get about the question of plagiarism. here's the reality: the question of plagiarism is the question of what business territory owners will allow what other businesses or mere individuals to live and exist. that's precisely it. it's all up the whim of who likes who and who hates who. you're never guaranteed a license to exist even if you are willing to pay the money, it's all about personal relationships and court cases. there is no universal rule for what does infringe all copyrights or what doesn't infringe all copyrights. it's all about whether Bob wants Alice to be part of Bob's socially linked countable culture or wants to get rid of Alice. if Alice is Chinese, it's all about how much Bob wants China to exist or wants to wipe it off the face of the earth.
2803. large language model
2803. ??
2804. ??
2805. ??
2806. ??
2807. ??
2808. reading arbitrary webpages and books into an LLM -> first of all, don't. second of all: the more interesting discussion here is what is being achieved or built up when somebody does this. if the machine isn't truly understanding it then what exactly did it use the data in the texts to create? my hypothesis is that it creates an ontology, while it is currently the case that humans can create ontologies better. the primary reason we haven't already built a good ontology is our obsession as human individuals towards Freedom and against filtration.
2809. jumping over paywalls with ChatGPT -> it's funny in such a dark way that this exists; if you understood what LLMs automate, you'd see it coming from far away. I refuse to do it. [146] you can read a LithoGraphIca entry to get the same effect, or write one if you have access to the source, and more than one person gets to contribute to that. so, why does this exist? it exists because we've normalized an individual person with a lot of money buying an article being the only way to read articles. you know, a small shop putting out products assuming that everybody else has money to buy their products regularly when that might not at all be true. this incentivizes AI companies who are the only ones with money to send AIs to read everyone's articles, because even if they had to pay for the articles "legitimately" it would still be that they'd have the money and the readers wouldn't have the money. I am begging you if you have a Medium account with less than 100 followers to make your articles publicly available so an AI doesn't read them for people. ...this makes me realize. we should probably put in every single citation of a source whether somebody paid for it and a very vague idea of how much: new book, used book, paywalled article / paywalled or paid periodical. really, that should be in every single academic citation everywhere. we should push to get that into the official APA citation style guide to be frank. because that information is a fundamental part of publication, as much as the name of the publisher. field: graph economics.
2810. Nebula is a subscription streaming service... -> and eventually only AI companies will be able to pay for it, reading all the stuff in it with their machines and spitting it back out at the people who can only pay cents for content through ChatGPT. probably in the middle of a huge number of ads.
2811. YouTube is turning people into Communists (creating Communists, creating Marxists; abbreviated proposition) / The class structure or inner graph-economics structure of YouTube is conducive to demonstrating why capitalism does not make sense and Bolshevism tends to follow as the next step after capitalism -> sub-case of: Q28,17 Patreon types must learn that only businesses can pay businesses
2812. Mastodon is turning people into Communists (creating Communists, creating Marxists; abbreviated proposition) -> the claim that when microblog newsfeeds are created in a localized way for the people that use them rather than for one giant "mall lord", they turn into a structure where people casually share many things free as opposed to paywalled and unobtainable and the people of each particular localized social platform all operate as non-payers within a larger local government attached to a hunk of capital that acts as the only payer and that none of them directly owns; the localized social platform turns into a kind of generalized "state business", which is incidentally attached to a local countable culture in the form of the instance membership. this is definitely some kind of Bauplan. this is a mathematical structure which could be fit into theories of socialist transition. the only major issue is figuring out what "color" this Bauplan is. I would hazard a guess that it is actually charcoal, thinking about the way that people all over are so obsessed with creating these modular "state businesses" independently of existing corporate owners but independently of republican governments. that reads as very anarchist, in the sense of anarchism being connected to motifs of countable cultures extracting themselves from multiple possible "colonizing" forces, and these weird concepts that countable cultures inherently want to stand together just because they're all cultures.
2813. ??
2814. ??
2815. ??
2816. ??
2817. Patreon types must learn that only businesses can pay businesses / Every small owner and subscription service must learn to accept that most people cannot buy their product and the only way their business will be viable is many business territories joining together and agreeing that government will decide which businesses pay for what business instead of individuals -> in a sense this is just a very long-winded way to describe Bolshevism. the only difference between this and flat-out "businesses will directly be part of the country and national constitution" is that it is a bit more molecularized, defining itself through graph economics of a small number of businesses linking to each other in a specific way rather than defining itself based on all the businesses in a whole country at once. honestly, to a smart person it should be totally equivalent though. like, this is just a small scale model of Bolshevism that if it makes sense in the first place would quickly apply to a whole country and not just part of it. this is basically a proposition for molecular Stalin Thought or molecular Maoism, something like that.
2820. Patreon type -> we can define this somewhat precisely, it's a specific real-world phenomenon. Z0 Item.
2821. YouTube creator
2822. video creator contractor / YouTube creator contractor -> a YouTube creator contractor is a gig worker who is contracted to make something for YouTube creators.
2823. video creator employee
2824. Nebula creator
2825. ??
2826. ??
2827. ??
2828. ??
2829. ??
2830. ??
2840. ??
2850. ??
2860. ??
2870. ??
2880. If money is infinite, why do we still have poverty? -> because money isn't infinite. that's my working answer. "wealth" and "money" are not even the same thing; the thing that gold was (wealth) didn't actually stop existing after the gold standard ceased to be practical, it just turned into the thing that money models rather than the thing money is. currency can be infinite but because it's a mathematical model of what happens underneath (the ratcheting and ratcheting up of product models to greater rarities through more and more total labor, enriching business territories while making things harder to get for all but a tiny ring of elite businesses), letting it get de-synced too far off society seems to be a bad idea. it seems historically that printing a lot of money and devaluing a currency breaks the fundamental purpose of money and that's actually why it's so harmful. it's not trivial for Keynes to get all the way to breaking a currency though, you have to really really create a whole lot of money until it stops correlating with anything.
2881. dragon process -> a hypothesized process of how objects gain monetary value. see Q28,88
      if you haven't figured it out by now, I want to reverse this thing.
2882. There is a difference between utility goods and rank goods -> food is a utility good. gold is a rank good. university-level texts are often a rank good, but for some reason nobody wants to admit this. university-level texts are incentivized to never increase in supply beyond the very small selection of people who can actually understand them, or else they won't even sell. Liberal-republican economics assumes that ordinary-looking items like books won't transform into rank goods, and that any ordinary-looking item has incentives to be made more common, because this gives a justification for "competition" — the replication of as many bourgeoisie as possible under the rationale that some of them will provide the same product and thus bring the price down. but if you've ever heard the term "rare book" you'd know this isn't true at all. in practice university-level texts are like diamonds. they are very rare things produced with a lot of effort that nobody else has, and because few people can understand them they need some very rich or powerful people to buy them for capitalism to keep functioning normally. one option is for Elsevier to show up and pay money to "publish" academic journals so they will be peer reviewed and basically nobody will get to see them. one option is for a ring of academics who are all very powerful in terms of knowledge and the capacity to structure whole university departments to basically buy each other's books and go on and on about how bright they all are. the former has been standard in science, the latter has become increasingly popular in academic progressive theories. and you know, the funny thing, the terrible thing? rings of academics churning out books at tiny presses and selling them to each other might actually not be such a bad model, and might even be better for science in terms of getting ideas that already exist communicated to people more effectively. it does leave this little fringe of regular less-educated people being able to get the books sometimes if they look hard enough, and get into a field, instead of making the field totally inaccessible to people who haven't already plunged years into a degree. maybe it should be acceptable to go into science and sell a literature review so it can be a citation on Wikipedia and show up in bookstores. most people aren't going to discover new things that are successful, so why not just put all those people to work writing literature reviews and sorting through replication of experiments so experiments will then actually get replicated?
      what I would really like is if somebody did a literature review calling out all the Existentialist-Structuralist bullshit (pronounced bullshit), but that's not going to be easy when all you have to prove it wrong is science and they're always going to spring the stupid "science is not for this" trap. which is tent of freedom poles. it's always that they take a bunch of bourgeois freedom poles and stake out a perimeter and put up a tent and they get very upset when everything doesn't operate on tent of freedom poles. even when it inevitably leads to separate parallel tents of freedom poles that want to annihilate them, and will destroy them. tent of freedom poles doesn't do anything to prevent anyone tearing down any of the freedom poles, it just leaves a ton of united people coming to tear down all the freedom poles at once.
2883. ??
2884. ??
2885. ??
2886. ??
2887. rank good / worker-property (item which is artificially rare yet may be necessary in order to work; MDem 4.3) / treasure (object which has been assigned high value due to gap of labor between most people and it) / collector's item (object which is produced through labor yet treated as if it is somehow a naturally occurring rare item) / cost of living (object which has become expensive but is necessary in order to work or properly reside somewhere) -> I had such a hard time naming rank goods in the earlier versions because nobody tells you about this stuff. my terms and phrasings were all over the place from traditionally Marxist to non-Marxist to the moon. they're still a bit that way but they're getting better
2888. All wealth comes from labor -> basically all goods which are sold are boxed up through labor. all real estate must be fenced in by some kind of labor. even gold must be mined in order to exist. final drafts of books are created from labor. book customer bases are created through a totally different kind of labor called marketing, which will determine the value of a book series in relation to how many books can be sold and for how much.
      labor is not an atomic thing, and has components. the owner of a gold or diamond mine can block off labor to increase the price of something, because effectively more labor stands between the person without the object and the object, and more effort correlates with more price. the more an object is blocked off by a labor wall the more it becomes a rank good, and people push to have it whether they truly want it or not just because it gives them an advantage in getting other things they do want. this does not make value "subjective", because there is still a particular mathematics that governs and limits the rate at which the price of rank goods goes up.
      this does not directly imply the statement that labor is "owned" or labor creates the "ownership" of wealth.
2889. Investment is a form of poverty -> I thought for a few minutes about the question of whether people who are having trouble getting jobs or houses but have money should invest it into specific industries to help with the task of forming unions. I thought about the topic, and then I was like, but investment doesn't actually produce anything. if you invest money it doesn't mean you would be capable of working in the conditions or to the standards of the industrial structure, it only means you're obligated to defend that industrial structure against other corporations and basically abuse its workers to put other workers out of work. investment is just a way to bet on what people win graph struggle and which artificially created countable cultures survive or get destroyed. it's terrible but you should maybe save money for literal strike funds or something.
      when you invest money you don't truly have the capital. you don't actually create capital. where the thing that's actually important is to create more capital, not just the capital that's there. growing capital allows workers to be employed and have houses. you see people get this wrong all the time claiming growth is only about "greed", when it's not. if all we did was get businesses to be less greedy there'd be more intense fighting in society over prejudices and immigration and which industries exist and don't exist and what people are "useless". now, if anarchists solve the problem of how to figure out what is the optimal number of babies per town and when having any more babies is inherently greedy, by all means analyze societies, history, and empire that way. but if you don't want to believe that there is a greedy number of babies then growing capital and industry is not inherently bad.
2890. Society are not singular / Society cannot be uncountable / The division between societies occurs at gaps containing no social ties, not at territorial borders / population-society conjecture -> note that the grammar is an intentional joke. it is very very common to act like "society" is an uncountable idea that exists independent of actual populations and countries, when that doesn't explain why there are countries in the first place rather than the whole world being part of one government like in Dragon Ball. separate populations exist before any particular historical concept of "society" exists such as "United States society", "Roman society", "Ukrainian society", or "old Hawaiian society"; the mere existence of separate populations as separate objects precedes identity per-se and culture per-se.
2891. R.D. has not done meta-Marxism correctly -> pre-emptively creating this so nobody can collapse Q28,98 into being false specifically because R.D. has not allowed meta-Marxism to expand to the point it can practically be more than one person. to falsify Q28,98 you have to prove something which does not pivot around R.D., like that meta-Marxism can never become a science, or can never serve the purposes of being a predictive or explanatory model that it is trying to achieve.
2892. Socialism can have Trotskyist characteristics / Trotsky's Bolshevism would have Trotskyist characteristics / If Trotskyists successfully created a workers' state, its emergence from the countable culture consisting of Trotskyite history, Trotskyite oral tradition, and Trotskyite-to-Leninist allegiances would cause it become a particular new thing of socialism with Trotskyist characteristics -> this comes from the claim that Trotskyism is a countable culture. if it's the case that Trotskyism is a countable culture, then it is approximately similar to any sovereign national population such as China or Cuba. and if that is the case, then socialist transition in China will have Chinese characteristics, and socialist transition created by Trotskyists will have Trotskyist characteristics. of course, the other implication of this is that when there are plural Marxisms in a country, one of them will want mainstream Marxist-Leninist characteristics and one of them will want Trotskyist characteristics and one of them will want Gramscian characteristics. I think this hypothesis actually explains a lot about why movements that should be able to unify together end up fighting each other: they all already have characteristics and end up containing incompatible characteristics. worse, capitalist-aligned ideologies can have "characteristics" too. the Democratic Party and the Republican party can be countable cultures with national history and be glued to their favorite characteristics that realize their particular national ideology. if the United States was one countable culture which didn't break into multiple just because people had different positions on issues everything would be easier but it clearly consists of multiple countable cultures so distinct they have more reason to be separate structures than the House and the Senate do, or than some of the individual states do. the whole premise of the United States has been wrong from the beginning, and you can see this without any Marxism or appeals to the proletariat.
      it's probably worth noting: I think this statement is almost heresy inside Trotskyism. I still don't understand why it would be, I mean the more you dislike Stalin the more you benefit from realizing Trotskyism and Stalin's Marxism are plural Marxisms and that Trotskyism has never actually been very big, it's always been a small Marxism more the size of socialism-in-one-country than the size of an imminent world workers' state. that's Trotskyism. why do they think the eventual world workers' state is Trotskyism when the clash between mainstream Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism by itself has made that impossible?
2893. the only correct thing Trotsky ever said / the one correct thing Rosa Luxemburg said -> a dumb joke I keep making in things which is funny because there is always more than one of these. but there's also the question of whether any of the "correct" things Trotsky said are correct in context, or if they all come with a subtext of being completely misapplied to the point that saying "the only correct thing Trotsky ever said" is funny again. that's just the thing, how long it takes to properly unpack a concept like this to the point there could be a whole page about it.
2894. the only good form of Trotskyism / the only good version of Trotskyism / non-revisionist Trotskyism (hypothetical possibility; motif) -> the motif of someone, usually me, claiming that there is a form of Trotskyism which would be acceptable to people who are Stalin-followers today but which currently practically nobody advocates for. I have always been confused why this is. it's not like Trotskyists are totally stupid and that's why they could never realize their theories are wrong. so is it that I am naming things that aren't Trotskyism Trotskyism and then asserting they're the only good Trotskyism? I am still unpacking this.
2895. Trotskyism is my favorite fairytale -> the motif of thinking that Trotskyism is false and yet it is absolutely great fantasy worldbuilding. this motif arguably showed up in The Giver, even if it was done in a halfway negative tone.
2896. an atheist to Trotskyism (in reference to such phrases as "an atheist to fairies" and "an atheist to Santa Claus") / a-trotskyism (atheism, but for Trotskyism) / the Trotsky delusion (motif) -> the motif that just like giving up religion can greatly change a person's view of the world and possibly open up the ability for much greater understanding of some things, giving up the central principles of Trotskyism which are unique to it and do not include the principles of mainstream Marxism-Leninism brings almost as great a change in the understanding of anything and everything in the social world. this motif is not meant to be anticommunism. it is specifically meant to be about the material claims of realizing Trotskyism, such as that 15+ countries will all fire off at once, and the task of slowly replacing these claims with material claims that are actually correct.
      The God Delusion + Trotskyism = this.
2897. an atheist to community / the community delusion (motif) -> at this point in my life I believe that the biggest thing holding people back from historical materialism or coming up with sensible ways to form a nation-wide social-democratic movement is the overblown notion of "community". very few things can truly claim the title of "people's new religion"; political parties and ideas and various maligned models like "the scientific method" or "atheism" never quite rise to that level, while Community is one of the only things that actually does. here's the problem with Community. it always thinks it's uncountable, when it's actually plural. Community has its own shovel dream, and it has an incorrect shovel dream, and this is what generates anarchism — the incorrect object-formational ideology that a socially-linked Community of arbitrary individuals happily joining together while ignoring the existence of scales of social reality, as a material object perceiving the world through physical processes, generates. religion has been replaced many times over, such that now we're in a reality where religious groups, fandoms, a circle of Existentialists in academia, Trotskyist parties, anarchist groups, anything, all operate on the same fallacy or incorrect shovel dream that because their group of people is such a nice joining of individuals, groups of people don't actually exist and clearly the whole world is just a bunch of individual human beings that all strive to merge together in any order one by one. and whenever some kind of Maoist shows up and says "I think groups of people exist, for instance the Chinese w—", all the Community people tell them to shut up, and treat it like heresy. they each treat it like heresy that groups of people could exist even though each of them is a group of people that if it were to expand could only really imagine the whole world becoming more of their own group. and if anybody points out the contradiction of Community always being plural even though it's supposedly uncountable, people start making up weird justifications about how supposedly even if "Community are not singular" the inevitable competition and tension between Community processses must be keeping them in balance and merging them all into Community anyway, because after all, everything naturally merges into Community!
      Community is the deity of Existentialism, and Pokémon is one of its major religious texts, full of wholly-metaphorical "bible stories" about exactly how Community works.
      "religion is the opium of the masses"? not true any more. it's now a much more specific thing variously called either poetry, culture, or Community.
2898. meta-Marxism is a concept, not a person / meta-Marxism is an ontology, not a person / R.D. is not the only one who can do meta-Marxism -> some people are going to need this reminder. meta-Marxism is a pile of hypotheses and a scientific method (in prototype, at least) by which the hypotheses can self-correct and evolve. the meta-Marxism that adjusts itself to match reality is meta-Marxism. if R.D. doesn't update meta-Marxism to be empirically accurate, then R.D. is not a top-tier meta-Marxist. meta-Marxism is an embryonic attempt to create a field of science. one could say this about the original Marxism as well. one could also claim, to varying degrees of success, that Marxism never became a science and always fell back down into the realm of philosophy. that's where meta-Marxism is right now, but if it is successful, it and Marxism will both climb out of the philosophy pit together.
2899. rejected meta-Marxist hypothesis
2900. meta-Marxist hypothesis / Molecular-Marxist hypothesis / MDem hypothesis -> category of all MDem axioms/hypotheses. for the 2900s range, focus more on MDem as a hypothetical SPMS inside which these statements are best tested versus anywhere else instead of general meta-Marxist statements that could theoretically be tested by any movement imaginable
2901. Inventions are purposeless without a permanent caretaker or institution / Inventions cannot be valued by any society as a whole
2902. Capitalism dices countries into half a country per person / Capitalism chops countries into half a nation per person (divides, pulverizes, choppifies) / Capitalism is the division of a country into 300 million nations per 300 million individuals / Capitalism is the division of countries into one countable Culture per one individual -> this sounds really weird at first, but it is the only good way to explain why Existentialism exists and why it so tightly ties diversity and tolerance to the existence of Artisan types or bourgeoisie. watch Elemental (Pixar 2023) and you will really see this as the unintended message - society really needs every Culture specifically because it needs more types of businesses, but also, every Culture is a product for consumption to serve specific purposes needed by others, and every Culture must go through intense "selection" to never ever be similar to others and be exactly what some arbitrary set of un-sorted people needs in order to be successfully fit into society and tolerated. worse than that, some people in the class of Artisan-types/Directors/Careerists/"entrepreneurs" are allowed to think and create countable Cultures, and some people in the layers of customers and employees are strictly not allowed to think, only allowed to join a Culture or leave a Culture
      (temporarily copied from "You cannot donate a job":) one of the great advantages that Liberal-republicanism supposedly boasts is that in its outward appearance it is apparently molecularized and is capable of understanding societies as a dynamic soup of different borderless dividing and re-dividing countable cultures which may be any size from 5 people to 5,000 people to 5 million people to 150 million people. but all of this is an artifact of the bourgeoisie initially dividing society into approximately 150 million societies; the shovel dream has been changed by changing the shovel, but not in any way that gives the shovel new agency to change its own shovel dream. meta-Marxism would change the shovel dream in order to become capable of changing the shovel when enough shovels have the right shovel dream regardless of whether it originated from shovel shape or from science.
2903. Capitalism is a system where cultures compete to be human / Capitalism is a system where countable cultures compete to be accepted as part of the world, specifically referring to a particular conception of the world pivoting around some particular country population, economy, and territory, and the countries directly connected to this pivot (the world defined as a Filament-axis) / Filamentism proposition -> a basic definition of capitalism as Filamentism — the process by which multiple possible people swap into an open social node to construct society at the expense of all the people who didn't make it in there — relative to the whole world.
2904. Messing with free will is messing with culture / Interfering with free will is the same as interfering with culture / An attempt to change Free Will is synonymous with an attempt to change culture -> seems random at first, but the more you apply it the more you see it's basically the case. these days, attempts to impose culture on Africa are typically seen as bad because Free Will. attempts to force the hand of any particular individual Subject, defined by Free Will, are frequently taken as a violation of culture, as with "disabled culture" and "autistic culture". the autonomous will of an individual Subject is already understood within Existentialism to be the same as culture. look at Lacanians identifying individual will with an individual human being's tower of signifiers (as deterministic as that might sound on the surface) — individuality is culture. with this said? this hypothesis is also appropriate for meta-Marxism if the definition of culture is tweaked just a tiny bit to refer to an existential-materialist Subject, or socially-linked material populations that can be modeled as containing existential-materialist processes.
2905. Society is made of smaller pieces / Society has material components / "The social" is made of smaller components -> Rothenberg came so close to saying something genius and then swerved back into stupid. so, Existentialists get credit for the notion of an "atomic" model of society as made of individuals, although I'd prefer a less crude "molecular" model which is capable of recognizing groups and structures and also the proletariat. (the "capable proletarian subpopulation".)
2906. You can't predict quarks; matter doesn't exist / You can't predict quarks thanks to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, thus there is no matter / Each quark is constantly popping in and out of solidity, thus there is no matter -> joking analogy for what Existentialism has done to the analysis of societies. Lacanians think individuals don't assemble into larger objects. if quarks functioned that way, there would be no matter and nobody to write books. when the majority of all free-floating objects in the universe have the capacity to assemble into particular bigger objects or interact in specific ways, shouldn't we consider that people can do this too?
2907. ??
2908. Hierarchies are material objects / Hierarchies are material objects, not ideas or attitudes -> this is one of the major pillars of Hyper-Materialism. a population-to-population hierarchy of one population oppressing a whole other population happens for material reasons before people rationalize it with attitudes. what can trip people up about this is that they don't have good frameworks or language for describing two free-floating populations in an all-directional contradiction against each other where because both populations eat and occupy space, their competition produces a dynamic, all-directional spatial slot hierarchy of every individual against every individual which can lead up to real, tangible oppression that appears to be based in whole discrete populations but actually isn't. (the way that sentence will sound like spaghetti to normal people is, by itself, telling as to how uncommon it is for anyone to be taught this or think this way. if anyone already understood this concept it would be a lot easier to describe in plain language.) if every Black individual competes and every White individual competes and it happens only by chance or factors that shouldn't be related that a lot of the Black individuals end up behind, whatever The Media says, all the White individuals will simply continue pushing them out because "locking their doors" is in their best interest as individuals. 2,000 White individuals see one Black individual and they all individually lock their doors and even help each other keep out the Black individual because three White individuals each trust each other although they do not trust him. the creation of racism between whole populations is an emergent effect that easily traces up from the isolated behavior of individuals as they all vie for their daily bread and their finite job slot. unfortunately it seems that many Marxist parties have not figured this out and are still presenting prejudices through Idealist models rather than creating Materialist models. so this proposition has to stay violet even though most of its content is fairly crimson.
2909. The State is the apparatus of Ideological State "Apparatuses" / "Ideological state apparatuses" wield The State as their apparatus, not the other way around / There is no such thing as ideological state apparatuses -> see entries such as "pillows are not ideologically neutral"
2910. It's easier to imagine the absence of elephants than the successor to elephants -> jamming proposition used to get people to realize why "it's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism". it's far harder to imagine anything actually having transitioned into or given rise to something else than it is to imagine that thing just being broken or gone. an end-of-the-world scenario is actually just the absence of civilization in the form of Social-Philosophical Systems, which in a sense has definitely been the case on earth before. all civilizations have not been before they've been, and in some cases they've also not been after they've been. in contrast, civilizations transitioning to new class compositions or fundamentally new structures has been rather rare. can most people without a biology or science education make reasonable guesses about the species that could descend from elephants, down to all the physiology and details that make up a Future Elephant, or is it easier to imagine a particular elephant being gone from a photograph, or a photograph of a dead elephant?
2911. It's easier to imagine the end of the world than a correct course of history -> the heart of why it's "hard to imagine the successor to elephants". the literal version.
2912. It's easier to imagine impossible matter fractals than the end of capitalism -> a much funnier realization than the elephant proposition that came to me when explaining Avogadro's number. how is it there are multiple sci-fi stories about universes being atoms in bigger universes, or universe-timelines being quantum foam to a bigger universe (thanks Project Palisade), but nobody is able to imagine countries being objects and people being chemistry, much less able to imagine that being a neutral thing. Childhood's End: horror story. The Shuteyes: though neutral about Communism, still a horror story. every center-Liberal-approved theory about many people changing society: treats them as many individuals at once, rather than a larger object. every news article: still thinks people are part of one big object called Our Democracy, even though by every other remark anyone has ever made people are just a bunch of completely unpredictable helium atoms that don't belong to anything bigger? like, if people are all individuals, how are there even countries? why hasn't Canada spontaneously merged into the United States?
      edit: wait. this could be a case of "what if men could date men??". people think of something as being possible in fiction because they don't consider it possible in reality.
2913. Why hasn't Canada merged into the United States? / Why hasn't Canada spontaneously merged into the United States? -> a question that sounds silly but is actually a really good question, philosophically. if Existentialism is true, Canada is a bunch of individuals, and the United States is a bunch of individuals, and they're all unpredictable and can choose to collectively do anything at any moment, so why do they always wake up every day and form Canada and the United States respectively? as well, you see some anarchisms talking like there could be a world without borders. not the postcolonial anarchisms, clearly, because in those you effectively have to fill up big protest spaces through and around the territory of marginalized people-groups and essentially enforce a populational border. but in other anarchisms... if the world could function without borders why is it the case Canada still exists. the more history that happens, the more it will be that any general category of thing that is actually likely to happen will have already happened before you were even born. so if as many people have already been born as there have, why aren't we already living in the world where there isn't a Canada? a couple billion years go by and you get dolphin-shaped things multiple times. a couple of centuries go by and you get Marxism multiple times, and even the teeniest shred of Trotskyism off in the corner as a possibility that happened. so why don't countries spontaneously merge into each other through a bunch of individuals flooding between them and all the people suddenly saying "I guess we don't have separate governments"? personally, my best answer is that countries are socially-linked graphs of people and labor connects people into structures that are required to be there and function well for workers to ever be able to take them over. so if people started flooding between the United States and Canada it would be harder to work out reasonable solutions to housing them, providing health care, and getting them what they need, even assuming nobody hates each other. every human right depends on people being connected into exactly the correct graph structures to have everybody producing enough stuff, and that's why people don't flood around wildly, because on some level they vaguely understand that they have to contribute to building towns correctly to have what they need, and even if they don't have much agency it still seems like they have more agency staying where they are than through going to a lot of effort to go somewhere else. at least it seems that way.
2914. Mathematical equations are culture / Mathematical equations are ideas in the same sense that postcolonial anarchist ideas against prejudice to better society through Idealism or poetic solarpunk art or good "culture" are ideas -> derived anti-anarchist Gramscian proposition. I cannot think of a single reason this wouldn't be true. especially when people like Lacan and Deleuze are always pulling the trick of misusing math. there has to be some reason Idealists would reject this but I absolutely can't think of one right now.
2915. Idealism forbids itself -> I first noticed this with Lacanianism a year or two ago before most of this research started. I was so confused how Lacanians could think both that ideologies and political theories were bad because you can't predict The Subject — political theories are so totalizing and extreme that Lenin saying anything other than that people can believe literally whatever ideology and model of society they want to is bad — and yet put out a political theory of their own whatsoever. it just really didn't seem to me that somebody who could do that without at least stopping and mentioning the contradiction had a brain that was working logically. only after doing a whole lot of surface research into Idealism did I finally understand what exactly I'd uncovered. so here's what the actual problem is. Idealism says that everything has to change because people get better ideas. Idealism also often but not necessarily says either that individual minds or countable cultures are sacred, or alternatively that individual minds are not accessible and not possible to easily operate on. this creates the contradiction that to be an Idealist you have to go around ordering people to change the way they think, but at the same time you necessarily believe that every actual method of changing the way people think is inadequate because all the problems arise deep in people's minds where you can never access them. this seems to be the way it always goes — Idealist Bob says that the United States is screwed up because everyone is racist, he proposes a plan to change it, Idealist Alice shows up and gets upset because Bob's plan to stop racism is prejudiced against disabled people, or said another way by acting in the real world Bob is not accessing the real problems in people's minds. and you repeat this infinitely every time another Idealist movement shows up and looks at other Idealist movements. it's like to believe in Idealism and actually fix anything you'd have to live in Deltarune and jump out of reality into the Dark World where you can stop the Roaring Knight, because if you're in reality you can never access the true source of problems which is the single continuous world formed by everyone's minds. and even there. you look at Deltarune and the Dark Worlds contain contradictions. every time you try to build a model of ideas being the fundamental building block of populations it always comes back to materially separate people and separate groups of people interfering with that and being at least equally as fundamental. I have no idea why people are so determined to make the world into a single mind-plane. is it the core human obsession with culture and poetry? is that it? if so, why is nobody smart enough to realize that every single attempt to unite people against "prejudiced culture" for a "postcolonial culture" could always, mathematically, inevitably, as a repeating pattern reproduce the general shape of prejudice just because it is a group of people and because Gödel's incompleteness theorem? what am I missing? why is it forbidden to replace Idealism with math and physics equations? are mathematical models not ideas? or am I thinking about this too hard and is the answer just that Idealism will always destroy itself because Idealism forbids Idealism.
2916. Homeostasis is an illusion / Existing as classical matter blinds all human individuals to the non-solid, non-constant, graph-like nature of quantum phenomena and the possibility of a repeated "neo-quantum" scale of human beings assembling into countable objects similar to atoms or tennis balls -> this is one of those far-out analogies you think of either late at night or high and yet sometimes it provides insight. the analogy goes like this: quarks are constantly redividing between quark and quark and gluon. they're only stable when they're connected together, at which point they become an atom. at the scale of reality of a tennis ball, you can't see the quarks constantly re-dividing, although they are. it seems like the tennis ball is totally solid, and its natural state is to continue and continue and continue unless something comes over perhaps deliberately and tears it apart. but the tennis ball isn't solid, deep down it's constantly re-dividing, it's a bunch of things linked together that only exist consistently at all because they're linked together and they don't un-graph. at the scale of a living organism, it seems like its natural state is to continue and continue and continue unless perhaps something eats it or attacks it maliciously. but the living organism can't see that it's made of a bunch of constantly dividing quarks that only continue to exist because they're graphed together, and if they weren't the whole organism would go flying apart into quark-gluon plasma. it could have utterly no thoughts or experiences, it couldn't even have solid or liquid physics.
      so, even if you totally get rid of the religious origins, natural law is one big fallacy. there's no such thing as the inherent sanctity of any physical object or organism. the quarks inside it aren't constant, they weren't born, they don't have a birth certificate, they don't have a Lived Experience by themselves, you should be glad they don't have consciousness because if they did they might all revolt against the existence of living beings and you would never exist again. living organisms being macroscopic and Newtonian gives them a faulty shovel dream and makes them unaware that they are not solid, they are not constant, and when something dissolves them or takes something away from them, in a certain figurative sense none of that existed in the first place; none of it was guaranteed in the future just because it existed for a moment. but living organisms are predisposed to think they are forever, and to label anything that takes away their "inherent foreverness" as their evil malicious cursed enemy that was never meant to exist. all of that, all prejudice, all clinging to Property, all "natural law" and "natural crimes" and general-sense psychoanalysis and religious morality, all of that comes from the false perception that individuals have "inherent foreverness" because they cannot see down to the quantum level where actually everything is constantly re-dividing and only exists in solid form because it's graphed together. this illusion of being solid is what causes the existence of individuals to blind all individuals to the actual behavior of populations and countable cultures. the way populations and countable cultures really work is that they're only solid and in existence when individuals are graphed together. clusters of corporations are a lot like quarks in a way. but the existence of individuals with their strong Newtonian behavior as physical objects has made us so stupid we are predisposed to tear society apart and treat it like a conspiracy just to be "free". I didn't say "quarks revolting could make you never exist again" for nothing. I think that is about what anarchism and Existentialism have done to our understanding of society as a species. society is a weird new neo-quantum scale above the quantum but we refuse to form matter just because it's icky and we don't like it.
2917. A revolution strives to become legal / The purpose of revolution is to make revolution legal / The purpose of a revolution is that a particular countable culture is illegal and then it becomes legal / Revolution is always illegal, but the purpose of a revolution is to make itself legal -> this is to be contrasted with the anarchist-tinted notion that revolution simultaneously was always okay and will never be okay.
      this one proposition goes a long way toward arguing Trotskyism is a plural Marxism, but it also counts toward the concept that Trotskyism isn't a world workers' state at the moment it first starts existing
2918. What is 8 billion times 8 billion? / What is eight billion times eight billion? / What is eight billion factorial? -> 8,000,000,000! (pronounced 8,000,000,000!) is a really, really big number. this is the number of, or at least the proper order of magnitude of, ways to arrange eight billion people into social graphs and historical periods. if you can look at the number 1×10^75,750,364,046 (pronounced 1×10^75,750,364,046) and think there are no more possible historical periods or major changes to the rest of world history after the ones that exist right now then you simply don't have any imagination.
2919. Is Trotskyism a form of Bolshevism? (rhetorical question) -> jamming proposition used to get people to evaluate whether Toryism is of the same category as historical European fascisms. if Trotskyism wants a world government of allied Communist-aligned populations, wants to create soviet structures or unions, and wants to make all businesses state businesses, is it Bolshevism? a meta-Marxist would say yes. a Trotskyist would say yes. an anarchist would probably say yes. a Lacanian with enough background information would probably say yes. so, if Toryism believes in binding many arrow people around a strong axe leader, believes in removing immigrants and foreigners and "non-patriots", believes in restoring the empire to its former glory as an ostensibly-unified countable culture, and believes in conquering lands distant from the empire such as Palestine, what do we call that? can we just agree to call it a named nationalism, even if it hasn't fully realized into the Material System of fascism yet?? the only real reason people don't believe this and don't believe it in a genuine way is the toxic influence of Existentialism — the philosophy that countable cultures such as "Bob the individual with a particular mind-internal culture and Free Will" and "the gay community" and "the Catholic community" are fundamental units of society but "the class subpopulation of capitalists", "the socially-linked faction of progressives", and "the socially-linked faction of Tories" are not. if countable cultures are the most important thing on earth then "the White Southern-Baptist Christian community who all want to vote for Trump and want the immigrants out" will always inherently be more important than "the political coalition of Black people and gay people", and it will always have the incentive to say "we're not the same demographic identity of people as the people clustered around Mussolini or Franco, so we can't be fascists because those are the people with Fascists on their name tag and we have Tea Party on our name tag" "also, you can't predict what we'll realize into as The Tea Party because historical materialism is bogus, so really how do you know we're fascists, how do you even know".
2920. Finite packaging facilitates gaining attention -> pokémon. scp reports. vines. video essays. books. perhaps even propositions. I hope chopping all philosophy into atomic propositions is the thing that works to get people actually thinking.
2921. Is topology a threat to Marxism? -> jamming question used to illustrate the difference between non-Marxist theories that are merely outside Marxism and non-Marxist theories which are anticommunist.
2922. Bibles are appealing because they number propositions / Biblical verses and proverbs are just numbered propositions / The way to create a "Communist bible" that people far and wide can easily reference has little to do with compilation into a book and is simply to take a lot of propositions and number them / Science can learn from the bible by numbering propositions in order to keep track of standing versus rejected hypotheses
2923. ??
2924. ??
2925. ??
2926. ??
2927. ??
2928. How do you build a society from scratch? / Making the assumptions that you have no money and no ready-made capital but hard work can get you any basic thing you want, how would you arrange people to create society? / molecularization question (question on how to transform an amorphous political-economic theory into a molecularized theory) -> this is why Terrorism and Communism chapter 8 was so big for me. it introduced me to the concept that Bolshevism could really be built up starting from any number of people who have nothing. it also did the unintentionally genius thing of inserting Trotsky and implying that Trotsky can be standing there observing a society of arbitrary size being made from scratch starting at less than a thousand people. having read that first and then looking at the claims of Trotskyism only after that you can see why I was deeply confused when Trotskyism didn't have a well-defined set of instructions to create a section of Trotskyism in an undeveloped area utterly from scratch.
2929. To be free is to be hated / To be free is to defy the expectations that would be required to join with a particular person and create an ongoing relationship, thus detaching from a particular materially defined border of morality and potentially coming across to the other person as rude, Evil, weak, defective, or dangerous -> the corollary to Deleuze and Guattari's "escape" theories that they never seem to want to acknowledge. people fear freedom because the only way people judge something as good or bad is whether individuals reciprocally obey each other's arbitrary wants.
      not all anarchists are unaware of this idea. the Zinovievist-styled anarchists definitely are. but none of them get the implications of it correct. they typically just decide that being hated is unequivocally okay. none of them realize that millions and billions of people are going to think their whole population is a bunch of Evil demons that needs to be exterminated Undertale-style. and when 100 million people show up to exterminate 5,000 people, it's not going to be pretty.
2930. Ethics is almost impossible / Morality is almost impossible / Vegeta effect prevents naïve diffusion of morality / Individuals can never be forced to accept morality or ethics -> bound to be one of the most controversial ones, but the point of it is to test it and see if there is any way it can be clearly untrue
2931. Every moral statement is a scientific prediction / Every moral statement is a determinist hypothesis -> for instance, if we say "all Floridians should learn about the history of racism and stop being racist", that is a prediction that there is a deterministic process of every single Floridian going through education and then doing a particular more-or-less identifiable pattern of behavior to not be racist. if it is not possible to list out a repeatable procedure that can and will be followed by absolutely everyone, however general the outline, "should" becomes meaningless and the moral statement is unenforceable.
2932. People accept ethical standards when they wish to maintain relationships / Subjects accept moral standards when they want to maintain relationships / Subjects might reject moral standards when they do not want to maintain relationships
2933. Morality is a form of culture and identity / Morality is carried on Social-Philosophical Systems / Morality is carried in the bonds of social graphs / Morality is an internal characteristic of free-floating groups rather than individuals
2934. Moral oughts are indistinguishable from material imperatives -> the hypothesis that "Trotsky must fit himself into Stalin Thought to build the Soviet Union" (a material imperative, to keep the Soviet population from disintegrating and going to other continents) is an equivalent kind of statement to moral imperatives like "Progressives must vote for the Democratic party" or "Floridians must learn a correct history of racism" — they are claimed to be the same because in each case, there are situations where somebody is handed an imperative but in practice that person is horribly suited to materially follow that imperative, and then becomes branded as a terrible person. if this hypothesis is true, then it means some moral imperatives are morally dubious under a more objective, worldwide, and consequences-based formulation of ethics; if the enforcement of morality leads to what logically should be immoral outcomes, the system of morality contains incorrect moral assumptions. to be fair, simply knowing that some moral or material imperatives are incorrect does not tell us what the correct ones are, for instance what one is supposed to do with Trotsky or exactly what should replace Democratic Party campaigning to successfully unify people.
2935. Culture is the opposite of liberty / Authority isn't the opposite of liberty; the opposite of liberty is culture -> authoritarianism can't exist without culture, in the sense of individuals joining into a larger material object called a countable culture. however, culture can exist without The State and easily perform the same function that The State does. this would be one of the minimum corrections that would make the right-Liberal political compass closer to accurate.
2936. Oppose freedom, and you can build anarchy / Turn against freedom, and you can build anarchy / If anarchists become anti-freedom, they can create anarchy / If anarchists realize that capitalists gain their power on the basis of accumulating freedom and not on the basis of malice or greed or "attitudes" or "cultural conditioning", they will become able to build anarchy -> this builds on the definition of anarchy as ""community"" and the process of individuals or small groups actively choosing to unify together into a larger clump of people ("Arceism"). on a typical day, I hate this definition of socialist transition and can't stand these theories. but in the end I'm a meta-Marxist, not a career anti-anarchist. so I give you the compromise: a charcoal workers' state may be possible. have your Arceism if you really want it. but the cost of realizing it is that you must genuinely tell people there's too much freedom and purposefully make them give up their freedom. to me that sounds worse than Deng Xiaoping Thought. but somehow I have the weird feeling that there'd be people who just see this, clap their hands, and are like, "exactly!!". let me repeat: you've gotta take people's freedom away and tell them they absolutely have to be loyal to your countable culture or be expelled just because that's better than being free. you have to be more hardcore than Stalin, Mao, or Deng Xiaoping, not to mention many times more hardcore than Trotsky, but approximately exactly as hardcore as a bigoted Southern Baptist church, in the name of non-bigotry. you've gotta be on the level of "if you don't join anarchism and go all in you're hardly even human and you're Satan". you've gotta build a fortress state and fight for your life just like East Germany if there are as many people who don't want to be part of your anarchism as do. you've gotta take back half the bad things you said about Black Hammer (the Identitarian-fascist compound) even though you can keep the other half. does anarchism still sound good to you? if you say yes, then I'll shut up. then I'll shut up and say, okay then, you are ready to create meta-anarchism and maybe the United States really doesn't need meta-Communism.
2937. Culture exists as the relationships between individuals / The real uncountable culture was the friends we made along the way
2938. Gramscianism and Deng Xiaoping Thought are related -> the more I would think about it, the more I would realize, huh, it's almost like one of them is tiny and one of them is big and that's the only serious difference. aside from that it's only similarities. the bourgeoisie rush to defend the borders or frontiers of a countable culture to protect ethnic groups from being dominated or dispersed across the world by outside populations, and Marxist theorists have to reluctantly let it happen. (or at least they believe they do.) the process of securing frontiers from outside populations naturally results in a shepherd sheet of theorists and bureaucrats, but doesn't naturally result in proletarian structures. (it's only my hypothesis that Gramscianism would produce another China, but I think there's decent reason to think that, as far as the "there's just a capitalism inside it and no Bolshevism" part. you point out that Gramscianism is just a bunch of progressive bourgeoisie squabbling against reactionary bourgeoisie and it's like, yeah, how else could it go? I'm hesitant to say the same thing about Stalin's Marxism though, considering it didn't have the same result as Deng Xiaoping Thought and there was actually some Bolshevism in it. the content that ideologies realize is very important to me. so if Stalin's Marxism realizes Bolshevism even somewhat, there had to be something right in that historical period that Stalin couldn't possibly ruin by getting everyone onto his cause. now, as for Trotskyism... I consider it very suspect for never actually realizing any of its content, but I give it a couple points for constantly claiming the internal structure of the Soviet Union was wrong and thereby implying it does have specific content it wants to realize instead.)
2939. Ethics is the same thing as objective morality -> how do I avoid statement definitions turning into word definitions and keep statements independent of what written words they are about
2940. How can Stalin and Trotsky coexist in the same reality? -> whenever I run into a question about the United States that's really difficult I come back to this and I ask myself if there's any way to draw lessons out of a Stalin and Trotsky scenario. Black Lives Matter not cooperating with Trotskyists? turn it around a little bit so the Trotskyists are Stalin and BLM is Trotsky — suddenly everything makes more sense.
2941. If ideologies can coexist, they should be mutually consistent / If ideologies can exist in harmony, they should be ontologically consistent across each other / Compromise is nothing, ontological consistency is key -> one of the biggest, most central claims of meta-Marxism. this is the claim that if Trotskyists and Stalin followers can exist in the same world, then we should expect mainstream Marxism-Leninism to correctly model the historical emergence of Trotskyism and its persistence after being exposed while Trotskyism correctly models the emergence and persistence of socialisms-in-one-country; this is the claim that if US "Democrats" and "Republicans" (center-Liberals and Tories) can coexist, they should each have completely accurate models of how the other behaves which they can use to predict how to peacefully resolve their differences. obviously this sounds rather laughable for Liberal-republicanism. but for Marxism, the notion that mainstream Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism could update themselves to correctly model each other and all other ideology-populations as potentially independent entities wouldn't sound anywhere near as far-fetched. it's actually quite baffling why after generating so much new history without prior precedents Trotskyism would never have switched to correctly explaining its own material real-world history as an emerging "nation" or constellation of workers' states and realizing that there are steps in between what has actually happened and the purported end state for Trotskyism of a global civilization that they take out of Lenin's 1920 writings.
2942. Every time human beings assign meaning to an image it generates a group of people potentially in fierce conflict with other groups of people -> part of the mathematical definition of "Social-Philosophical System".
2943. Leninism does not have a binary truth value -> the claim that a theory of Leninist movements or of workers' states can be incorrect on small things without being incorrect on everything, or in a case like Trotsky, incorrect on most things without being incorrect on everything. Leninism is subject to Gödel's incompleteness theorem just like formal logic, physics equations, computers, books, and minds. this makes the judgement methods people use of trying to apply the categories of "proletarian" and "bourgeois" as if they were flat-out categories of Good and Evil or True and False inappropriate for judging the basic possibility of a given theory or movement realizing or becoming a historically-relevant entity that must be studied even if such a group is unwanted by some particular Marxism. it's possible to get so caught up in the prospect of realizing a proletarian civilization that you stop doing historical materialism and descend into Existentialism, becoming unaware of things that could completely prevent your success.
2944. Applying any claim to Trotsky eventually yields the correct answers / Applying any philosophy to Trotsky eventually gets you to the correct answers -> one of my very favorite jamming propositions. this one gets me through the hard times. this proposition sounds so stupid at first like it could never be true, and then you try it, and you realize there's something there. I'd give an example, but I have a problem that they're all turning into actually okay propositions that might be worth making into their own Items.
2945. Trotskyism is the prototypical oppressed group -> the claim that focusing on Trotskyists failing to fit into the Soviet Union gives insight into processes such as racists insisting they're oppressed, or movementist movements of marginalized identities horizontally oppressing each other in a circle
2946. Trotskyism is the prototypical prejudice -> the claim that specifically focusing on Trotskyists refusing to understand mainstream Marxism-Leninism gives insight into processes such as racism and xenophobia
2947. Cold wars are about ethnicity / The Cold War was never about workers / Starting the Cold War was never precisely about destroying workers; it was about destroying every single Soviet individual allied with or connected to a Communist party, and this is why Deng Xiaoping Thought has been the only way to win the continuing global Cold War that never actually ended / The Cold War was about destroying all physical nation-state objects which are not the United States, including China, Russia, or a hypothetical poly-communist workers' state covering half the world -> this sounds very "postcolonial theory" on the surface but I have a different explanation for it than you'd think. I don't take this position because anybody is "racist" — even as that's quite fair to say. I take this position because Deng Xiaoping Thought is still going. the fact that this strange at-least-slightly-wrong Marxism is so popular means something is very wrong with this timeline; the major processes of history must not be what we think they are for this to be the most obvious solution. also? the fact that it's so popular, it gives First World countries exactly what they want, and yet First World countries still hate it. if anything First World countries said against Marxism had been true and not just cover-up lies they would have thrown in the towel once Deng Xiaoping Thought was created, but you see people talking about China's "dishonest" tactics for actually having businesses or the supposed risks of letting Chinese businesses extend into the United States and it's really like they don't want China to have businesses, or by any reasonable definition, have capitalism. they want neocolonialism but China having capitalism and its own national government and unaccountable business-governments is scary. we can't conclude that Deng Xiaoping Thought exists primarily to benefit capitalists, not in an age when it benefits China and all its ethnicities even existing. what this means for actual Leninists is very unclear. the only thing that is clear is that part of the definition of an effective Marxism is winning the forever cold war. the world is beyond the time of simple atomic revolution or permanent revolution, and has entered a contradiction of infinite revolution versus infinite counterrevolution. and this has happened because nobody realized that models of society could be molecularized, and Liberal capitalism is molecularized, and what any successful theory has to do is actively regenerate populations and accommodate population growth and correctly plan and arrange populations as they grow rather than in advance. China planning its country 100 years in advance could actually be wrong. and that's a little terrifying. because whenever individuals make decisions there's always missing information and we never necessarily know how to make every individual make decisions correctly. but in one sense we kind of utterly have to for any country or would-be workers' revolution to survive forever cold war.
2948. The Cold War never ended / The Cold War period was part of a larger completely continuous period of cold war -> component claim. like, really, when did it end? when did the whole practice of trying to destroy the Second World and every new workers' state stop? when Reagan said something to the effect that Communism couldn't be allowed to win, do you think he meant for a few years or do you think he meant forever? if he meant forever, as he probably did, then the Cold War is still going.
2949. No proposition has a binary True or False answer / No proposition has a binary True or False value / Propositions generally should not have a binary True or False value / The way to fix logic is to replace binary outcomes with sheer tests of consistency -> you don't fully break out of the Gödel trap this way because practically nothing ever could do that anyway. that part is not what matters. ideally the point of logic isn't to derive facts about reality in a vacuum but instead to perform a basic sanity test of whether statements you already have could possibly be correct or are almost definitely wrong. arguably, that is the thing that logic actually excels at even as it is inappropriate for many other things.
2950. Is a Saiyan attack a social construct by earth people? / Is Saiyans attacking the earth a social construct by earth people? -> field: existential materialism. a question to probe one of the central fallacies of anarchism. anarchists and postcolonial theorists toss around "social construct", "social construct". but the actions of another population outside your population are not a social construct within your own population. if you live in China, all the awful things the United States does can't be regarded as a social construct, because they are materially happening, and material happenings have to be countered with material responses. likewise within the United States, Marxism in other countries cannot be treated as a social construct, it has to be regarded as something the whole country as a material object is doing for material reasons.
      note that this Item is a question, and ideologies that want to be total blockheads can respond to it with wrong answers as long as those answers fully incorporate all the information in the question. example: "of course a Saiyan attack is a social construct, all culture is made up and every country has the right to forcibly change another country's culture whenever it thinks that culture is bad". you can already see how people's views on the origin of imperialism lead to things like beating up the Middle East and making it worse and worse rather than better.
2951. Individual choices cannot be ethical / There are no ethical choices under capitalism (in reference to every individual decision, not just products) / Under capitalism, no individual decision each person makes every day is categorically ethical, and it is arguable every single individual decision can be unethical no matter what the question is and what the chosen option is / Ethics is nothing, general-sense historical materialism is key -> after years of relatives throwing boxes in the trash before I could even take them out usable for recycling I developed a very negative view of individual choices and how much an individual can do to prevent their daily existence from leading to a bad future. it's meaningless to say individual choices don't matter, but the more important question than whether they matter is whether every single thing you do from sunrise to sunset can be morally wrong no matter how much you try for it not to be. and it's very possible the answer is yes.
2952. ??
2953. Freedom allows oppression to thrive / The more freedom people have, the more freedom they have to oppress each other -> something neither Western Marxism nor anarchism really want to acknowledge. the problem of the United States is almost precisely that individuals get upset at each other for various reasons and then they spread out apart from each other so far that they gain more power over each other and become more oppressive. Western Marxism dances in circles trying to find the "ideological state apparatuses" that allow this while anarchism thrashes around trying to find and destroy the Spanishness Office that rules individuals and could do this. it becomes relatively obvious neither of these angles make sense if you simply understand what a shovel dream is. (this may be the same proposition as Q29,54 but I am not totally sure.)
2954. Anarchy is the most authoritarian thing there is / Anhierarchy causes individuals to become sovereign States over themselves that, through their ability to reject interactions and relationships, remove self-determination or internal "mind democracy" from other individuals, superficially similar to the way anhierarchy between nation-states creates First-World coercion producing Third-World "tyranny" / Anarchy Is The Most Authoritarian Thing There Is (slogan) -> slogan associated with unfinished MDem chapter "ProblemOfAnarchy"/"rain". the concept is that when there is no government the horizontal actions of individuals merely replace and perform the same regulatory actions government would do, because all populations of people have similar basic needs and they will all use the means available to them at the moment to achieve those needs. relationships and relationship boundaries are forced to play the role of The State, and in certain senses relationships become "authoritarian". can also refer to more general processes of Filamentism where if there are no central decisions the process of a population structuring itself takes the form of every surrounding individual repeatedly dealing out punishment until the target individual miraculously figures out how to do exactly what they need and have the capacity to do it really well. most technically, this slogan is referring not to particular Anarchist Social-Philosophical-Material Systems called "anarchy", but to the structural open-plurality of anektiry — but very few people throughout recent history have bothered to give the concept of anektiry or anhierarchy its own proper name, hence the colloquial use of "anarchy" in these edgy slogan phrases.
2955. ??
2956. ??
2957. Every "Dragon Ball" gets closer to Marxism / The more Journey to the West there is the closer it gets to Marxism-Leninism -> China's warring states period: not Marxism. Buddhism adn Xuanzang's journey: not Marxism. Journey to the West: closer to Marxism. Dragon Ball: closer to Marxism. Bardock : closer to Marxism. critiquing Dragon Ball: literally Marxism-Leninism if you do it right
2958. ??
2959. ??
2960. ??
2961. Individual decisions cannot manufacture Freedom
2962. Empowering the individual is impossible without a science of society -> everyone acts like individual choices can fix everything. everything. but most of the time that's impossible to pull off because making the correct individual choice requires having information about what the choice will result in, that none of us actually have. you can directly throw Gödel's incompleteness theorem at that claim. it's impossible to reason your way to the correct decision when reasoning never perfectly grounds itself in reality. so in effect, it's impossible to use individual decisions to create Freedom. there we go, first decent logical proof against Guattari. as ironic as using propositional logic may be given what I just said. that doesn't matter right now.
2963. ??
2964. ??
2965. ??
2966. ??
2967. ??
2968. ??
2969. You cannot donate a job / It is impossible to donate a job / Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he eats for life (framed as meta-Marxist metaphor for the ability of the proletariat or the next generation to form societies and movements precisely when the previous generation is even allowing them to earn anything instead of hogging a bunch of linked teeny business territories for not-becoming-factories-or-institutions and pushing the next generation out of society) -> in the United States, one of the most common "ways to help" that people see publicly modeled is donating money. this has to do with the unusual structure of United States society where a public sphere of life which is not people's houses almost does not exist, and the only other adults anyone sees modeling anything amount to businesses. people all over commonly talk about social-democracy like it's some form of generosity where people will give taxes away just because they want to be Good and don't want to be Evil, because prejudice and hatred are Evil and hating the poor is a form of Evil prejudice but donating money is Good. but what they fail to think about whatsoever is that to overcome poverty people require their own income. especially when nobody is actively tearing apart Liberal-republicanism, nobody will defeat the landlord keeping people out of houses without an individual income, and the landlord will keep mobilizing money and lawyers to keep everyone on the streets. to have anyone who actually carries the social-democratic movement and doesn't simply drop it the moment the reactionaries say "no" you have to regenerate the proletariat. but to regenerate the proletariat you have to realize that jobs can never be a gift. jobs are always a matter of individuals competing to exist in a town and be part of a town, where either highly educated people or able-bodied people able to take a whole lot of prejudice and abuse and bullshit (pronounced bullshit) and stay standing are constantly shoving everyone else out and they have no option not to. the proletarian is in antagonism against every other individual, and an owner gifting somebody a job cannot change that — in some ways it only makes the contradiction worse by creating tension between the obligation to be "polite" to someone who gifts a job and pretend they're an ally of the same faction or "family" and the imperative to survive and remain intact and not let that person take advantage of you. if jobs were an item they would be a rank good that the strongest people fight over to have money for anything else. so there are two contradictions created when the proletariat is even created: contradiction between the survival of the proletarian and "being polite" to the owner to form the social bond and the society, and contradiction between the separate competing countable cultures that thousands of owners have thus created. there is not just one society, there are nearly 300 million societies depending on how many connected employees each one has.
      one of the great advantages that Liberal-republicanism supposedly boasts is that in its outward appearance it is apparently molecularized and is capable of understanding societies as a dynamic soup of different borderless dividing and re-dividing countable cultures which may be any size from 5 people to 5,000 people to 5 million people to 150 million people. but all of this is an artifact of the bourgeoisie initially dividing society into approximately 150 million societies; the shovel dream has been changed by changing the shovel, but not in any way that gives the shovel new agency to change its own shovel dream. meta-Marxism would change the shovel dream in order to become capable of changing the shovel when enough shovels have the right shovel dream regardless of whether it originated from shovel shape or from science.
2970. Subjects eat and occupy space / A Subject is an autonomous lifeform that eats and occupies space / A Subject is a conscious lifeform that makes decisions based on its biological needs
2971. Existing daily is extreme, not moderate / Existing daily is an extreme position, not a moderate one / It's infinitely more ideologically moderate to not exist than to exist / All mortal lifeforms who eat and take up space are extremists -> the claim that because all existence is subject to the chunk phenomenon, nobody can actually "mind their own business" without being considered an extremist by somebody and royally piss (pronounced piss)ing somebody off. everyone potentially conflicts with the existence of other people just by existing, because all goals are descriptions of changes to material reality, but some people won't want those changes, and may even be offended. with a particular morality, this transforms into the Buddhist proposition that when people come into conflict it's just better not to have goals. without that particular framing, this turns into the mathematical model of Filamentism, in which people's ability to align onto particular goals either increasingly builds social graphs or leads to vicious competition over who will be allowed to fill each open connection within the structure.
2972. ??
2973. ??
2974. Trotskyists must eat and occupy space / Trotskyists must eat and occupy space before spouting Trotskyism / Anarchists must eat and occupy space before building an anarchism / Poststructuralists must eat and occupy space before tearing apart signs -> jamming proposition. funny way to say that thought comes after being, or that chunk competition is fundamental. both of those sound pretty abstract. but it's harder to dispute the remark that first of all people eat and occupy space.
2975. Liberalism (pronounced Liberalism) is all political systems / Liberal-republicanism is the combination of every possible political faction into one country including Marxism and Anarchisms
2976. Every ideology perceives the absence of others as Freedom / Every ideology perceives the absence of other ideologies as Freedom -> the major reason I believe that "proposition NO" is unlikely. Trotskyists think the absence of mainstream Marxism-Leninism is Freedom, as do Anarchists. but Tories think the absence of Anarchism is Freedom because there are very specific kinds of things they want — some of them very ugly, like deliberate socioempire / Chunk Enterprise. sometimes this goes all the way into the gutter, with White people just thinking the absence of Black people or Palestinians is Freedom, etc. it depends on how much people let "culture" rule their population and buy into the concept of countable Cultures as fundamental to human existence while nation-states are not.
2977. ??
2978. ??
2979. ??
2980. ??
2981. ??
2982. ??
2983. ??
2984. ??
2985. Trotsky is your new hero / Trotsky is a petty-bourgeois hero, not a proletarian enemy / Socialism is stronger with the fusion of culturally-defined "socialists" into workers' movements than if each of the two stands alone (brought up in relation to theorist types such as Trotsky and Gramsci; framed as urging the theorists to not divide themselves out of the movement, so that every bourgeois progressive can then follow behind them; academics, intellectuals, philosophers) [147] -> could be spun as violet or orange. never let Trotskyists get too carried away with it by themselves though. keep them in check.
2986. ??
2987. ??
2988. Direct action can be invented by any ideology -> this explains a whole lot of actions taken by racists. especially incidents where racists would burn down arbitrary towns of Black civilians basically to prevent Reconstruction. Reconstruction was the unwanted system, and the violent horizontal attack was the direct action. this is why it's worth asking: is the United States paradigm of Liberal-republican nation-states being inherently useful as tools for enforcing morality on individuals a sensical paradigm, or is that concept just a synonym for colonialism which will ultimately generate anti-government, racist violence? is the alternative scenario where the United States never re-fused and the North just holds the separate South in a headlock like Japan and other overseas countries better or is it worse?
2989. ??
2990. Existentialism is why we never automate bosses -> intersubjectivity-theory Existentialists always insist that society changes because people Freely Decide to behave with empathy, but the contradiction in this is that for that to have any chance of being true you have to deliberately design society in tyrannical ways where the destiny of a lot of people is in the hands of one person that you hope is really really nice. if you truly make society depend on a whole lot of separate people at once it tends to behave in deterministic ways rather than the thoughtful rationalist way a single person might think. intersubjectivity Existentialists are likely to also be fine with the notion of schizoanalytic Escape, so they're going to love the notion of creating more capitalists to absorb people who are unsatisfied with current corporations by virtue of the fact the new ones are really really nice and they're supposedly going to spend their donations toward better political ad campaigns. the whole problem and fallacy of Existentialism is that it is all about dividing society into plural populations where the individuals supposedly see each other "as equals". Existentialism is when Twilight Sparkle and her five friends are such good friends that when they see Starlight Glimmer and how she is not linking up with people and being nice to them in exactly the way Twilight has friends, they mark her out as a threat to all their friends.
2991. If intersubjectivity actually worked, there would never have been a Cold War / If Existentialism actually worked, there would never have been a Cold War -> one of the major themes that Existentialism is constantly pounding through people's heads is that the normal, original state of things is for human beings to automatically and immediately experience empathy toward anything different [... angry redacted] Existentialism never caused anybody to experience mandatory tolerance of the USSR in this sense, or any Marxist party-nation.
2992. ??
2993. The Soviet diaspora was a second Trail of Tears / The Soviet diaspora was the second Trail of Tears -> literally nobody today notices the contradiction that all the progressive theories in the United States are about "culture" and "multiculturalism" and "prejudice" and arbitrary groups of people metaphysically tolerating each other in order to be perfect and not commit sin, but at the same time, the dissolution of the Soviet Union resulted in a bunch of people diffusing out of their towns or national populations to become citizens of other countries, showing that materially speaking nobody really has the inherent right to be part of A Culture and the chunk competition of all individuals to claim their most appropriate spots in the world inherently dissolves Cultures and creates intolerance of identities. on the ground, Cultures are not distinguishable from socially-linked populations arranged into material objects, and arguing to literally dissolve the way people are structured into a population is indistinguishable from declaring people have the wrong culture and a particular named Culture should be illegal.
2994. The United States forced workers' states to consent to capitalism / The United States forced the Soviet people to consent to capitalism -> if capitalism is freedom, then rape is love.
2995. ??
2996. ??
2997. ??
2998. Teamwork is nothing, ontology is key -> a little hyperbolic and potentially controversial by itself. but look into it deeper and you'll start to see what it means. people believe capitalists build successful business territories because the capitalist is a capable strong individual. they don't, they succeed simply because the answer was correct and people did the correct answer. at other times, more Existentialist people want to believe that just having a bunch of people together believing in each other achieves something. not necessarily. whether we're talking about a business or a movement, all the people in it have to do the correct answer or nothing happens. the correct answer to a problem simply is. it can be found by one person studying reality tirelessly or it can be found by a bunch of people in a party, but it's correct because it's true to the real world, not because a smart person said it or somebody believed in it really hard. Jeff Bezos is not key. Jeff Bezos' workers are not key all by themselves. Stalin, Trotsky, and Guattari are not key. the correct answer, the correct ontological model of how to arrange people, is what's key.
2999. Power vacuums begin with order vacuums / All class society begins from Filamentism / All class society begins from competition for parts of graphs to be the first to be connected to other parts of graphs

3000

3000. S0 Concept / S0 Item / mathematical structure Item / abstract category Item / Item for highly generic motifs -> general category of all S0 Concepts
3001. S Item / S1 Item / Signifier Item / motif / image / theme / signifier / elementary Signifier Item -> general category of all S Items; repeated image which is not necessarily being broken down into particular models of how it explains itself or what it prescribes
3002. S2 Statement / S2 Item / Signifier Item stating claim about first-level Signifiers / Signifier Item for interpreting Signifiers / double Signifier / claim Signifier / statement signifier / fan theory signifier / parallel ontology / local ontology / partial Particle Theory / partial Bauplan
3003. Item for wiki-internal categorizations / internal-category Item
3004. lion of Trotskyism -> L940 Leo as Trotskyist name
3005. lion of courage / lion of strength / predatory beast of strength / predatory beast of fortitude -> brought up in Warriors with LionClan whether they are cats or a myth about lions; can easily be a wolf etc.
3006. lion red in tooth and claw / lion of naturalistic carnivore life-history / Jack London wolf / carnivore supposedly in nature / predator ostensibly portrayed realistically -> predatory or violent animal used very close to literally yet at the same time used to make some kind of symbolic point; part of the definition of Saiyan species. may contain small biology errors, but is invariably presented as if the errors either are true in the fiction or don't matter
3007. lion of empire -> when lions in nature brutally fighting each other over open social slots is glorified and held up as an example of what human beings ought to be
3008. lion of leadership -> Kimba; when the lion is held up as the most capable leader but violence is pushed out of emphasis; variation of "lion of courage"
3009. lion of kindness / lion of Good / lion lying down with the lamb / predatory beast of kindness -> bible story; Zootopia?; when the lion or carnivore is specifically portrayed as discarding its predatory or violent nature to be the opposite
3010. lion as monster / carnivore as monster / lion of inhumanity / dark-forest inhabitant / here there be lions / here there be dragons -> funny story, I found this in the bible several times while looking for "lion of empire"
3011. "F1 Item" -> use for some kind of Item. for now F1 Items do not exist.
3012. F2 Statement / Signifier Item stating claim about first-level Signifiers which appears to be false
3013. "F3 Item" -> use for some kind of Item. for now F3 Items do not exist.
3014. storytelling device
3015. folklore trope
3016. fictional trope
3017. slogan or motif promoting Bolshevism / slogan or motif promoting mainstream Marxism-Leninism, hypothetical Trotskyist workers' state, Third World Marxist party-nation, etc.
3018. slogan or motif promoting non-proletarian Marxism / slogan or motif promoting Gramscianism/Althusserianism, etc.
3019. lion of England -> once the coat of arms of the House of Plantagenet, it became the symbol of the population of England. make no mistake, many so-called national symbols come from the union of a specific aristocratic family and its supporters
3020. Z0 Concept / physical structure Item / natural structure Item / real-world physics model
3021. Z Item / Z1 Item / basic Item / elementary Item / non-fictional model / material thing / widely-attested thing / work to be analyzed / field of works to be analyzed / real-world unique group of people / real-world unique organization / real-world event / real-world civilization
3022. Z2 Statement / Z2 Item / basic Item stating claim about elementary basic Items which appears to be substantiated / physics model / physics theory / physical equation
3023. "Z3 Item" -> use for some kind of Item. for now Z3 Items do not exist.
3024. ??
3025. ??
3026. ??
3027. ??
3028. ??
3029. ??
3030. M0 Meta-level Question
3031. M1 Mid-Positioned Trace / M1 Superpositional Object
3032. M2 Mid-Positioned Relation
3033. M3 Meta-Stating Question
3034. ??
3035. ??
3036. ??
3037. ??
3038. ??
3039. ??
3040. The Real -> Lacanianism
3041. The Symbolic -> Lacanianism
3042. The Imaginary -> Lacanianism
3043. floating signifier
3044. concept spaghetti / spaghetti
3045. moving like a room of helium atoms
3046. missing the forest for the trees / ignoring ergodicity / ignoring emergence
3047. God is dead
3048. existence philosophy (motif)
3049. nihilism (motif)
3050. Absurd (motif)
3051. theism / theists
3052. nonbelievers / atheists / atheism
3053. Atheism is something different from nonbelief
3054. Agnosticism is something different from nonbelief
3055. Truth specifically excludes physics / Truth (religion) / Māyā (Hinduism)
3056. invisible dragon in garage
3057. "if God exists in one of all possible worlds..."
3058. if Trunks exists in one of all possible worlds... / Trunks is invincible
3059. Socialism (Toryism) / socialicism / Socialism imperializing partisan politics
3060. not coming from specific ideology equals biased
3061. cultural Marxism (Toryism) -> Western Marxism, Marcuse, Gramscianism
3062. complete apathy -> depression symptom, interpretation of aliens - Dragon Ball
3063. Can't turn off my mind reading / thought broadcasting -> schizophrenia symptom, interpretation of mind reading - Wings of Fire
3064. science imperializing philosophy / scientism / scienticist / rationalism (Existentialism)
3065. squashing The Subject
3066. squashing Difference
3067. signifier mad libs
3040. assigned liberal at birth / the Democratic Party is a sheer collection of abstract ideas on a metaphysical quality slider, never an organization or collection of people (motif) -> the motif of Liberal-republicanism asserting people belong to a single population of "liberals" (progressives) regardless of whether they actually belong to multiple conflicting populations of non-center-LiberalRepublicans.
3041. The U.S. Democratic Party is metaphysical / The United States Democratic Party is a sheer collection of abstract ideas on a metaphysical quality slider, never ever an organization or collection of people (proposition) -> if you want to understand why "United States people refuse to detach from the Democratic Party" to form a social-democratic subpopulation of workers and bourgeois allies, this would be why. Liberal-republicanism has made people so dumb they don't even understand what collections of people are. this is not a joke or hyperbole, I'm very serious when I say this. people really really literally think the Democratic Party never becomes a collection of people and is always carved out metaphysically as if from the cosmos. so when you say the phrase "detach from the Democratic Party" they literally don't understand what that means because to them that's like deleting an idea from your brain or deleting an idea from the universe. in their mind it's a law of nature that anybody whose brain contains the concepts of the Democratic Party is automatically a member. it's like an SCP report. the Democratic Party is like a hazardous anti-meme that deletes the whole concept of any group of people being a material object that it's optional to be a part of when it invades your brain. if the Christian god is a mind virus the Democratic Party is a mind virus that's ten or a hundred times worse.
3042. undialectical idealism, historical existentialism, & class non-analysis / undialectical idealism, historical non-materialism, and class non-analysis -> there is this particular constellation of things opposite to Marxism that you often see put deliberately and directly together. this motif is not a strict science, there may be a varying number of things in it, but the key part of it is that the author takes all the anti-Marxisms and deliberately connects them almost as if they inherently went together.
3043. ??
3044. ??
3045. ??
3046. ??
3047. ??
3048. ??
3049. ??
3050. ??
3051. ??
3052. hegemony politics / musical chairs attack (MDem) / stealth activism (center-Liberalism) -> the motif of people trying to "prevent fascism" by filling up business territories or government institutions with linked groups of people who are "not fascists" as fast as possible before "the fascists" get in. one of the chief strategies of Gramscianism. seems to me like it doesn't really make any sense because it is so chiefly defined by creating countable Cultures of people who belong in a particular cultural identity and carrying out competition between countable Cultures to exist instead of each other existing. that seems a lot more like it's the problem than the way the problem is resolved. realistically, you have to get all your progressives to good landlords and good capitalists who will pay the landlords if you want to end the graph struggle, and put good capitalists in all the reactionary businesses before you can drive the reactionary workers out. the capitalists have to lead this for it to be maximally effective and actually bring change. but it also clearly demonstrates that capitalist populations consist of multiple separate populations divided based on something other than who is a capitalist; you don't have a capitalist population and a worker population, you have specifically a Tory population and a center-Liberal population that recruit people into the nation and "allow" them to work. the bigger question to me is what creates these two populations. it isn't religion, because two people can be Protestants and still divide into these two populations. it has something to do with the inherent collapse of Liberal-republicanism.
3053. Liberalism is designed to collapse into Toryism -> the claim that Liberal-republicanism is unintentionally designed to be incapable of making a good distinction between gridlock and conservatism, and as a result it encourages conservatives to build up a socially-linked countable Culture below the level of Liberal-republican politics that becomes unbreakable and eventually takes over the population. every single progressive policy can be defeated by gridlock but creating a "conservative" or reactionary party is an inherent loophole in that it doesn't have to successfully create anything new to win.
3054. assertion real thing is fictional / assertion that real thing appearing in fiction is instead fictional
3055. History books contain battles -> sounds like a tautology out of context, but is apparently a genuinely radical thing to say in the context of why people write fiction.
3056. Real life doesn't contain battles -> ever read a history book? it certainly used to. depending on your definition, real life also contains battles every time an Archon makes a terrible decision and prompts a protest.
3057. ??
3058. Historical idealism makes erasure easier / Historical non-materialism makes erasing demographic identities easier (Idealist history, historical existentialism; as viewed from general-sense historical materialism) -> if you don't believe that history is made of causal processes, you can always go around asserting that even when a bunch of transgender people all congregate into a community over and over that it isn't a repeated historical pattern because being trans is fabricated on the spur of the moment just like neopronouns are artistically created. people with a brain shouldn't find that any better because logically then it's erasing a countable culture which is also a repeated historical pattern. but Tories don't value having a brain. if you tried to explain to them that people voting Republican or Tory over and over was a historical pattern and progressives at universities are "making their life difficult" because they erase that pattern of Tory identity Tories probably still wouldn't get it. you might have a little more luck trying to explain that Trotsky was oppressed because Stalin's government didn't recognize being Trotskyist and if they did Trotsky might not have had to leave.
3059. Art is a substitute for world history textbooks / Only the arts can teach us about experiences, so only the arts can teach us about demographic identities -> incredibly common claim I even found in a Liberal-republican economics text, but seems to fail a whole lot in practice. Undertale and Deltarune caused people to misgender nonbinary people, Warriors caused people to bash Native Americans for "bad worldbuilding". people think Media Representation will teach people empathy, but in practice you have to hand them a textbook on the demographic identity to get them to understand what they're doing wrong. this + Warriors = medicine men don't exist. [148] this + Deltarune = misgendering Kris. this + Pokémon = never heard of France before. this + Kirby = Spongebob is sexless
3060. assertion description of an identity is not real / assertion that traits fitting a real-world demographic identity are not real
3061. what if men could date men?? / what if men could be in relationships with men?? / slash (motif of homosexuality being a fictional construct)/ I know I wrote a gay fanfic, but there's no way I could be a lesbian (generic) -> the fictional motif of insinuating a lack of understanding that homosexuality is real by claiming that it is an invented fictional concept.
3062. Spongebob is sexless / Spongebob is asexual / I don't know, that's just Kirby -> there is a very complicated distinction between the way people talk about gender when they have no idea what it is at all, and how they talk about it when they actually know what a transgender person is instead of not knowing. saying that Kirby is "sex unknown" or "gender unknown" is more likely to mean "I genuinely haven't thought about it, I don't know anything on the subject and I don't know where to start" than "I think Kirby could actually be neither male nor female". "neither male nor female" is a really hard concept for normal people to understand if they've never heard of it before. it's easy to create a fictional trope accidentally just by combining concepts but that doesn't equate to an understanding that such a thing is real. (just look at the difference between A/B/O and understanding what transgender people are, and you'll understand it almost exactly.) likewise, people can come to understand that animals in nature can have unusual sex configurations, having both gametes or reproducing asexually, but they tend to be bad at internalizing what that means, and to remain at a totally baseline lack of understanding of what gender is.
3063. medicine cat? medicine men don't even exist / Warrior cats is so unbelievable, I mean, medicine men don't even exist -> the motif of somebody failing to even recognize that a fantasy book is based on an older form of society and proceeding to bash real-world people-groups for bad worldbuilding. it's like there are at least two levels of racism. one is where you know Native Americans exist and you don't like them, or you put "interesting" people-groups on some kind of pedestal like more than being people they resemble some kind of reality TV show that you can attach fake rules and interpretations to. one is where you don't even know they exist and act like they're totally made up. this distinction seems to exist for all demographic identities.
3064. you think The Matrix is trans?? / The Matrix was wild! ...it's trans? / cis people relating to The Matrix but claiming it is not about transgender identity / cis people claiming The Matrix is about becoming a Tory but isn't about gender identity (red pill; redpilled) -> on one hand this is gross. on the other hand, viewed from a larger context it's just really, really weird. like, can somebody be charcoal-pilled, or orange-pilled? could you go around claiming The Matrix is about becoming a Trotskyist or an anarchist but isn't about being trans? Trotskyists totally feel like the way they see the world is the real model of the world, just like Tories do. do Tories even think about that.
3065. ??
3066. ??
3067. ??
3068. wealth brain / human beings as wads of money with legs -> the motif of people acting like cash or houses or donations are a genuine element of population dynamics or populational culture. exemplified by things like the Wings of Fire book where characters acted like a hunk of gold in and of itself produces basic needs and could in and of itself actually improve characters' lives if only the evil queen would let the hunk of gold be Free. it takes an expert to do any of those things, and the expert has to accept gold in the first place. the notion that gold is a badge for achieving high rank is what even makes it valuable.
3069. anarchy brain -> the motif of people acting like societies are directly made of Freedom or identity rather than being made of physical people or any kind of actual material structure which could descriptively explain why anybody would be breaching said Freedom or identities.
3070. protest brain / protest consciousness -> Marxist texts speak of "trade union consciousness", a phenomenon where because large groups of people can only participate in trade unions, large swaths of people only gain the level of understanding that unions are able to learn; said another way the union itself learns, so arranging people into correct structures is paramount for them to learn anything. in the United States, I'd swear there's such a thing as protest consciousness. people are only able to participate in protests, they're not even able to participate in unions or groups of workers, so they build their entire understanding and concept of what resistance is around individual protests. this seems to be one of the material causes of so many people believing anarchism. the notion of different subpopulations automatically liking each other and banding together for the sake of freedom mostly only applies to protests themselves, but because people now have protest consciousness, they go around talking like it's a general model of "community" and "The Multitude", like they understand the notion of transitioning a society into a new society when they don't yet understand that.
3071. don't like, don't read
3072. Parallel diversity of different fandom tags equals Freedom / Tearing any particular thing out of fanbases is dictatorial [149] -> not a proposition I have problems with, although interesting to analyze. it's... oddly specific when you think about it. why is this the claim that people spontaneously show up and make? if all the tags in a fandom are so different they don't even like each other, what exactly is it that binds them together and keeps them from tearing apart into multiple groups in the first place? what is it about the "united states of states of states" that people find so immediately intuitive as if it doesn't need to be explained? there is going to be some Anarchist theory bullshit sitting behind this ready to explain it that I'm going to need repeated to me 100 times.
      edit: yeah, there totally was. I had to go read an article specifically about anarchism for other reasons to finally run into it.
3073. united states of states of states / China full of Chinas full of Chinas / USSR of SSRs of SSRs / tribe of tribes of tribes -> the motif that a country is always just a voluntary link between demographics. that the United States is composed of Black women and White women spontaneously opting to be the same country, or Black women and White women opting to be women that then together with Black men opt to be the United States. etc.
      this motif is neutral. I am not trying to say it's bad or impossible to use well, although I would say it confuses and baffles me how intuitive this concept always is to everyone else for reasons I do not understand. or more specifically, how intuitive it is precisely to everyone who is oppressed while being completely unintuitive to a single individual with the power of oppression and as far as I can tell mostly ineffective on them. the sheer ineffectiveness of it on everyone I have ever known personally makes it greatly unintuitive to me, yet to everyone else there's almost no other way to think, and this always leaves me confused.
      I do have some days where I can almost understand it, specifically in cases like the USSR being made up of 14 republics, or a cluster of Iroquois tribes binding together into one big tribe. to me this motif makes lots of sense as a way to understand societies and history when you strain it through Communism or some very crimson-tinted general-sense historical materialism, but it doesn't make a lot of sense as anarchism, exactly the way everyone actually looks at it. so then I end up sitting around confused going, I'm supposed to understand the USSR as being effective specifically because it was made up of 14 nationalities that came together, but how is that even possible when it needed the Material System of Bolshevism to unite them? does this mean that when Trotsky attacked the Soviet Union he went against anarchism and the charcoal-tinted workers' state process? funny enough, that would actually make sense. but it's totally not the way anybody ever sees it in the United States. you don't see United States people going around saying "Trotsky brought down the USSR and that's why you have to vote Democrat, you don't want to become East Germany and let the Great Wall of Biden fall down only to let West Germany start hating and oppressing all people named Kevin". it'd certainly make internally-coherent sense in its own way, and yet nobody ever says it because everybody is committed to anarchism being the enemy of Communism but not the enemy of the United States government. doesn't that make anarchism literally "Western", full of prejudice in favor of "The West", and unable to do what "Settlers" claims? anarchism always completely twists my brain in knots because I always end up actually thinking about it and it never makes sense.
3074. united nonviolence of special oppressions -> the motif that a country is composed of "superior people" and a ton of endless categories of people who fail to function as perfectly as society's most elite people for some highly specific reason, that if you have any trouble getting into society there must be some highly specific reason you are specially oppressed which requires you to find other people who are specially oppressed exactly the same way and for all the highly specific groups to convince each other at length not to hurt each other and oppress each other. I am so tired of this, specifically because of that last thing. it's clear that over time our basic assumptions about capitalism and Liberal-republicanism have simply ceased to be true, and the way the whole thing operates is a bit different from the way people think. it seems less that people inherently want to accept each other because they're different and more like there are many separate subpopulations of people shoving each other around all trying to fit onto an island too small to fit all of them.
3075. LGBT+, STEM, and HASS are comparable | There is no meaningful difference between LGBT+, STEM, and HASS -> the claim that STEM and HASS are just clusters of identities based on particular theoretical frameworks — the art history framework, the music theory framework, the set theory framework, the game theory framework, the quantum mechanics framework, etc — and this is indistinguishable from the concept of grouping together gay people based on a theory of gay & lesbian identity with trans people based on a theory of transgender identity. each of these groups of people is socially connected to a philosophical theory of a real-world thing and then the theories are connected together. the question then arises: why are so many people against the notion of an LGBT+ population existing while they don't get immensely upset that HASS or STEM exists and say "STEM is made up! technologists and mathematicians have nothing in common, and I'm not even sure math exists!!". really think about it. people may have conspiracy theories that NASA is greedily taking money for its own sake, yet they don't typically say "NASA is in league with mathematicians to take our tax dollars". why is the case of LGBT+ efforts for government programs viewed so differently? united states of states of states + lesbian / gay = LGBT+. united states of states of states + physics = STEM.
3076. Capitalism ends through many rounds of "Absolutely Not" / United States capitalism ends when we realize every protest is about "NO (pronounced NO)" / proposition No (hypothetical transition to anarchism) -> derived anarchist proposition. the claim that in the United States, specific-sense historical materialism revolves solely around protests that say "no" to something, while movements about actually creating anything in particular won't form any enduring connections. protests about gender identity or abortion or specific forms of racism or even pollution aren't actually protests for anything, they're solely protests against somebody prohibiting or destroying something. there are an alarming number of examples for this. A) "Black Lives Matter": no police shootings. B) during COVID, there were more people than there should have been banding together across charcoal and rust factions to simply side with "no requirements". C) blanket resistance against "AI" without thinking about the origins of the problem in disorganization, conflation of products with individual Subjects, and the nonsense that is copyright disputes. "no AI". D) widespread negative sentiment against "social media", "phones", and The Big Guy that "greedily" devised them. these idle critiques are all "no" statements to merely take the thing away. E) "No Kings": it's in the phrase. arguments it could be true: this is the only kind-of convincing claim I've heard for how rival demographics could directly join together because of their identities despite the pressures of Liberalism. it's consistent with the notion that nations begin as population-societies which must begin with links and outer boundaries, by suggesting the boundary directly forms the population. argument it could be false: this could lead to horizontal conflict of two or more factions mutually protesting each other, as already happens on things like abortion clinics. argument 2 for false: this feels like it clashes really badly with the history of Afrikaners I briefly outlined in another entry. feels like an Afrikaner model could be as useful for challenging some of these claims as the Trotsky model
3077. replacing Shadow with Sonic / replacing Tails with Sonic -> silly metaphor from MDem drafts. gets a little complicated to explain quickly. the point of it is that neither two individuals nor two populations are interchangeable due to the fact they are separate objects, depending of course on the context and reasons behind people trying to swap them. sometimes this doesn't apply because the shapes of two things are comparable enough they actually will behave the same way, allowing for historical materialism. sometimes this does apply because people assume that one population is the whole world instead of realizing that societies emerge in plural from different points and appropriately modeling them each behaving and interacting separately game-theory style.
3078. thing which is illegal in Europe but continues in the United States -> there are so many of these, and you learn a lot about what people consider "democracy" to be in different countries every time you hear about them.
3079. thing which is illegal in the United States but continues in Europe -> there are fewer of these, but it tells you a lot more about Europe.
3080. cultural religion member / cultural Christian / secular Jew / cultural Hindu
3081. Protestant or Catholic atheist -> famous story from Northern Ireland which is seemingly being repeated only a little less violently in the United States
3082. cultural Tory / ideological state apparatus (people belonging to a socially-linked group of people which claims not to purposefully have political beliefs but transmits bad political ideas as a tactic for staying socially-linked and maintaining group agency and "freedom" versus its surroundings) -> a term I said in irony once but am terrified could be real. the motif of people being part of a family or town of Tories and being fiercely loyal to "their family" or socially-linked group of people without actually bothering to believe Tory political beliefs for their content. the group itself believes the Tory beliefs, rather than the individuals, and the overall structure of the group compels all the individuals to act as if they believe Toryism. however, the cultural Tories then proceed to practice Tory beliefs whether they really believe them or not.
3083. Catholicism is a backdoor for Bolshevism -> found this one in Democracy for Realists. had a good laugh at it. who would bother to organize entire Catholic churches just to make sure everyone becomes atheists and learns Marxism? but this is really how people thought back in the 1950s or so. the actual content of Bolshevism isn't what defines Communism to people, it's failing to be loyal to a particular population-society.
3084. Big Brother
3085. not my president / #NotMyPresident (Twitter tag) / Donald Trump is not my president (2017 bumper sticker statement) -> a seemingly-simple slogan that opens up a huge discussion of what is the correct way to study groups of voters using set theory
3086. Kevins don't belong in Germany / Only someone who doesn't belong in Germany would be named Kevin -> an interesting phenomenon where in the 1990s people in Germany were adopting names from United States movies and some people became convinced these families of people were pretenders who must be giving their kids cool names because they have nothing else to show. [150] the dissolution of East Germany sure looks a lot less "uplifting" when you put this on the timeline as what was happening at about the same time
3087. Karens don't belong in Seattle / People named Karen don't belong in the United States -> Karen takes longer to explain than Kevin, I feel like. Karen was a popular name at approximately the same time as the baby boom, so it's partially synonymous with "boomers", but not precisely. there was something about putting an exact name and portrait on ill-informed older people that made it easier for people to point to them as a group and point out the bad things they were regularly doing. at the same time it's concerning that this is the way it had to be done. you look at Marxist academics and the non-Gramscians will act confused why all the people in the United States aren't easily united into one population around local proletarian struggles, beginning at "meeting them at whatever consciousness they're at". but if you observe the motions of real people what you really see is weird things like everybody uniting against The Karens. the place that people are "at" is everybody sorting into these highly demographic-based subpopulations like all the White women of a particular age range likely to be named Karen, all the 25-year-old transgender people named Alex, the Black people in city A, the Black people and Latinos in city B. and then the Alexes and Brookses start going on about the Karens and how the Karens are terrible to other subpopulations as a countable Culture. there is this distinct natural division into competing subpopulations and need to locate all the Karens in order to surround them and cut them out where otherwise there would be no way to control them. it makes no sense at first sight and it's exhausting. all I can be sure of is that human beings don't naturally form into nation-states, and it would appear they form into countable Cultures at least slightly smaller than the United States, similar to if you hypothetically cut the Soviet Union in half and made half of it Trotskyist.
3088. greeting nonbinary Representation with misgendering / misgendering Frisk (Undertale) / misgendering Kris (Deltarune) -> I swear this one is in every other YouTube comments section. I think that really says something about how effective Media Representation actually is or isn't. Kris + signifier mad libs = this.
3089. Propositions appeal to Liberal-republicans / Proposition-based logic appeals to Liberal-republicans / Propositional logic is appealing to center-Liberals — anarchists and staunch schizoanalysts excepted -> something I hope is true, although I don't know for sure that it's true. some of the reasoning of this ontology project is that I hope, in theory, that non-binary proposition-based logic could be enough to pick off a couple center-Liberal social-democrats. I don't expect the impact of that to be very big. so more than that I see this as a project for Marxists and allies which is uniquely structured to be able to survive the pressures of Liberal-republicanism and come out the other end having started with a form that looks conventional to Liberal-republicanism and ended with a form that has the feel that Marxism and any associated historical events were obvious, the "last thursdayism" of philosophy where the way things are always existed even though it clearly didn't.
3090. Liberal-republican institutions are the brain of the United States / The constitution is the brain of the United States / Washington's filter proposition (constitution and Liberal-republican national institutions) -> traditional Liberal-republican position. dubious. doesn't explain the process of right-Liberalism actually overcoming Liberal-republican institutions.
3091. Bolshevism is over
3092. Quality-slider speak is a cover for bigotry / center-Liberal appeals to alchemy-like metaphysical quality sliders conceal bigotry / Arceus really did a number on Ultra Space, huh? (center-Liberal parties) -> the more time goes by and the more I look back at each instance of this phenomenon, the more I begin to feel like every word center-Liberals say in the vein of "extreme" and "too much" is an after-the-fact justification while the real reasons are snap judgements against something outside and unknown that they don't want to learn about. center-Liberalism is this particular socially-linked group of people that protects itself by resisting any suggestion that it could be structured differently. and yet, everyone is trying to do this totally impossible thing of integrating racial struggles into that, when it's like, you are trying to fight racism by using bigotry. that is always going to result in problems, either in people failing to accept anti-racism education because they're too steeped in bigotry, or a select group of people who does accept it becoming bigoted against other socially-linked groups of people who do anything to threaten center-Liberalism even in cases where that thing would benefit other demographic identities. this approach to fighting racism will generally manufacture a group of dedicated racists. a kind of, dark solidarity between one group of people who have not been absorbed into the center-Liberal SPS and other groups of people excluded for other prejudices. even the worst filters you can think of are dialectical. there is always an unintended effect next to the intended effects based on the fact two separate objects are actually interacting.
3093. ??
3094. China's ideals apply to the U.S. / If somebody in China "believes that everybody", it includes the United States / If somebody in China says an "I believe that everybody" statement, the United States is obligated to do it -> one of the easiest counterpoints against the effectiveness of "I believe that everybody" statements. If the people of China don't get to vote in United States elections, how do you really know that a bunch of people saying "I believe that everybody should" will actually change reactionaries instead of the result being them complaining that a different population of people with different values shouldn't get to tell them what to do?
3095. ??
3096. "Compartmentalization" is a form of compartmentalization -> I think this thought had come to me when listening to a FNaF theory where Vanessa used the word "compartmentalized" to describe not truly having dealt with something and in one sense only really having categorized it. I said, yeah, now there's an accurate metaphor. so much of the way we use language, and by extension philosophy itself, has turned into this weird exercise of attempting to self-contain things that aren't self-contained and think we understand them just because we've labeled them. we labeled abuse and manipulation! now we understand all forms of them in all contexts. we labeled structural racism! now we clearly know the entire context for why it happens and how to prevent it. but it doesn't actually work that way.
3097. There is no such thing as Idealism -> the claim that nobody actually desires to believe in Idealism, and people only believe in Idealisms because they happen to also be FreeWillIsms; all Idealisms are actually variations of Existentialism. I think this is slightly incorrect because people really have this thing for inventing metaphysical sliders that go from one end to the other and trying to abstract away that the "balance" in the middle always has a way of coming to be instead of being what automatically happens when you avoid the "ends" of the slider. I still don't entirely know why it's so appealing to do that.
3098. What does slider-speak actually achieve? -> this is a good example of an M3 question because it undoubtedly has multiple answers.
3099. "I believe that everybody" statement -> a more specific category of statements than it might sound; this generally doesn't include "to-you" statements like "I believe everybody should have housing". this is about moralistic statements like "I believe that everybody should vote for Joe Biden" (are there even any ballot boxes left?) or "I believe that everybody should donate to charity" (a clear case of acting like everyone is the bourgeoisie to appeal to their sense of Filament in-group and trick them to into doing things). "I believe that everybody" statements are a problem because they often describe impossibilities that people can't actually be made to do, whether this is for bad reasons where people are becoming uncontrollable through a Vegeta effect or because of reasonable physical limitations.
3100. ??
3101. What is the meaning of chunk competition? / Why are we here competing over gentrifying neighborhoods? / What is our purpose in working at one corporation against another? / What is the cosmic significance of anyone fighting for the right to live in the United States versus move away? / What is the greater meaning of dissolving the Soviet Union and making its people move to Australia versus fighting to keep it standing so people can be Ukranian and Kazakh? / Why are we here trying to build China-specific industry when the world is trying to tear the whole country apart? / What is the greater meaning of trying to push for Trotskyism over socialisms-in-one-country? / What is the greater meaning of trying to push for socialism-in-one-country versus Trotskyism, particularly should Trotskyism-in-one-country be possible? -> humanity's biggest question that nearly nobody thinks about. Stalin's government apparently could not answer this question in a satisfactory way (or promote the formation of groups who did), leading to the slow dissolution of the republic into its individuals.
3102. What is the purpose of a republic?
3103. What is the purpose of Liberal-republicanism? / What is the purpose of a democratic republic? (Liberal-republicanism, Liberalism) -> many people think the answer is obvious, but it really isn't.
3104. ??
3105. ??
3106. ??
3107. ??
3108. postcolonial impulse -> the concept that countable cultures wanting to be freed from empire, imperial colonies, or "Stalinist tyranny" does not inherently generate freedom or democracy by itself and can exist for any ideology dissatisfied with being wedged inside any other ideology no matter how toxic the inner ideology actually is. Existentialists are unable to notice this, and characterized by the fallacy that Trotskyite conspiracies must necessarily be postcolonial even if capitalist restoration inside a Trotskyism is considered equally postcolonial. this in turn opens the gates for Afrikaner types and Tories to act on the postcolonial impulse and assert that they have the right to be free from center-Liberal governments and Black people.
3109. Culture is revolutionary / Countable cultures are revolutionary because they are "communities", which is any socially-linked graph of people -> implied in a whole lot of Existentialist-Structuralist and sometimes anarchist-labeled stuff. sounds super dubious on the surface, and yet hard to disprove. exemplified by: A) widespread pushes for nonbinary representation and rights after a bunch of random teenagers standardized the word on tumblr. B) theories of disability that say that particular clusters of disabled people linking together and passing around culture and presenting culture to others and people requiring this arbitrary local culture to be respected is the gateway to liberation for various disabled groups. C) theories of racism that acknowledge the tendency of groups of people pushed out of society to cluster together and form a concept of a particular racial subpopulation
3110. Communists as some arbitrary non-Communist ideology / Communists as some arbitrary ideology that is not Bolshevism -> quite common if you would like to present Communists as stupid idiot garbage trash
3111. Communists as subset of Utopian Socialism
3112. Communists as hippies
3113. Communists as anarchists [151] -> extremely common in PragerU style videos. they absolutely cannot tell the difference between Communists, anarchists, postcolonial theorists, and progressive Existentialist-Structuralist tradition members whatsoever
3114. Communists as religious prophets [152] -> featured in Aster/Aubepine.
3115. Communists as concealing nationalism / socialicizing the population / nationalizing the people / socializing the people -> appears in: 1984, resembles: Duginism.
3116. ??
3117. ??
3118. ??
3119. No Communist is a functioning adult -> it often feels like a lot of Liberal-republicans and Existentialists think this — not least of all Lacanians, who think they know everything about the human life cycle and psychological maturity process based on a bunch of philosophy that isn't science. well, the good thing is we can almost solidly say it's false, because all of the people who became Communist leaders were these highly-educated, really high-functioning people by anybody's standards. it isn't your degree of functioning that actually determines what "swatch color" you get.
3120. ??
3125. ??
3130. ??
3135. ??
3140. ??
3145. ??
3150. ??
3155. ??
3160. ??
3165. ??
3169. ??
3170. artistic signifier equation / signifier equation in the middle of poetry, literature, or the arts (poetic, artistic; structuralist linguistics) / the snark was a boojum you see / selagadoola means menchickaboola roo -> I like the Cinderella example because it literally has "means" or "equals" in the middle of it.
3171. empty but grammatical sentence / grammatical sentence without real signs / the gostak distims the doshes / colorless green ideas sleep furiously / the snark was a boojum you see (nonsensical English sentence) / selagadoola means menchickaboola roo (nonsensical English sentence) / technically grammatical statement / technically grammatical paragraph / technically grammatical text / technically grammatical presentation / technically grammatical sermon -> I believe I recorded this Item after finding an AI generated Christian sermon, because all the sentences sounded a bit like this.
3172. fruit flies like a banana / stroked his lover with the edge of a knife / cellar filled with wine and spirits, but not a bottle to be seen
3173. ??
3174. ??
3175. why didn't they just build bigger towns / town more than big enough for the two of us -> the fictional motif of some assortment of people in a pre-industrial historical period deciding that a space actually can be shared instead of having a shootout over it. appears in: Undertale, that one really controversial MLP episode with the bison where people took it as sheer historical revisionism largely because the Zecora episode was so bad. so yeah, this motif isn't always a good thing. I find it weird that non-Marxists would get upset about historical accuracy when the anarchist position of making everything utopian is actually more logically coherent, but it's very interesting to study how people come to that conclusion.
3176. town ain't big enough for the two of us -> the fictional motif of cowboys and outlaws or some other assortment of people in a pre-industrial historical period deciding a space cannot be shared and having some kind of shootout over it. note that this can exist in other settings than Westerns — FNaF infamously had a movie sequence modeled after Kurosawa movies which was this.
3177. ??
3178. humorous euphemism for trash / please pick up your campaign promises and put them in the designated bag / what kind of Lacanianism is this? / what kind of Western-Marxism is this?
3179. humorous euphemism for trash-talking / I'm in the mood to South-Park South Park
3180. stupid idiot garbage trash / casting ideology or movement as stupid idiot garbage trash -> you've almost certainly seen it. when someone implies that a particular ideology is so incredibly stupid it ought never have butted its head into society or into the discussion. sometimes hidden behind the word "extreme" when the true connotative meaning of extreme is "idiotic"
3181. progressives as stupid idiot garbage trash / gender studies professors as stupid idiot garbage trash -> Toryism; see Dinesh D'Souza's awful book
3182. non-Liberals as stupid idiot garbage trash
3183. Communists as stupid idiot garbage trash / Communist allies as — -> see: Starlight Glimmer, "dumbacabra" (Aster/Aubepine)
3184. Trotskyists as stupid idiot garbage trash -> not very common, but if you see it anywhere, it will come from Stalin followers. from anyone else, almost always takes the form of "Communists —"
3185. party-nations as stupid idiot garbage trash / Communist parties as — / Communist theorists as — -> distinct from the concept of targeting mere individual Communist allies or "believers", this is the concept that Communist parties trying to take control of society have no place in society or have forfeited their place in society because the definition of a particular nation-state somehow explicitly excludes Communist parties. the concept that Communist parties violate what it means to be Russian, Chinese, or United-States, and are not administering this core populational process of life or individuation properly. I think of the quote in Heidegger's letter that supposedly 'internationalism cannot make a better nationalism', vaguely implying that somehow there is something fundamental about nationalism that Communists do not understand because they do not seek to characterize nationalism "for its own sake" without the possibility of Bolshevism. if so, what even is it? I certainly do not understand that.
3186. imperialists as stupid idiot garbage trash -> see: Dragon Ball. concept that imperialism is specifically such a stupid thing to do it will destroy a civilization, stipulating that imperialists are simply the enemy because they have bad inferior trashy culture, yet assuming it is not necessary to ask where it comes from. may be presented with the concept of Free Will wedged somewhere in the middle. one of the most bizarrely nazi ways to oppose nazis, and yet depressingly common
3187. employees as stupid idiot garbage trash -> only common in the most insufferable right-Liberal works; prepare for said works to consistently confuse Director types versus Serializer types / Careerists versus capitalists, and try to give pure owners all the credit for inventing things
3188. ethnic group as stupid idiot garbage trash / city population as stupid idiot garbage trash / neighborhood as stupid idiot garbage trash / legal or illegal immigrants as — -> I am convinced there is not a big difference between Tories going on racist rants about how people in Detroit or wherever have inferior culture and that's why they're poor ("1350" conspiracy theory), and center-Liberal/Existentialist anticommunism
3189. homeless people as stupid idiot garbage trash
3190. elite experts as stupid idiot garbage trash / university professors as stupid idiot garbage trash -> one of the most contradictory concepts you hear out of Toryism: acting as if the literal most educated and most qualified people in fields are unnecessary to society just because Bob from South Dakota doesn't understand what they're saying. and the more people believe in capitalism the stupider the statement gets — right-Liberals go around acting like taxes are so bad and it's best to choppify society into the most autonomous chunks it can be, but then when they get their wish and that results in Careerism and households expending their own money to train elite experts who get into government bodies and start ordering people around, there's still presumed to be some argument that they don't inherently have the right to do that. all elite experts are just expressions of capital the same as a business territory is.
3191. art students as stupid idiot garbage trash
3192. specific scientific field as stupid idiot garbage trash / string theorists as stupid idiot garbage trash
3193. what passes for macroeconomics in Croatia / Third World professors as stupid idiot garbage trash -> "macroeconomics in Croatia" is an anecdote I heard from relatives, in which a professor from Croatia with a degree was upset he had to get another entire degree to be considered worthy of performing economics in the United States. because he "only" knew what passes for macroeconomics in Croatia! Croatian economics, not real economics. this is what happens when you believe that Third World countries are badly developed "because of" Bolshevism: once they dismantle Bolshevism, then it becomes that the countries are inferior because they have "Croatian" economics or "Chinese" economics.
3194. disabled people as less than real people / ableism (motif) -> I feel slightly uncomfortable labeling this one along with the "stupid idiot garbage trash" entries because of the way it's possible to take it literally — Tories saying disabled people not being able to to do things should mean they're not good for things. so I guess we Take It Seriously on this one
3195. ??
3196. ??
3197. ??
3198. ??
3199. particular name as stupid idiot garbage trash / people with specific name as stupid idiot garbage trash -> superset of: Karen, Kevin, etc. this concept was discussed in Freakonomics, and unfortunately it seems a bunch of people deployed the "pointing out racism is being racist" fallacy to mistakenly denounce the book.
3200. ??
3201. [S] random event generator -> "Fetch" / FNaF brought this up?
3202. ??
3097. Subject-style being / virtual-pet-style being
3098. excessive subject -> a Subject defined by its unpredictability. sounds like a good definition of Freedom at first, but makes people indistinguishable from twenty-sided dice.
3099. excessive raincloud
3100. ??
3149. that (minus a buck fifty) / the zero dollars that doesn't get the coffee
3150. the buck fifty that gets the coffee / a buck fifty / a dollar fifty / the dollar and fifty cents that actually gets the coffee -> I use this metaphor way too much in too many contexts. one time I referred to the concept of a Yamcha + Vegeta fusion as Vegeta being "the $1.50", as if even though only one thing is useful you actually do need both things. one time I may have referred to Rosa Luxemburg's theory of movements or Trotsky's projection of international permanent revolution as the movement being "the $1.50". sometimes I use the metaphor as if "that" is useful and necessary, and sometimes I use it like "that" is not useful.
3155. ??
3160. ??
3161. phoenix
3162. bestiary reindeer / Parandrus / Tarandrus
3163. panthera (mythical beast)
3164. griffin / gryphon
3165. winged horse / pegasus
3166. European dragon / "draco" dragon
3167. unicorn / monoceros (unicorn)
3168. chimera
3169. hydra
3170. filtration / filtering -> produces movement with Bauplan
3171. filtration sifts out party-nation / unions and party are different / complicated system of pulleys (Lenin) -> retrieve Lenin text
3172. filtration and party-nation are same thing -> The Communist Necessity
3173. filtration requires Subjectivity -> Marcuse
3174. filtration through morality-shaming -> Gramscianism, Existentialism, center-Liberalism
3175. [S] filtration through national essentialism -> Toryism
3176. ??
3177. [S] fictional race
3178. [S] humanoid being / humanoid race
3179. [S] beast humanoid / furry
3180. [S] intelligent beast / civilized beast
3181. [S] intelligent monster / intelligent kaiju / civilized monster
3182. [S] intelligent construct
3183. [S] fictional being for which physics is suspended
3184. [S] toon-style being / rubberhose cartoon style being / Acme cartoon style being
3185. [S] toon animal -> intelligent beast - in the capacity of - toon-style being
3186. [S] mythical being / paranormal being / supernatural being / magical being
3187. [S] tokusatsu-style being / 1960s live-action style being
3188. [S] LCD-keychain-style being -> see: Digimon, Tamagotchi
3200. purely-hypothetical historical period / purely-hypothetical civilization or structure that population has
3201. horses in cubicles -> can we just take a moment to appreciate the horses in boring offices and shouting at each other in traffic in James Baxter's story, versus the way civilizations of horses are depicted in My Little Pony, with these tiny businesses and walkable everything. even Manehattan is idealized to where nobody actually hates living there. there's a particular disconnect between the theory of society in MLP and anything that's realistic or superficially realistic yet very nonsensical as in Adventure Time. horses driving cars is really silly, and yet, this complete walkability you see in MLP is nothing like what living beings experience in real life versus these surprisingly relatable nonsense images of horses in cubicles. (Adventure Time season 8, episode 18)
3210. animal intended as realistic animal / semi-realistic beast / intelligent animal in nature / intelligent Eukaryote in nature / intelligent organism in nature -> includes Warrior cats. does not include Wings of Fire because of the existence of certain uniquely human behaviors in the books, like small capitalism.
3211. unrealistic animal / imaginary organism in nature / unrealistic organism in nature / flatlanders in nature / kaiju in nature / unicorns in nature
3212. ??
3215. ??
3219. ??
3220. animal rank (ecology)
3221. animal spatial rank (speculative fiction) -> see: Saiyans, Icewing leaderboard
3222. animal tribal population / animal tribe -> Warriors
3223. animals in warring states period / animal feudalism -> Guardians of Ga'Hoole
3224. animals in feudal order or monarchy / animal feudalism -> a couple SCP entries
3225. animal empire
3226. animal republic
3227. animal city or town
3228. ??
3229. ??
3230. fictional workers' state -> almost always framed negatively in fiction, and yet, there are more of them than you'd think there'd be.
3231. fictional federation of workers' states
3232. planetary workers' state (fiction) -> bizarrely not synonymous with Trotskyism. in fiction the equivalent of Trotskyism is usually multiple worlds
3233. fictional Communist International
3234. galactic Communist International (fiction) -> one way to end Dragon Ball.
3235. Communist International of universes or timelines -> one way to end Dragon Ball Super.
3236. galactic cold war
3237. cold war over timelines
3238. ??
3239. ??
3240. ??
3241. planetary nation / planetary population / planetary tribe
3242. planetary civilization / planetary civilizational formation
3243. planetary kingdom
3244. planetary empire
3245. planetary imperial colony / planetary Third-World civilization / planetary exploited tribal population
3246. planetary army
3247. planetary police
3248. galaxy or universe police
3249. cosmic police -> the fictional motif of a police force that operates outside the material universe, perhaps over a multiverse or from the afterlife, etc.
3250. ??
3251. [S] seasons as impending doom / winter is coming -> see: Animal Farm
3252. [S] seasons as warring states / seasons as kingdoms
3253. ??
3254. [S] chunk competition / all-directional contradiction between individuals / chunk competition across the spatial slot hierarchy
3255. [S] spatial slot hierarchy
3256. [S] Filament / tiny local subpopulation / nameless tiny subpopulation
3257. [S] Filamentism
3258. [S] networkism
3259. [S] Blobonomics
3260. [S] Meshonomics
3261. [S] Market Society
3262. [S] behavior-control device / behavior-control machine -> business territory, Blobonomics
3263. [S] Blobonomist / society predictor
3264. [S] Everybodyism / nameless prejudice against all other individuals
3265. [S] Populationism / nameless prejudice against all other populations
3266. ??
3270. Anarchism is acting as if you are already free / Freedom is using individual will to realize Anarchism -> well, here it is. a claim said by anarchists which says the thing I call Existentialism is one specific form of Anarchism. (found in the context of an interview with David Graeber, who was claimed to be an anarchist at some point in time.) I think this claim is inherently contradictory such that it could not possibly be true. if anarchism is acting as if you are free, some people are already anti-vaccine, anti-immigrant, anti-Islam/anti-atheist Tories before they do that, and then they can do "anarchism" on top of being a Tory. so Anarchism would then be a system where half of the population transitions to fascists with a fascist state and half of the population is Anarchists and the fascists kill the Anarchists (potentially). I think most anarchists would not say fascism is part of any anarchism, so this is not a definition which can actually mark off where anarchism starts and ends. on the other hand, the claim that anarchism generates Liberalism is more plausible, because nothing rules out Liberalism being what anarchism looks like in reality, and it doesn't rule out the possibility that anarchism generates Liberalism and Liberalism then generates fascism.
3271. Freedom is the discovery of escape routes / Freedom is the rearrangement of social connections -> schizoanalysis
3272. Freedom is the ability to make decisions
3273. Freedom is the absence of unnecessary populational divisions -> Lenin, Trotsky
3274. Freedom is the absence of manipulation and abuse by territory owners -> Lenin, some anarchisms
3275. ??
3276. Freedom is individuals having no accountability to others
3277. Freedom is business territories existing without government
3278. Freedom is the discovery of new possibilities / Freedom is the creation of new combinations -> MDem
3279. many tiny fragmented things equals Democracy / decentralization (chopping things up into tiny pieces to supposedly create Freedom)
3280. (Communist leader) ruined my life / implied statement that specific Communist leader ruined individual's life / explicit or implied statement that miscellaneous ruler who is not clearly distinguished from Communist leaders within the framings of the text ruined individual's life
3281. Lenin ruined my life
3282. Stalin ruined my life -> three kinds of people say this. Existentialist-Structuralist tradition members; Trotskyists; anarchists.
3283. Mao ruined my life
3284. anticommunist memoir -> like an anticommunist fable, but historically realistic. despite the name of this entry, may be either a real anecdote or a fictional story that resembles one
3285. Che Guevara ruined my life -> relatively rare versus the others, although there's no particular reason you'd expect it to be. "Mao —" is one of the most common for some reason.
3286. Ho Chi Minh ruined my life
3287. Trotsky ruined my life -> you practically never ever see this in anticommunist memoirs one can typically find in the United States. but anyone from the Third World or whose parents are is statistically a tiny bit more likely to say this than anyone born to First-World parents.
3288. Nazis ruined my life -> the motif of a story centering around horrible things Nazi Germany did in order to convince readers that Nazis are bad because I the narrator am a human individual and nazis ruined my life. not to say there is no value in these stories whatsoever, but the more I look at other books on different topics with this same form being used to push untrue conclusions, the more I feel like the specific way these are put to use to "educate" people is vaguely disingenuous.
3289. Gramsci ruined my life -> most likely to be said by Tories who, odds are, also incorrectly believe psychoanalysts and schizoanalysts are indistinguishable from Marcuse and Gramsci.
3290. Marcuse ruined my life -> here we go, the one I've more often seen.
3291. Anticommunist memoirs are educational -> by age 30, I honestly doubt this is even true.
3292. Communist texts are educational / Communist texts educate people about history and other countries -> I think reading texts about what Lenin and Mao were actually doing has taught me way more about anything than a book like The Giver ever did
3293. Anticommunist fables are educational
3294. ??
3295. ??
3296. ??
3297. Pokémon is metatransitional literature / Pokémon is solarpunk / Pokémon is equivalent to metatransitional literature because it shows the values we need to have in order to build an Anarchism
3298. Snufkin is an anarchist -> apparently anarchists do not seriously believe this is true. [153]
3299. assertion something is an anarchism -> seems a little random, but is oddly useful for defining silly fan theories like "Snufkin is an anarchist".
3300. anarchism (top-level category) -> it took me toward the end of making this list to add anarchism or its color swatch. this is partly because I don't know much about any particular named Anarchism, and partly because I have my doubts a lot of concepts in anarchisms are actually unique to them rather than being borrowed from Liberalism or Existentialism. I am not against the sheer concept of anarchisms; particularly when they have specific civilizational shapes they form if they form successfully, they fit into meta-Marxist analysis as well as anything else does. there are just a few things I have problems with like the vagueness of anarchist philosophy and the failure to distinguish between utopian imagery and realistic models of constructing post-capitalist societies. "scientific" anarchisms with the specificity of a named Marxism are at least as legitimate to describe here as Trotskyism.
3301. Existentialism is anarchism plus the bourgeoisie -> this one seems more accurate than Q33,02. real anarchists have particular things they say, but you see a lot of those things seemingly co-opted into weird Existentialist "spaghetti" philosophies. I think one of the few anarchist sayings that can't be co-opted is that anarchism intends to remove the owners. but adding them back in seems to be exactly the missing link between anarchism and the arcane "spaghetti" philosophies like Lacanianism.
3302. Anarchism is Existentialism with a coat of black paint / anarchism is near-synonymous with Existentialism -> the claim that Anarchism's actual model of society is the same cluster of Existentialist models Liberalism uses, and then each of them builds other larger-scale village/town/region propositions on top of that. I don't really know if this is true. it would take a bit of investigation to build a decent logical proof either way. this concept comes out of the works of Horst Stowasser, [154] who claims that anarchism is "not an ideology" (impossible, but go on) but a cluster of things based on "freedom", "hostility to domination", "solidarity", "mutual aid", "autonomy of the individual", "networks of small units", "self determination", and "rebellion against foreign determination". 5/8 of those are Existentialist values, and half of them can be co-opted into Liberalism.
3310. buried Existentialism -> generic motif for discovering some period of Existentialism inside fiction. as this might be found in nearly any piece of fiction, there should be some very clear piece of evidence given for the themes being very specific and potentially unfamiliar ideas particular to Existentialist philosophy, thus making the reader ask "what is this and what is it doing in here?". the mere presence of something like character growth or identity doesn't inherently count as Existentialism. a more specific proposition such as "a Subject can decide on their own identity without the constant and inevitable input of others" (then where does their development come from?) or "nobody can ever predict other individuals" (even when we all have mirror neurons?) might very well count.
3311. ??
3312. Nation-states are anomalously non-tribal / Humans aren't tribalistic; nations and empires are anomalously non-tribal -> this sounds like something an anarchist or schizoanalyst would say, but it could be the case it's true. look at how ubiquitious it is for every single movement for human rights to turn into building a countable Culture that then tends to end up competing with other similar countable Cultures. maybe the cultural tribe is a fundamental unit of human social organization and in lack of a proper scientific model all our social sciences are denying it and we're all screwing ourselves over by denying it. maybe Existentialist-Structuralists would have some real success if they totally threw away psychoanalysis and the notion of individualized trauma and pushed for officializing subpopulations and giving them all "government-issued IDs". maybe the true problem with gerrymandering is that people want all the people in their voting unit to be part of a socially-linked tribe and only that form of organization would get everybody to vote and stop trying to take voting away. maybe when we're all "tribalistic" there's literally nothing wrong with us, and it's society that's wrongly designed for human beings.
3313. Culture is indistinguishable from behavior -> a proposition which is implicit in a lot of Existentialist / schizoanalyst works, including Foucault and Deleuze. despite this being a blue or charcoal proposition, I genuinely think it's most likely true. I also think that most Existentialists haven't thought through the full implications of it. attempts by psychologists and Liberal-republican representatives to control behavior necessarily squash countable cultures? true. countable cultures inherently want to get along with each other once free? false. countable cultures would never marginalize each other out of each other just for not being each other? false. countable cultures want to help each other exist instead of fight each other? false. countable cultures might want to kill each other? true. countable cultures like to cluster into empires specifically so that at least one countable culture can be marginalized and excluded from the cluster? true. Trotskyism is a countable culture? true. Trotskyism would brutally conquer other named Marxisms if necessary just to realize itself? unknown. possibly true.
3314. The Soviet Union contained 14 proletariats / The Soviet Union contained at least 14 proletariats plus a few additional smaller ones -> a little subjective, but depending on what words you assign to what collections of objects, this is already a fact.
3315. ??
3316. ??
3317. culturally-defined Communist / cultural Communist (by analogy to "cultural Christian", etc) / subjectivity-defined Communist (Marcuse) -> this is one step up from "Soviet-Union otaku" — somebody who is actually a low- to medium-tier Marxist theorist or active movement member but was never really tied to the process of forming a national movement specifically by the need to work, unionize, or protest. in my opinion these should be treated like miracles that never should have happened and yet dropped down like gifts, when they are usually treated with a lot of disdain and almost discouraged from trying to help, like it would be better if they were reactionaries than if they tried to ally themselves with workers. of course, if any of them say totally wrong things you don't have to put up with that.
3318. Bolshevik identity politics -> the motif of people hypothetically having identity politics movements for the identity of being Communists. basically every time I bring this up it's as a joke, but sometimes I use it to probe whether identity politics movements are truly effective and if real identity politics movements might run into exactly the same problems.
3319. If Communist-ally is not an identity, East Germany wouldn't have existed / If Communist-ally is not an identity, there would be no North Korea -> the claim that creating East Germany required the formation of an East-German identity, in the strict mathematical sense of membership in a socially-linked graph of people calling themselves East Germans. no concept of "East-German culture", "East-German traditions", or "East-German ethnic history narratives" is required for this definition; this is strictly conceptualizing the notion of groups of people or identities as raw divisions of people into groups who are connected because they agree to be connected. with that established, the claim is that East Germany formed because a particular subpopulation of workers formed connected to a particular body of theorists and non-proletarian Communist allies, and it was the agreement of all these people to form a group separate from the rest of the country if the people of West Germany did not meet the conditions to be a proletarian ally that allowed it to act as a capable subpopulation that was able to assemble a new country after the Soviet Union (which could also be considered in the category of "Communist allies") removed itself from East Germany. this is the claim that solidarity throughout the capable subpopulation in the sense of firm dedication to not dissolving it is ultimately a more important thing than the proletariat itself even as the capable subpopulation will only develop if the proletariat has a very prominent role in it. you can now see why East Germany not being a win for Trotskyists would be so confusing. a small number of mainstream Marxist-Leninist allies being able to create East Germany should logically entail that a bunch of Trotskyists wanting to wall themselves off from Stalin should be able to do the same thing starting from a relatively tiny number of people. East Germany should actually have showed that Trotskyism is more feasible than people thought because it shows that every country in Europe could go Trotskyist if the requirement is they turn over independently of each other without Stalin's help. the fact Trotskyists did not see things this way is very telling.
3320. freezing society's violent conflicts in place to promote peace -> important theme in State and Revolution: Liberal governments have a particular way of attempting to use this, workers' states have a different way.
3321. white-bread fantasy story -> the specific kind of fantasy story written by and for a segregated group of middle-rank White people that knows very little about other countries or about the outside world. (substitute "White people" for "majority Japanese people", etc.) includes Harry Potter, Warriors, My Little Pony gen 4, etc. you could probably name several more off the top of your head. works like Dragon Ball are kind of borderline because there is marginally more thought in there about the concepts of history and separate populations and empire, but I would say they count. honestly. you could probably make a decent though not solid argument that the Christian bible is one of these. small, insular, potentially bigoted group of people writing an "epic, engaging story" which is supposed to be universal and teach everyone universal lessons. in that sense there are some uncanny similarities between the bible and Harry Potter, aren't there?
3322. XKCD 3322 "Winter"
3323. flappy planes and stick towers -> xkcd 1322: Winter. the motif of using unheard-of phrases for common things
3324. jasmine-rice fantasy story / white-rice fantasy story -> a fantasy story which tries very hard not to be a white-bread fantasy story and tries its hardest to include identities known about in modern times like "lesbian", "transgender", and maybe "anarchist", but still bakes in clear expressions of ignorance about the outside world and in the end only barely does any better. Deltarune has to be placed here because of Spamton and how it can be argued he is a bad representation of countries like Nigeria.
3325. masala-chai fantasy story -> a fantasy story which accurately represents at least one other country specifically because the book was physically imported from another country. Dragon Ball rises to this level solely when it is read outside Japan. any book written in North Korea would probably also meet this bar.
3326. fusion-cuisine fantasy story -> a fantasy story which actually manages to represent multiple countries or countable cultures without making mistakes about one of them based on the level of knowledge about the outside world that another one has. in practice, these are very very difficult to pull off. to create one you quite literally need two countries' worth of education; if understanding how to write an accurate story about your own country were a four-year degree then you're looking at an eight-year degree.
3327. measuring-cup fantasy story -> a fantasy story which attempts to get around knowing about the entire world and all about "cultures" and "every culture" by modeling the social world as basically mathematical — "populations" and "cultures" and "languages" etc are a generic historical pattern that shows up again and again rather than an artistic representation of any specific real-life ethnic group or historical situation, and their overall behavior obeys the rules of general-sense historical materialism. if fusion-cuisine fantasy stories are the fantasy stories of Existentialism, this is the meta-Marxist counterpart. there are some ups and downs to this because in practice it may end up a bit like a white-bread fantasy story that holds up and isn't noticeably bad. it still has the pitfall that someone might interpret it as similar to a real-world situation because it accidentally left in mathematical similarities to that real-world situation without putting that particular historical process in context. basically, Marxist racism is possible but it's easier for any particular individual human being to correct because it just involves checking over the mathematics again and re-reading history for better mathematical descriptions of history.
3328. Spanish people can be anything / anti-essentialist proposition
3329. Human beings cannot form into A Culture -> a false belief I had during early MDem drafts. I had a problem with the way sociology, progressive anthropology, and most notably fantasy books characterized civilizations as "cultures" when they were always made of populations of material people. it seemed to me that if you defined groups of people (or fantasy beings, etc) as coming into existence through "culture", then it inherently promoted defining people by stereotypes and didn't explain the underlying processes that produced the people who didn't fit them. over time, I thought about this more, and came to see that what I actually had a problem with wasn't the concept that people could separate into new groups by culture — 1930s Trotskyites, modern anarchists, and particular clusters of Toryism in places like the United States clearly try to do that — but the actual problem I had was that people like fantasy writers assume a whole empire or kingdom-sized area is made of one Culture rather than every ethnic group, nationality, or fantasy race being made of multiple Cultures. my stance after that was that countable Cultures are real but they actually exist because populations are made up of subpopulations, not because people are unified.
3330. otaku / weeaboo (person who regenerates the subcultures of Japan elsewhere) -> this is a signifier because it typically comes up in a very "culturally-embedded" context of groups of isolated individuals with particular personal histories interacting with other groups of people with different personal histories while neither of them is trying to analyze the workings of societies or truly understand how anything has actually happened and they're all coming at things from these insular views having no idea how anything works and directly reacting with horror and confusion to each other's specificity and nonconformity and ignorance. it's like, one of the most "cultural" concepts there is in the negative sense of it having almost nothing to do with reality. honestly, "brony" exists through a pretty similar process.
3331. anime, which is always bad / anime, which is bad / anime >:/ / tokusatsu films, which are always dumb / Japanese Young Adult media, which are bad / Japanese shows, which are always dumb -> this almost never goes as far as the "stupid idiot garbage trash" Items are meant to suggest. those are meant to suggest something that is fundamentally not tolerated and pushed away every time, while "anime, which is bad" is meant to apply to things that are about halfway tolerated and halfway rejected.
3332. anime, the trash I love anyway -> this + Q1337 subculture = otaku
3333. Soviet-Union otaku / tankie (pejorative by anticommunists toward person obsessed with Communist imagery) / Stalinist (rare pejorative by Mensheviks, right-Liberals, and Trotskyists toward person who does not adopt complete culturally-embedded intolerance of Stalin's government) / fellow traveler (person who is a Communist ally but is not physically able to contribute much to the cause) -> the concept that otaku are created by the push of Existentialist-style Social-Philosophical Systems to defend exactly their socially-linked blob of people from other blobs of people and push people who do not neatly link into the exact set of individuals that make up that blob out to the margins of still being forced to exist within a particular population-associated countable Culture. thus otaku can be a phenomenon that exists in Japan, otaku can be a phenomenon that exists when people don't conform to the individuals of the United States, and otaku can even be a phenomenon of people learning too much about the wrong ideology or history that initially had nothing to do with Japan.
3334. brony / pegasister -> may mean varying things to people who create the label voluntarily, but in surrounding society, typically connotes a very specific kind of person who has no real connection to society except through cozy and inviting cartoons about friendship
3335. ??
3336. ??
3337. ??
3338. it's not Japanese, it's just a video game / Pokémon, which is not Japanese -> I don't think this motif is "offensive" or anything, I just think it's strange and has never made sense to me
3339. Japanese media must be understood from within Japan / Japanese media must be understood relative to how the people of Japan see them -> one of the only progressive-anthropology lessons that crusty isolated White people sometimes miraculously understand. [155] if Japanese media seem totally inexplicable, some half the time or more they actually do make perfect sense in Japan. (when it isn't the case Japanese writers just want to be silly and spontaneous, which also does happen.) Dragon Ball is constantly mocked, even though everyone has inexplicably watched it. but Dragon Ball has a rich history behind it of Buddhism in Japan, rejecting Buddhism, Journey to the West, and trying to juxtapose the mythical, fantastical feel of that story with "what is modern", in an act of turning the story's own themes of fantasy or adventure versus daily life around on itself, not to mention the vague nods in "Bardock" to casting off Imperial Japan — a historical event that happened to Japan but has never really happened to the United States. not only is Dragon Ball better in its thematic cohesion and story structure than a lot of other Japanese action shows that vaguely copied it or coincided with it, but if you compare Dragon Ball to something like Avatar: The Last Airbender there is no comparison. Avatar's worldbuilding feels vaguely "fake", like United States people tried their hardest to act like they knew what Asian countries were but in the end they just didn't. Dragon Ball actually feels like something someone from Japan would write for people in Japan, as much as it provides rather shallow portrayals of any other country or countable Culture of people. the crux of this seems to come down to "China is a medieval kingdom". people in Japan know that Japan has had more history since feudal times and what it's like to live in a Japanese city, while people in the United States seem determined not to know that. the concept of Asian immigrants writing fiction is a different discussion entirely. but when it comes to White people it really seems like a lot of what appears to be acts of embracing diversity in embracing Asian fantasy settings is actually an act of escaping learning about real China or real Japan or the real Koreas as they exist today. the probable surface reason: that would be modernity, and modernity is bad! the unintended implication: I don't know I have a lack of knowledge about other populations which in itself is effectively racist and in escaping from reality before I know about reality I am unknowingly evading education and perpetuating xenophobia. see also: why is there no fantasy Leninism?
3340. If two works are similar, one is the other's bootleg
3341. Digimon is a bootleg of Pokémon -> not true on several levels, at least on the surface. but the more you look into it, the more complicated it gets. can something be "a copy" just because people believe it to be undeserving of a greater rank? if so, this becomes much harder to evaluate. is Steven Universe the real Dragon Ball? if so, it's harder to say Pokémon isn't the real Digimon or vice versa.
3342. Pokémon is a bootleg of Digimon -> you practically never see this, but it would probably be fun to argue. Pokémon evolutions?? how do those make any sense. Tamagotchi and Digimon put real thought into this stuff, but you're telling me a garbage bag becomes a bigger garbage bag just because?
3343. Pokémon is a bootleg of Ultraman -> one of the statements that's truer that Pokémon being copied into Digimon. the show follows the same basic kaiju-of-the-week structure. Pokémon trainers are analogous to Ultraseven, using monster capsules. Ultra Series has the Plasma Spark and the Spacium ray, Necrozma is the sun-powers monster. every show has a new gimmick device. there's a pretty good argument that Pokémon is a copy of Ultra Series if you literally mean a bunch of things about it being copied. the only problem is that isn't what people actually mean.
3344. Telefang is a bootleg of Pokémon -> false impression people got from Waixing making a bootleg of Telefang. somewhat ironic that people thought Telefang was a bootleg of Pokémon because Waixing turned Pokémon into a bootleg of Telefang.
3345. Pokémon fan games are bootlegs / Pokémon fangames are identical with bootlegs -> what corporations tend to believe, or imply that they believe.
3346. ??
3347. ??
3348. ??
3349. ??
3350. ??
3351. China having products is stealing / Third World countries making the same product as First World countries is stealing / Third World countries independently replicating products existing in the First World using resources in their own country is stealing -> this claim only gets worse and worse as a claim the more you spell it out.
3352. Communism, the trash I love anyway
3353. ??
3354. ??
3355. ??
3356. ??
3357. XKCD 1357 "Free Speech" [156] [157]
3358. Rejection means you're an absolute ogre and people are showing you the door / Rejection means you're a monster and people are showing you the door / If you've been expelled, it's just that you're an asshole and people are showing you the door -> the censorings made it really easy to show what I think of this. I think by assuming that everything that upsets people is made of prejudices, at a certain point we're just creating all-directional, mutual prejudice between non-reactionaries. why is it it's so much easier to communicate that complicated concept with the simple ironic statement "Rejection means you're a monster"
3359. Fantasy books are designed for Tories -> the claim that the purpose of fantasy books is to go back to a time before progressive issues or democracy ever mattered so that none of that needs to be discussed. there are many examples which would seem on the surface to back this up, from Harry Potter to the phenomenon of console RPGs or a "white bread" show like MLP:FiM enabling the problem of people being trapped in little pockets of bigoted Tory culture and never having to learn what racism is or in some cases what a woman is. this + Russian revolution = Fantasy would be more accurate with Leninisms.
3360. China is still a medieval empire -> really, bizarrely common fictional trope if you live anywhere but China. sometimes this will be blended into a setting full of feudal orders such that it isn't noticeable, as with Neopets, or Dragon Masters. other times it will be more blatant, with fictional stories about China always being medieval but fictional stories about the United States often being futuristic. you can see it subtly inside My Little Pony gen 4: Ponies live in Manehattan and Canterlot, but Kirin live off in some remote village, they don't have a Kirin city. here's the question to ask yourself: if fiction is full of Japanese high school students and Neopets has a futuristic space station, why is China always a feudal order?
3361. What causes populations of people to be kingdoms? -> the answer isn't an obvious one. you might think you know what it is, but look at actual history and you might find the real answer is very different. Hawaii: formed into a kingdom to defend against external empires. China: formed together to stop having repeated wars. Korea: had a "three kingdoms" period, just like China. formed together to stop having wars. meanwhile fantasy works like Adventure Time will just go and say that kingdoms exist because somebody wants to rule people. to be fair, it doesn't quite say that about all its kingdoms, it just presents that as a possible reason.
3362. Fantasy kingdoms are Third World countries / Fantasy settings are comparable to Third World countries -> every time a story has a fantasy kingdom with modern technology. many center-Liberal types find it confusing and ask "what time period it's in", without thinking about why countries have time periods. but I think the only reasonable comparison is to say that a kingdom with modern technology is actually a fictional projection of a Third-World country. "time" doesn't pass the same way in the Third World. it can be 1930 and there can be cameras but still be kings and peasants.
3363. Fantasy would be more historically accurate with Leninisms / Fantasy would be more historically accurate with Communist movements -> this is one of those things that will seem like a joke and that you'll either love or you'll hate. there's a funny thing about kingdoms: a much greater number of them than you would expect had workers' movements. Aghanistan had a workers' movement. Cuba, Vietnam, Korea, and the Russian Empire had workers' movements. something happened in Zimbabwe that I currently do not understand. Italy and Japan had workers' movements. Germany had two workers' movements. Germany was still a kingdom in 1933, and then a little later it spawned East Germany. fantasy books seem to assume that kingdom-shaped countries turn into Liberalism, but in real life it's almost more like the accurate fact is that kingdoms turn into workers' movements or workers' states and gigantic nightmare empires turn into Liberalism; Napoleon = United States. if you ask me? Equestria would turn into a workers' state if it was real. to save itself from some kind of attack by the dragon kingdom or something.
3364. ??
3365. ??
3366. ??
3367. ??
3368. ??
3369. ??
3370. open world, but at what cost? -> I think it would be funny to have a game that lacked a railroaded adventure a la Pokémon or Dragon Quest, but where you quickly learned that the consequences of that were having to reckon with a semi-realistic progression of history where characters compete to take the world away from each other and basically there are empires and imperialized people and your character could be either
3371. Pokémon is not metatransitional literature -> an important distinction when you see some people try to label Pokémon "solarpunk". this is, in my opinion, inappropriate for the kind of socioimperialist structure that churns out oceans and oceans of merchandise and more and more consoles while producing fans that ignore other series and fictional ideas to come back to what is familiar or where their friends are, and exterminating fan creations to be sure fans don't step out of their lane of not being allowed to think. Pokémon is fairly dystopian the moment you stop watching the show and step back to the real world. in light of this, we have to realize utopian narratives serve to illustrate and legitimize our prejudices about what is and isn't true — Pokémon is not a believable future, but the mistaken belief that chunk competition is not happening and everyone can instantly Freely Choose to live in harmony right now. that was a bit angry. anyway, it's worth repeating that utopian literature is not metatransitional literature, because it does not describe a method of transition.
3372. Group Subjects willing things is how we deceive ourselves / Group Subjects willing things is literally the way we deceive ourselves -> a claim against utopian literature and "I believe that everybody" statements, especially through the on-the-ground structure of Existentialism.
3373. ??
3374. ??
3375. ??
3376. Natural crimes are worse than imperialism / Natural crimes are more pressing than U.S. invasions / Moral code of empire is more important than existence of empire / Imperialism is just the planetary police / justice through war -> logical result of: leaping State; appears in work: "Should America be the world's policeman?" (PragerU)
3377. ??
3378. natural treason -> the motif of people intuitively defining treason "to" an ethnic group or socially-linked group of people outside of the scope of laws, constitutions, or anything based in logic as opposed to Lived Experiences of people who "just know" that somebody is the enemy of the country.
      after knowing the amount of history that I know I feel oddly like for much of human history this was the only definition of treason.
3379. natural crime / "crime" defined without legal codes or legislative processes -> the motif of people thinking there are intuitive definitions of a violation of the law before any laws exist. this is bafflingly common. 1984 makes a big deal of "there weren't any laws but the government defined crimes", while.... that's kind of just how every Liberal-republican society operates too? laws would seem to be more like an effect of people's intuitive perceptions of what is bad than the actual way most ordinary people define what a "crime" or "atrocity" is. it's complicated whether this is even a bad thing. is it actually a good thing that people have criteria of what is bad that they can argue in Liberal-republican parliament to create laws? at first glance you'd definitely think it is. but when you think about it more you then realize that things like religion are dictating what people believe to be "inherently a crime". local culture predetermines what will be considered a crime before laws or democracy formalize it. and that's very bad when local culture predetermines that the laws will be that homosexuality is illegal or rape is only to be taken seriously to pre-emptively accuse Black people of it to remove them from society.
3380. natural law -> this motif is literally for texts that mention and invoke natural law, or that follow up on texts that mention it — texts which are in the natural law "tradition". there are some other related motifs here such as "general-sense psychoanalyst", but those are not defined relative to this motif even if they may in practice overlap or functionally be the same thing.
      this motif is charcoal because I swear anarchists frequently invoke the concept of natural crimes even if they do not mention natural law by name.
3381. Anarchism will never be able to solve Hatfield attacks -> unsure if this is true or false, but has definitely been on my mind while writing the book. would like to see a counterpoint of how Anarchisms can possibly solve Hatfield attacks from other "small and local" populations that don't like them. you know there are going to be some of them. a great chunk of reactionaries in the United States sound basically like anarchists in about 70% of everything they say until they get to anything about demographic identities and whether they hate them. work makes no sense? check. big business is ruining everything and it's better if everything is small circles of friends? check. cities are unnatural and modern culture is oppressive so I want to go form a Culture that's more natural to me? check. Stalin and Trotsky are tyrants? check. you can't make me use particular language or design or user interfaces or platforms? check. you can't make me acknowledge transgender people as real? you can't make me watch Black people on TV? wait. so yeah. it's like, US Tories are like anarchists that just want a bit more freedom, specifically total Freedom from race mixing. they abuse every concept you hear from anarchists to be especially bigoted.
      this is why when anarchists go into weird opinions about "what the web should be"... it feels off to me. it feels a bit like my relatives not wanting to see Spanish. when is a way of presenting something a form of communication and expression and when is it an imposition on how other people wish to communicate? is a "webmagazine" with print-like visual styling unacceptable? is a console RPG non-accessible? are there times a printed book is non-accessible? accessibility is the best argument against "the web" to me because it's objective whether people can see or hear something period. but anarchists love regular books when they can be non-accessible, and say things against videos when videos are highly accessible in multiple senses. to some people a podcast is more understandable than a TTS reading of a webpage. I think about the concept of what forms of media are understandable and what makes each one understandable a whole lot.
      argument against: if meta-anarchists show up with a flow chart about Iroquois anarchism and a plan of action on how to actually create a "united states of states of states" that achieves the same result, we'll say it's maybe the size of Vermont or a little smaller, this could be falsified. unless of course there is a good reason the plan wouldn't work, and then the proposition is open again.
3385. reparations -> a general concept of transitional justice which seeks some kind of compensation toward a whole group of people to try to end a conflict against a demographic. I feel like there's something to be said about how compensation at the tiniest scales and compensation at larger scales are related concepts, though I don't entirely know what conclusion to make.
3386. blood feud -> the motif of an ongoing small-scale war between households or very small chunks of a population. common in feudal orders or when a population is very underdeveloped. the Hatfields and the McCoys occurred after the time of "medieval" periods per se, but sure did happen. this motif also showed up in FNaF of all places, in reference to old Japan and what I think are Kurosawa movies but I'm not sure, also the violence between Henry and William's families. in one sense this seems like some kind of hallmark of an ill-developed country but it also can happen in any time period.
3387. blood money / wergild / botgild / reparations (payment for individual crime; medieval Europe) -> according to historians, one of the major reasons for getting everyone to use money in 1500s Europe (although we may never know the single biggest reason) was to abolish blood feuds by making everyone demand a fine instead. [158] having everyone use money has several advantages: regulating banks and the people with the most money if possible; taxes; this. in this article it also details how European church taxes basically created counties and county sherrifs, when otherwise mobilizing people's money to do something for a local group of people would not have been as easy. and these programs don't have to be violent, because today county-scale church taxes run schools. this is really worth bringing up toward anarchists. the world is full of a lot of people who as soon as they feel something has been taken from them will just go kill someone. (counting the Trotskyite conspiracy as a different variation on the theme that occurs at larger scales, you've got a few more.) Liberal-republicanism has been ineffective at stopping this just by making violence illegal and sending cops, or having people send representatives to parliament for that matter. however. if the whole United States were to just abolish the United States and live in villages tomorrow. how would anarchists get all the crazy Tories living in the rust-red states to agree that something other than killing people in another village was fair compensation?
3388. Hatfield attack / horizontal attack / Hegelian conflict, violent / crime (sometimes labeled as such without reference to any legal code, sometimes labeled in response to a corresponding law) / natural crime (incident; Existentialist-Structuralist framing, psychoanalytic framing) / local warfare / crime-war / war crime / stochastic terrorism (individual incident)/ William Afton is real (statement that spontaneous murders exist) / hacking pedophiles to pieces with an axe (incident in Celebration, Florida; Celebration axe murder, generic) / deadly cookie (fandom drama incident) / ice ax incident (incident of two particular Marxist parties violently attacking each other outside any legal order)
3389. Anarchism can oppress people / When it is constructed in the real world, there exists a form of anarchist society which can oppress people -> anarchists think this couldn't be true because they've cleverly defined anarchism to be everything which is not oppressive, but if you ask every Tory, the history of Communism already shows that any system which is built in reality can oppress people including anarchism. a whole lot of Tories are already convinced anarchists are bent on oppressing them. what is the reason this happens? why would there be so many people claiming this non-extraordinary, mundane claim if it was totally impossible?
3390. Anarchism is not something to transition to, but something to overthrow / Anarchism is not something transitioned into, but something to be overthrown -> follows from: anarchism can oppress people, Liberalism is a realized Anarchism. this idea has been all over MDem drafts at varying levels of intensity, but arguably has already appeared in many mainstream Marxist-Leninist writings under terms such as "bourgeois ideology". I do not know whether this statement is true or false, and I wouldn't solidly claim either. I have written a lot of things assuming it's false just to promote groups of people tolerating each other in a world where every individual is in competition and it's so easy for everything to fall apart and turning into the ~10 separate Lefts there have always been fighting each other.
3391. Non-greedy people are a class -> after listening to too many things containing either sincere or appropriated anarchist signifiers, I am convinced some people think this. "Greed"/"non-competitive balance" is the single most common wrong idea I have seen in every center-Liberal or anarchist or anticommunist argument; it's everywhere. it seems to be fundamental to the way most anarchists define the hypothetical capable subpopulation of people that can end capitalism. they start with the whole population and then they just start defining relatively arbitrary criteria including actual wealth or having prejudices for crossing out "the greedy ones". the big problem is that when we're at the "hierarchy"/prejudice criterion it can really come down to having the wrong definitions of words or not having the models people command you to. it becomes very paradoxical because it's based on what people believe or feel rather than on what's verifiable, and that can easily just lead to two or three groups of people shouting at each other, ordering each other around but insisting they won't listen to each other because they've effectively created circular hierarchies onto each other and they want freedom.
3392. ??
3393. ??
3394. game show challenge / challenge on a game show which is not serialized across multiple episodes / challenge on a game show which is usually not sports
3395. reality show challenge / game show challenge of an action or serialized-story-arc variety / game show challenge involving significant non-cooperation or drama -> funny enough, came up in the MDem revision about afterlives, because it's always funny to imagine the afterlife being a game show. or a reality show. it's kind of hard to distinguish between reality shows and game shows when talking about challenges that only take place in a single episode. my best guess is that reality show challenges are more intense
3396. voted off the island -> very interesting because it gives you a different perspective on the concept of "voting"
3397. Survivor
3398. nonviolent horizontal attack / SLAPP suit / copyright takedown -> an event which looks for all the world like a Hatfield attack but is perfectly legal.
3400. ??
3410. ??
3420. ??
3430. ??
3440. ??
3444. fighting fire with fire / using poison to cure poison / stopping a questionable process with the same process -> this item should be considered a fictional trope, but I can't help think of Trotsky trying to defeat a flawed Marxism with a "Marxist revolution"
3445. confusing the problem with the solution -> I'll think of a catchy trope name for this later. the thing that Trotsky and Žižek do, as well as Deleuze & Guattari. fighting fire with fire + phenomenology?? = this
3450. ??
3455. ??
3460. ??
3465. ??
3470. ??
3475. ??
3476. ??
3479. ??
3480. The Peter Principle
3481. Greed is bad, therefore everyone getting more and more education and aiming for higher and higher positions is bad -> major proposition of The Peter Principle. this is the dark side of everyone claiming that the constant push to innovate and innovate and "innovate" is a product of greed. when ordinary people hear that, they'll just tell you that every single case of incompetence or incorrect behavior was a case of arrogant people being greedy when they shouldn't have been there and everyone would be better off if they'd kept their heads down and done nothing.
      I'll repeat it again and again: growth is a product of population growth and the desire for an overall population to have more. the process of Kimberlé Crenshaw doing a whole lot of research to build a progressive theory and the process of somebody pouring education and research into creating an AI are the same process. if you label that process "greed", the results will not be pretty. it takes a lot of "greed" to practically elevate people out of literally having been slaves.
3482. ??
3483. ??
3484. ??
3485. ??
3486. ??
3487. ??
3488. ??
3489. ??
3490. Capitalism is bad because everyone is greedy / Capitalism is bad because it makes owners imperialistically greedy and customers materialistically greedy -> the claim that the only problem with capitalism is that every individual on earth doesn't strive to live "in balance" without "going over the line" into other individuals. this might sound all right if you have never heard of the concept of Social-Philosophical-Material Systems, and come to realize that competition between individuals occurs at the level of socially-linked groups of people merely existing, not at the level of people stating out loud at debates or in advertisements or news headlines what they're going to do next. if you have heard of it? you realize this proposition is nonsense because not only can nobody will what anyone else does, but definitely nobody can Freely Will how anyone else physically exists and develops as an organism. Existentialism claims to give everyone Freedom but in reality causes everyone to assign everyone else a designated purpose and required way to exist that will almost inevitably conflict with everyone else's purposes for themselves and others.
3491. Is it greedy to go to art school? / Is it greed when people choose the wrong career? -> if the answer is yes, and some individuals are obligated to spontaneously predict when it is wrong for them to go to art school or study epidemiology or designing circuits and say "well I guess I won't go to college" just to take money away from Disney and iPhone and Big Pharma, or because they instantly know there will be too much of those industries 4-8 years later, then you can call capitalism greedy.
3492. Human existence distorts perception of time / Human existence creates distorted perception of time / Ruler of Everything is about how human existence distorts human perception of the universe / Ruler of Everything is about how early-existentialism is the shovel dream of limited human existence but this is not an objective model of the universe -> I think we all commit one big Last Unicorn fallacy on time.
3493. "This is why Arceus created ... 3 states of matter" / real world made by Creator of fictional universe -> House MD, season 8 episode 8. This probably subsets another signifier something like "hypothetically speaking of god of fictional universe as having created the world". or maybe is it. I'm not sure.
3494. Art is in the audience's experience / The nature of what art is revolves around the audience's Lived Experience / Art must be experienced by someone to be art -> of all the things you could invoke Lived Experience about? this is the only one I feel might be correct. I can't think of any argument against it. this might just be true.
3495. Ruler of Everything (Tally Hall) -> this is blue because it's early-existentialism in a nutshell. nothing wrong with the song though
      tangent: sometimes I feel like the problem is existentialism is Bergsonism and Bergsonism is positivism. I sound like the fairy godmother right now. being a Subject means / seeing until you die / but the thingamabob that does the job is earth can come only from I
3496. ??
3497. Science ignores shovel dreams / Science ignores plurality (statement about multiple objects having perceptions and interpretations) / The biggest reason people reject science is that it doesn't recognize plural objects containing different perceptions -> as soon as you say that out loud it seems really silly. does science truly forbid the existence of multiple brains experiencing? but it doesn't seem silly to any of the people who have "discovered" it. fail to teach people about general relativity and they will insist that "linear time" fails to capture individual Lived Experience of time, and end up in positivism. fail to teach people about the process of multiple populations forming countable cultures and each constructing religion, and people will insist that "experiencing god" is actually experiencing some external thing rather than deeply hallucinating into a lack of data inside the self to fabricate a person. fail to teach people that perceptions are ontologies and ontologies can be right or wrong but people act on ontologies rather than what is in other people's heads, and people will get upset you didn't invent a way to force Christians and atheists to tolerate Muslims just because they're both freedom poles that are ostensibly born with "inalienable rights" which in actuality are totally fabricated by society and do not inherently exist in the minds of oppressive people to be activated. people get super upset that science doesn't understand the plurality of "different cultures" or different individuals on the level that Alice the individual intuitively understands Bob the individual, even as individuals are a unique kind of object and most of material reality cannot do what individuals do and science only studies material reality. people think tent of freedom poles is the single most important thing in the world, and if science can't deliver tent of freedom poles then it's time to throw out all science.
      the solution is this: you have to teach people a mathematical study of the sheer interaction of individuals and groups of people. you have to show them how many bad interactions are possible, and how truly unlikely a good interaction is no matter how much you hope for a good interaction. you have to teach them that they are genuinely not in control as individuals over whether people choose to obey "tent of freedom poles", and the only thing they control is how much to oppress those people for not getting along with them — they can change other people through authoritarianism, war and violence, or love and perfect integration into another highly specific culture with bigotry fully baked into it they might not have control over. there isn't really a middle ground where you can assume people automatically want to change but won't fiercely fight to keep their freedom to not change when their wants don't match yours. the key to teaching people this begins at things like lambda calculus demos, and fuzz graphs going across to quantum Goku or quantum Vegeta
3498. ??
3499. All events that occur while a particular person exists occur within that person / All events that occur while a particular person exists are part of "life" -> a very subtle fallacy that most people alive today miss. if an event occurs "in your life" which is "out of your control", is it even meaningfully part of "life"? does this category of "life" actually even help in making sense of daily events?
3500. Buddhism is actually an early attempt at historical materialism -> it sounds silly until you actually look into it. and then you realize... oh. one of the major reasons for Buddhism continuing after it declined in India is that people in a warring states period really needed an ideology about uniting fractured groups of people together into a functional group of people again. to state that there are any general rules you can follow to do that with any success which are not strictly situational is to argue for general-sense historical materialism.
3501. It's easier to argue against Buddhism than Christianity -> subjective of course, but interesting. to argue against Buddhism you only need to talk about the supernatural claims or material results of religion. to argue against Christianity you actually have to contend with the dynamic of religion being used to justify small or isolated groups of people. people believe in Christianity or sometimes in Islam because they want their local group of people to survive against another group of people while humans are in constant competition over everything. so naturally they don't give up Christianity as easily. worse yet they become attached to Protestantism or Catholicism against the other because a unified Christianity wouldn't defend their local chunk of socially-linked people against others within the actual competition that's going on within their country or region. the claim of Christianity, that there's a single god, becomes laughable the more time goes on and you look at how Christianity is actually used to defend small, local, specific groups of people who each believe they were chosen as more legitimate by God rather than to in any way serve the whole world. I'll keep saying it, Christianity is strangely similar to Trotskyism. in Trotskyism you just replace God with Lenin. what really bugs me though is that in center- and right-Liberalism you replace God and Lenin with sheer intuition on which individuals are Individually Societying In Parallel Correctly and the "stupid idiot garbage trash" divide. nothing about that makes sense. I swear Trotskyism makes more sense.
3502. In a world of karma and attachment, why are there monotheists? -> this was demonstrated really well in one episode of Dragon Ball with just, the whole universe having a roughly Buddhist cosmology and then some people who are desperately praying to "God". it raises some deep questions. if Buddhism were true and practically speaking anybody who believes in monotheism probably has some sort of unhealthy attachment that makes them fight other groups of people, then why do monotheists physically exist? you really end up having to invent general-sense historical materialism to explain the answer. you have to explain how groups of Christians developed as populations of people and how that history caused them to end up with religion. and by then, why wouldn't the same be true of Buddhism?
3503. Buddhism would be the same if there was no reincarnation / Would Buddhism be any different if there was no reincarnation? (semi-rhetorical question) -> I'm fairly convinced it would behave the same way but it would just turn into an honest account of the fact people are born into different positions in the world, it's bad to be in a low one, people sometimes struggle their way out of low positions, and it's better for people to try to form stable structures where they coexist than to have warring states periods.
3505. ??
3500. ??
3510. the perfect law that gives freedom / people who don't create peace aren't Christians (motif) -> James 1:25. this is the kind of thing that makes me think that in its crudest forms Existentialism has been around for hundreds and hundreds of years before being renewed into Existentialism-Structuralism proper in the 1900s. the core of Existentialism is that it promises a way of creating empire without kings or nobility, simply by linking people together into one big group of friends that is ready to fight anyone outside it at the drop of a hat. I think this may be the crux of why Christianity adapted so well to Liberal-republicanism and became such a tool for bashing Bolshevism as well as genuinely oppressive republics. the values of Christianity happened to coincide with the physical structure of several Liberal republics banded together into an axis of First-World powers.
3511. Christianity would be the same if there was no afterlife -> mirror to Q35,03. the claim that most of Christianity could still continue on exactly as it was claiming to have benefits even if there was no god or afterlife.
3512. Anarchism is just secular Christianity -> this is a funny statement but it's not really much of an insult at anarchists as much as a dry statement that as secular theories of society Christianity and anarchism run on the same principles. depending on the specific sect or variation, both of them are a bunch of statements that "people should" behave a certain way and join together with each other and that will fix everything. and both of them run into the problem that people always belong to countable populations instead of ever being a single uncountable humanity that behaves as a single rational "we" rather than separate material groups of people with separate conflicting values fighting over material space and stuff.
3520. ??
3530. ??
3540. ??
3550. ??
3560. ??
3570. ??
3580. ??
3585. ??
3586. ??
3587. Organized religion is a conspiracy theory about what ethnic groups are inherently more capable or worthy of surviving / Organized religion, including Christianity, Islam, historical religious Judaism, Chinese Buddhism, and Hinduism are a supernatural interpretation of the background competition between individual human beings and emergent formations like populations and nation-states which seeks to rationalize and moralize particular groups of people succeeding or failing at existing / Organized religion is a conspiracy theory ... (censored label)
3588. Every ideology created before Marxism boils down to calling ethnic groups good or bad -> this depends on the definition of any identity-based social graph of people nested a certain degree of identity-groups deep as being an "ethnic group". in order to falsify this statement, there has to be an ideology which claims to comprehend history but doesn't reduce the actions of populations to "incorrect culture" or whole populations "deciding" to do Evil and instead recommends morally neutral methods of fixing populations. this is much harder to find than you'd think. something as simple as a statement like "the West has been Orientalist" vilifies an ethnic group called "Western culture" rather than asking what material things are inside that culture. equally, a statement like "non-Buddhists cause empire because they have the wrong attitude" or "religious wars happen because people aren't Christian" is vilifying ethnic groups who do not have the demographic identity of Buddhism or Christianity. here's the interesting part: I really feel like in some senses, "early" Western Marxism is literally no better. it reduces itself to saying the Soviet Union is a bad and wrong ethnic group because Engels, or implying that the Western Culture is inherently great and destined to defeat other major ethnic groups because it includes stuff about The Subject.
      why are these propositions placed next to nicer things? because 88 had to be something.
3589. corvid as example of simpler life / corvid as anarchist motif -> don't take the color swatch too seriously. I half just thought having the ideology swatch the same basic color as a crow or raven was fun.
3590. "Taming of the Shrew" arc -> character arc in which an Evil or fierce character is socialized into society through questionable methods, calling to mind the incorrect description of falconry in "The Taming of the Shrew". although the Shakespeare play in question was about the concept of men not understanding women, the character can be of any gender.
3591. revenge of the shrews -> abstract concept, or trope, of characters with "Taming of the Shrew" arcs turning around and not having any of it. in my mind this trope is largely for fantasy animal types of characters, aliens, neurodivergent characters, whose nature isn't understood correctly, kind of like the original notes for Zootopia. but it might apply to more "realistic" scenarios too. did I just imply autistic people only exist in fantasy books? well, every day I don't feel real so it does check out.
3592. ??
3593. ??
3594. ??
3595. ??
3596. ??
3597. ??
3598. ??
3599. Warriors is programming Russians to be reactionaries / Warriors is programming Russian children to be reactionaries -> derived Gramscian proposition. everybody says "well the books have to be censored to sell to Russia", but nobody thinks about the implications of what effect "selling books to Russia" has on Russia.
      I think this is way funnier if you leave off "children" and just let it weirdly imply that adults believe whatever they read in a kids' book. the point of it isn't that children must be protected from bad literature anyway, it's that the upper crust of two countries getting together to determine what both countries will be reading is gross. although disappointing, it'd be far less disgusting to know that reactionary-sounding literature was being written by Russians than to know it came from the United States and people are making excuses for it because supposedly the retailers of Russia are the whole Free Will of Russia. if the bourgeoisie currently have so much power to determine what books the United States sells to Russia then why don't they get together to make Russia buy good books rather than censoring them? why doesn't anyone ever ask that?
3600. The God Delusion (Dawkins 2006) -> contains the infamous claim that religion is a delusion.
3601. Religion is a delusion about material reality -> a claim that is very much not violet, although possibly crimson; it might technically appear in the works of Marx, Engels, or Lenin. once you start looking at things through meta-Marxism, you realize that Dawkins' version isn't a Materialist position because it doesn't take into account the possibility that groups of people are each material objects and the "correct" belief that "isn't" a delusion would have to correctly model a socially-linked group of people who would be Christians as a material object. this causes Christianity to be replaced with a concept such as political parties or conflict between ethnic groups. or, if people were actually smart, the concept of arranging people into federations of countable cultures which have each been transformed into a proletarian civilization.
3602. ??
3603. Demon-Haunted World (Sagan 1995) -> this had to be marked blue because of the weird amount of anticommunism in it in baffling contradiction to everything else it says.
3604. Trotskyism is as good as the bible / Trotskyism is as good as Christianity -> derived Trotskyist proposition. but also one that they actually say, if somewhat implicitly.
3605. God is the statement that belonging to a culture is moral / Christianity is the statement that belonging to a particular countable culture is morally good -> what else can it truly mean to say things like "hell is separation from God" and "Good people convert to Christianity". "God" is generally the god of a countable Culture.
3606. If you exist at the expense of others, there's always hope / With enough hope and determination, Vegeta will prevail / Super Saiyan God fallacy -> in Dragon Ball Super's era, the Saiyan kingdom quietly searches for some mysterious power called Super Saiyan god to restore their hope... of continuing to exist as a brutal, murderous empire. this is my big problem with Existentialism, early- or otherwise. every time people appeal to "believing in yourself" and "overcoming the future" it's inseparable from the background state of individuals and countries competing against each other. it always potentially turns into a case of Saiyans hoping and hoping they will prevail so they never have to turn away from imperialism and genocide and simply being little shits that get to kill whatever people on earth and not care about any of them.
3607. Dragon Ball is as good as the bible / If the bible is useful for demonstrating life lessons or relatable emotions, Dragon Ball or any secular book is equally as useful, especially assuming it contains elements of a mythical narrative -> I don't think there's a good religious argument against this. the only argument you can really pull at this point is that religion is better than secular books because it's the ideology of global empire and a secular book can't help you pulverize Black people, Palestine, and all of the Third World; the only remaining arguments for religion over mere-poetry are basically definitionally evil. on a lighter note, I always find it hilarious to imagine someone arguing that if secular books aren't as good as the bible then Trotskyist books are equally as good as religious books, because ostensibly Trotskyism is a global ideology that is the only Marxism or "socialism" that can unite everyone in the world. at face value, isn't that what Christianity is trying to do but better? you can't be a fascist if you believe in Trotskyism, you have to side with at least all the people oppressed by a particular individual fascist figurehead, even if you can be a total deserter to a particular country. but Christianity doesn't even have standards that high.
3608. Siding with God is like siding with Goku / A personal relationship with God is like being allied with Goku / Personal relationship with God equal to personal relationship with Goku / A person having a "personal relationship with God" in the real world is equivalent to a person in the Dragon Ball universe having a personal relationship with one of its heroes -> this can be said in either a positive tone or a negative tone. positive, in that the narrative purpose of God in a bible story or an anecdote is to be a reassuring ally, just like Goku. negative, in that the way things work in Dragon Ball, its universe doesn't have inherent cosmic morality, and whenever you ally with a hero and hope they can defeat your enemy, you also take a gamble that the hero isn't evil and you haven't created an Evil faction. see: Super Saiyan God fallacy.
3609. Spiritual people aren't delusional; they're highly cultural / Spiritual people aren't delusional, they're just deeply absorbed in culture, poetry, and romanticism -> this becomes very apparent if you read enough secondary-source Christian media totally detached from the opinions of any Christians as if it all fell out of the sky yesterday and you're the first person that ever saw it. the point of the stories is poetry. to tell things that would make sense said another way through really opaque poetry. that's just it.
      the reason it's so frustrating to try to get people out of religion is this. religion was never about the supernatural. people don't necessarily care about a supernatural or afterlife existing whatsoever. the true draw of religion that keeps sucking everybody in is culture. religion is culture. people are really obsessed with culture, they absolutely love culture. (while I'm one of the only people in existence who doesn't; I hate culture and love math.) a normal person sees a poetic description of some Lived Experience purportedly universal to multiple people's lives in a bible story or a novel and goes crazy for it, they flip out about how much they related to it and go pour out their emotions of how much they love whatever simple trope of "love your neighbor", "lesbians got together", etc with however many other people who are all there just because they're flipping out over a little shred of poetry. and these normal people intrinsically trust each other and trust that they each belong there flipping out over a line of poetry and it's completely expected nothing bad will happen and they won't spontaneously turn out to be enemies because they come from different subpopulations. if that happens they just go "it's unthinkable for that to be able to happen" and act quickly to suppress it and crush the way things really work. (not that that's a terrible thing, should they actually succeed.) because they're totally wrapped up in poetry, they're under poetry's spell. people get together around a bit of poetry and become spellbound that whatever people they clustered together can become a stable ongoing countable culture and a "community". and from there they can get so wrapped up in poetry and "community" that they even start to have serious faith in their poetry-group out-enduring every human being who doesn't belong to it. this, I feel, partially explains the typical narrative around the New Deal and "fireside chats". people keep bringing up the fireside chats because they love the poetry of it. the simplicity of just collecting people together and sharing the same bit of culture and poetry, and thinking that this will supposedly make all of the suffering of the United States bit by bit slowly go away. but then it doesn't. the events that come next reveal people's attachment to poetry to be a mythology. it's revealed that the most innocuous case of people gathering around a national campfire and uniting together around poetry is a Cartesian system of reasoning that doesn't account for the existence of two separate plural groups in conflict with each other. the ignored group not integrated into the poetry gets upset and Zinovievizes the Roosevelt followers and the whole thing comes crashing down. and this, I think, is a microcosm of all of Liberal-republicanism. the human brain really isn't built for intuitively understanding separable multiplicity. the whole artistic, cultural, poetic, spiritual mode of thinking practically always fails to catch the existence of whole different countable cultures with whole different internal realities.
3610. Some people prefer poetry to science -> the answer is to give them proletarian poetry. think about it this way: fantasy books are poetry. they tell what are supposedly life lessons or at least meaningful statements about art through really thick, opaque, poetic framings. I think in some senses some people really need to be hooked into the poetic fantasy or history-myth that workers fight terrifying battles and the owners right next to them in their own town can be "kings of darkness".
3611. poetry (literary flair) / poetry (expressive style of creating art or narrative style or expressive form of framing used in any form of storytelling; poetic quality of mythic narratives)
3612. Alternian movie title -> the motif of something being named by a rather long and verbose but also precise description of it. this came to mind because honestly, almost all systems of proposition-based logic require this.
3613. Anarchists would rather read fiction than history -> hypothesis. can we successfully teach anarchists historical materialism with enough Warrior cats?
3614. ??
3615. ??
3616. ??
3617. bedtime bible stories except with Lenin / easy-to-follow bible retellings, only with Lenin -> I'd love that to be a book so bad. just imagine this by no means being mandatory yet being a thing you could read. but not knowing who would write such a thing I might have to settle for writing a single B-side chapter to demonstrate the concept
3618. ??
3619. founder of darkness / pioneer or colonist of darkness / ancestor of darkness (artisan or expert type antagonist; wizard; creator of ancient science-fiction technology) / capitalist of darkness -> the capitalist counterpart to "king of darkness". to fit this motif the villain must be somebody who could plausibly be considered an indispensable part of a town or city once and that might even have been treated as an "ordinary", "understandable" protagonist once but that by now people are now afraid of. it has to be vaguely like, in book one Firestar is good and relatable, in book nine Firestar is talked about as the enemy of the new generation. in book one Harry Potter or Clay and Glory and Starflight are the nice likeable heroes, in book ten they're the enemies of the new generation who are appalled they made the decisions they did. in show one Spike and Rarity and Rarity's boyfriend are everyone's friends. in show two everyone is suffering because of the decisions they made and mad at them. although the early "book one" part of this large-scale generational arc doesn't literally have to be the main narrative, it can just be backstory that is suggested or described at some point. (these examples are also just analogies for what the trope looks like, not suggestions for how these narratives "should" have gone.) the theme of generational antagonisms is likely to come up though not strictly necessary — it's one of the simplest ways to portray the concept of somebody owning part of society and taking up decision-making power and making bad decisions without an author having to truly understand class analysis to have thought of it.
3620. just war -> the motif that a particular war is believed to be necessary or morally right. found in both Toryism and center-Liberalism. arguably also found in a totally different form in anarchism, Trotskyism, and mainstream Marxism-Leninism, in the sense of either secret operations or defensive wars. in one way or another almost everybody believes in just wars, but ideologies determine when that metaphysical category is applied.
3621. If just wars exist, it's possible Che Guevara fought one / If there are just wars, it's possible Che Guevara was fighting one / If there's such a thing as a just war, then it's possible Che Guevara was fighting one -> my thought today when I remembered what I think was either PragerU or Fox News complaining that 'kids these days don't understand that there's any such thing as a just war'. I think it was PragerU. this is the comeback you hit them with. ok, so there's such a thing as a just war. what is the definition of a just war? do you really want to open that can of worms? if you simply decide to believe there is no such thing as a just war then you don't have to accept Che Guevara's war, but you also lose the ability to defend the Trotskyite conspiracy tearing apart Stalin's government to create its own. so choose wisely.
3622. A war to defend the proletariat is a just war -> the full-stop version. there are definitely texts containing this one.
3623. ??
3624. A war to clear away obstacles to Trotskyism is a just war / A violent action against a workers' state to clear the stage for realizing Trotskyism is justified -> it's fairly hard to successfully argue this one, mostly on account of how it destroys the best or only possible allies to Trotskyism.
3625. ??
3626. ??
3627. ??
3628. ??
3629. ??
3630. criterion which expels something from a group / judgement criterion which causes people to expel someone or something from a social group (prejudice) -> one of the only definitions of prejudice I can think of which is meta-ontologically sound, as in, the definition itself doesn't change depending on what ideological faction people are on. the downside is that under this definition some prejudices are almost objectively good. everyone wants to have a prejudice against fascists per-se. most people want to have a prejudice against Communists per-se, but not against business territory owners. if you're a Marxist this definition will actually be somewhat appealing because it allows probing exactly why people side with the bourgeoisie. assume that prejudices can't be changed with "Subjectivity" or "culture" the way Marcuse says and then figure out where they're really coming from. from what I know, the answer is long and complicated but it begins at "the smallest unit of humanity is voluntary subpopulations (Filaments), not individuals".
3631. criterion which declares one thing more important than another thing / hierarchy (anarchism) -> this is the anarchist-approved definition of prejudice?? this is. terrible. I mean, excuse me for Perpetuating Hierarchy, but this definition is not possible to identify in the material world. every movement will inherently think it's more important than other things simply due to the calculation everyone has to make of what to put effort into, which unfortunately kind of explains how everyone ended up in movementist hell where at various times all the movements just fight each other. it's also not hard to see how exactly ideas that appear to have come from anarchism keep getting vulgarized right back into center-Liberalism or right-Liberalism: people can just equivocate the concept of one thing being more important than another thing to say every viewpoint is important even if it's terrible, capitalists are important too, empires are important too, Europe is important too, White supremacists are important too, the works. it's fatal to a movement to not recognize that "hierarchies" are actual spatial structures where the prejudiced people are actually penning together other groups of people and conflating themselves with that fenced-in social graph. you never even get rid of the Archon if you don't recognize the microcolony as a structure and boot the Archon out of that. the Archon will just keep claiming to be nice and "not subscribed to a hyper-competitive mindset", "not subscribed to the colonizer attitude", "totally as important as you, why are you so prejudiced against me", "why don't we all do it together as all classes at once". and so far anarchists don't seem to have much of a defense against that. they just kind of let all the owners corrupt anarchism into Existentialism and let everything keep getting worse.
3632. hyper-competitive mindset (attitude, framing, perspective; anarchism) -> I have heard anarchists and Western Marxists who have absorbed all their models from anarchism say this at least twice, but I still have no idea what it means in real-world terms. like, say Dinesh D'Souza has a "hyper-competitive mindset" — you could fairly say this from reading his book. why is it that he has it and won't give it up no matter what? I don't think anarchists have a good answer to that, which makes the model implied in this term that a hyper-competitive mindset is something you can get rid of rather unproductive. charcoal or khaki swatch depending on who mentions the basic concept.
3633. North Korea does not have the colonizer attitude -> I think it's pretty easy to argue this. North Korea doesn't want to conquer anybody. all it does is defend itself. the same thing about halfway goes for China, although that half of the time is only when considered from the perspective of Maoism or Deng Xiaoping Thought. so why is there so much resistance to noticing this and thinking about it? why isn't North Korea the hero of Western Marxism and postcolonial theories? how is it they can go on and on about culture and attitudes and how supposedly we have to change every scrap of culture and attitude before we get anything but center-Liberalism, yet they don't think of this? I have my suspicions that people might secretly believe that North Korea does have The Colonizer Attitude somehow. it's the particular way nearly every single Existentialist talks about "generalized dictators" as if that means something. in the real world it generally seems that groups of people form, then leaders appear, "dictatorial" or not. but Existentialists have this very conspiratorial way of thinking where they seem to think "generalized dictators" show up and then create the groups of people.
3634. ??
3635. criterion which declares people of lesser worth / criterion which declares people "not equals" -> this motif is meant to be the center-Liberal definition of prejudice. which, to be honest, the mechanics of this definition have never made any sense to me. how do you keep people from inevitably judging each other if you believe that making everyone the same class is a fool's errand? you must believe some people are better than others if you don't believe people can all coexist without any individual being the official occupant of a societal activity that gets to subjectively define who else links to that activity. and if so, in what way are people meaningfully "equals"? look at affirmative action: it achieves the wrong thing. it assumes that "hatred" is what's keeping people out of top positions rather than it actually being really hard for anyone to achieve that level of skill over anyone else especially if a particular population of people for some reason begins with limited means. if you don't fix what's going on at the bottom scales of things (redlining, etc) the processes at the bottom will never hurl enough people upward that "removing hatred" and "offering training" to be the best actually matters.
3636. ??
3637. ??
3638. ??
3639. the colonizer attitude / colonial racism (Colonial Racism (pronounced Colonial Racism); MDem) -> do not refer to this as "colonialism" within Item labels. reserve that word for the physical processes of global empire. you may refer to colonial prejudices with any number of terms such as "colonial racism" or "alterity" or "Manichaeanism"(?) if you think readers would understand them, and you may use "colonialism", "imperialism", and "global empire" interchangeably. the one thing you must not do is imply that The Colonizer Attitude and global empire are the same concept. it is critical to separate these things in order to discuss which one causes the other one.
3640. ??
3641. ??
3642. ??
3643. Believing in free will is a prejudice / Free will is the only prejudice postcolonial theorists will never ever give up
3650. generalized dictator / the totalitarian psychology (authoritarian; mentality, personality; Lacanianism, psychoanalysis, psychohistory; sic.)
3651. North Korea is psychoanalytically wrong -> a cluster of different claims, probably. one would be that opting to be a Marxist theorist or General Secretary is morally wrong under psychoanalysis and the non-traumatized Real Human Being opts not to do it.
3652. ??
3653. Nazism and Bolshevism have the same cause / Nazism and Bolshevism are caused by the same thing / horseshoe theory (hypothesis that nazi ideologies and Communist ideologies are instances of the same prototypical thing)
3654. Nazism and Bolshevism come from class war / Nazism and Bolshevism have the same cause: class war / historical horseshoe theory / Horseshoe theory is right for entirely the wrong reasons / Horseshoe theory is backhandedly true -> components: horseshoe theory - case of - backhandedly correct statement. better horseshoe theory goes as follows: mark up the horseshoe as a timeline of events, with a straight arrow cutting from middle to ends. the middle of the horseshoe is a period of peace; because things are peaceful everyone remains moderate and similar. the next period of the horseshoe is a period of upheaval; as things become turbulent people separate into two groups and each becomes less moderate and more hostile. at the ends of the horseshoe, the separate groups may become violent, regimented, militaristic, and "similar". this has nothing to do with the specific ideologies of the groups, and everything to do with the fact they're divided and competing against each other and possibly literally at war. when you look at it this way, it's fair enough to say the horseshoe describes both the Nazi Germany period and the East Germany period. but what it really describes is the phenomenon of populations splitting because they can't stand each other and having to create borders and border police because they aren't one country. when you realize this you see that the horseshoe is a great oversimplification of the problem. the real problem is: is it worse to divide a country and live with the "extremes" of new borders, or is it worse to live in the same country with nazis and have to treat nazis as full citizens of your country as they're busy actively trying to act like they're the only true citizens and nobody else is? there's no option for "there are no nazis". center-Liberalism is, to some extent, the statement that given enough highly-educated experts siloed away from society nazis and non-nazis can be forced to live in harmony by a bunch of cops and courts despite how internally violent and hateful they may be every single day and despite how much the nazis may want to lock everybody else up as criminals for making them nervous.
3655. Anarchism and Toryism come from Existentialism / Anarchism and Toryism have the same cause: Existentialism / Anarchism and Toryism have the same cause: capitalism / Communist horseshoe theory / Communist fishhook theory (statement that theories stuck in capitalism circle back to the center whether they go "right" or "left") -> the motif or claim that so-called "far-left" ideologies in the United States are similar to "far-right" ideologies in that they both believe in giant amounts of freedom, but no matter how hard they try to escape oppression with freedom they don't escape capitalism and keep perpetuating all the patterns and toxic principles of capitalism, or worse, they literally tear apart into two countable areas of capitalism that become violently hostile without successfully forming borders, turning the false Idealist slider of "political positions within the same nation" into a down-facing horseshoe, center-wing capitalism on the left, center-wing capitalism on the right.
3656. ??
3657. Anarchism is indistinguishable from Juche-socialism / Juche-socialism is indistinguishable from anarchism -> troll proposition. if anarchism is better than Bolshevism because it doesn't divide people into The Community Process and The Party, then surely a Marxism that mixes them both together must be better, right? if anarchism is people joining into A Community then how do you know it's different from Juche-socialism? how do you know they're not the same?
      Arceism + Juche concept = this.
3658. Your response to a Marxist text is deterministic / Your response to reading a Marxist text is deterministic / Each person's response to a Marxist text is deterministic -> this is what's strictly true if you don't believe in Free Will, yet somehow practically nobody thinks about this. the better question, though, is how? if my response to reading a Marxist text is deterministic, in what way is it actually determined? personally, I would argue that the answer is reterminism. the stimulus and the human body as it is both have to act together to produce the result. determinism exists but it isn't a closed system as much as something that forms semi-spontaneously in the middle of chaos. that does imply you can't predict exactly when determinism begins, and can only predict what happens after it begins.
3659. Those who don't believe in free will could become Communists / If you truly don't believe in free will, you may be destined to become a Communist -> I am so sick of people claiming they don't believe in Free Will but then clearly secretly believing in it when they try to say historical materialism is impossible because of The Subject. nobody arguing about Free Will seems to actually understand what Free Will would practically be in real life.
3660. East Germany was indistinguishable from an Anarchism / East Germany was actually an Anarchism -> I am pretty sure this is false but I could not actually explain why. so this is basically one of those "man is equivalent to a chicken" type statements. the heart of this probably-spurious claim would be that because events like Black Lives Matter and the Paris Commune were built around people of a particular idealistic countable Culture assertively occupying a particular spatial area, the distinction between a hypothetical successful Anarchism and a real-world historical fortress state is rather fuzzy. what actually is the difference? you can't say that a fortress state is different from an Anarchism because it's based around the proletariat, because North Korea became a fortress state and hardly had a proletariat at all. I guess you could appeal to "The State", but personally? in my opinion an army always counts as having a State. that's the easiest way to interpret the Trotskyite conspiracy as the seeds of a plural Marxism and open up the road to diplomacy and healing traumas between rival Marxisms. so like, if an Anarchism always realistically has to have a State to perform realization and exist, how is it actually different from a fortress state?
3661. Deng Xiaoping Thought is a postcolonial theory / Deng Xiaoping Thought is part of a new category of postcolonial theories solidly based in Materialism instead of Idealism -> the claim that because it is primarily focused on maintaining the national independence of China and not on creating Bolshevism or abolishing capitalism, Deng Xiaoping Thought is not a Leninism but does instead qualify as a postcolonial theory. if this is true, there would exist a category of Marxisms which are postcolonial theories based in Materialism but are not Leninisms.
      I'm not positive on this one, yet there is just enough of an argument here to change over Deng Xiaoping Thought to the strawberry swatch, as a rather complimentary use of that swatch that contrasts all its negative meanings. it's better than giving any statist things the charcoal swatch. probably... Deng Xiaoping Thought needs its own ideology code now. ok. MZ and DX are the new codes for Maoism and Deng Xiaoping Thought.
3662. Juche-socialism is a postcolonial theory / Juche-socialism is part of a new category of postcolonial theories solidly based in Materialism instead of Idealism -> I think there's also equally as good a case for this.
3663. East Germany was a postcolonial movement / East Germany provides evidence for a new category of postcolonial theories solidly based in Materialism instead of Idealism -> I think this is one possible answer to the jamming question of whether East Germany was "an anarchism". the claim would be that all successful instances of creating a workers' state have been postcolonial movements, and it has been a fundamental truth of workers' states that they operate on ensuring the whole population is competitive against or defended against all the other countries around it who every day still eat and occupy space — postcolonial movements are in contradiction with degrowth and the environment, contrary to what everyone wants to think, and only either industry or a very concerted push from as many Third World individuals as possible to form a coherent and operational civilization and a unified government can actually make Third World nationalities free. said another way, if Third World people can solve Trotskyism and merge into one big country of like 5 billion people they're good on having to build more industry or damage the environment, but it's still the case anarchism has to go.
3664. Culture is nothing more than the set of signs many individuals spontaneously make up -> this is ultimately why people think there's a "Spanishness Office". Existentialism. they think that if they tell one person, who is perfectly equivalent to the whole population, to change their way of thinking that everybody will spontaneously change, unanimously flipping over the policies of the Spanishness Office. but there are several wrong assumptions in there. one, knowledge doesn't travel faster than light to everybody at once. two, individuals have different content, and whenever they hear the same message, this sorts them into different factions and different opposing courses of action. imagine any two individuals, Stalin and Trotsky, Goku and Vegeta. you tell them the exact same statement, and they take it to mean totally different things, and any allies they have take it to mean the same thing. "Freeza is descending on Planet Vegeta". (if you live on earth, is it a good thing for Saiyans to cease to exist?) "The Soviet Union will fall apart if people don't properly participate". (Trotsky, Zinoviev: that's fantastic!) "Inclusive history education will give marginalized people more power." (Floridians: then let's destroy it, we can't have that.) you have to plan any attempt to "inform everyone" around this inherent separation into ideological subpopulations.
3665. No one should make their own meaning unless others consider it wonderful / People shouldn't spontaneously make up culture and signs unless it's wonderful -> Q3667 + Q?? everyone creates their own meaning = this. anarculture proposition / democulture proposition. I think this one is anarculture but it turns into democulture practically speaking with another proposition
3666. Individual choices immediately shape the health of society / Individual choices immediately contribute to the health of society -> the nexus point where we see Existentialism being born inside the context of ancient religions; what is in my opinion the core of defining "sin", as well as the Buddhist concept of "unhelpful mental factors" that impede meditation and also society.
3667. Nothing should be done unless everybody considers it wonderful / "they had such good reasons for doing what they did that the ends justify the means" -> I am so sick of this phrase and its use in analyzing both fiction and reality. there are so many wrong assumptions in it that are difficult to dig up at first, but whenever anyone uses this concept it always totally distorts their view of how reality really works. you get so many crazy propositions out of this like that it's absolutely not allowed to investigate how reality works without obeying metaphysics, etc.
3668. Manipulative and abusive people seek to destroy Freedom -> one of the central axioms of the Existentialist-Structuralist tradition that leads to all the strange statements about sorting the world into nice people and mean people, Free Will being able to fix everything, etc.
3669. Manipulative people manufacture emergencies in order to create desperate behaviors / "manipulative people shift context to normalize extreme behavior" [159] -> Tories are doing my work for me. here again we see a focus on individual agents and malicious intentions: a "manipulative individual" is identified and treated as the key to preventing bad outcomes. but this person is using it to argue that any sufficiently large-scale social policy is a conspiracy by corrupt people inside the government, and in turn to argue that COVID measures and environmental regulations are conspiracies, and worst of all, that any mention of an "emergency" anywhere on earth is a ploy of manipulation to sway otherwise bias-free rationalists. Existentialism starts with the seemingly innocuous stuff like claiming every form of abuse is the denial of Freedom, or that intersubjectivity is the culmination of Freedom, and ends with this. cultural islands that claim any attempt to regulate them through democulture or federal government at all is a breach of Enlightenment values. the only bright side to this? it gives insight into why Trotsky is so "popular". this sounds just like the framings Trotskyite conspirators used. but you can see that the internal reasoning is different: it's solely about choppifying society because being part of a bigger society isn't fun.
3670. COVID measures were devised in order to create Bolshevism -> laughable claim when you take it very literally. of course, what the claim says is not what it typically means when people say it.
3671. ??
3672. ??
3673. ??
3674. ??
3675. ??
3676. Freedom requires rejecting COVID measures
3677. ??
3678. ??
3679. Nobody is actually transgender
3680. If nobody ever built towns, everyone could live in harmony / If nobody ever built social structures, everyone could live in harmony / If nobody ever built social structures, people of every ideology could live in harmony -> the founding axiom of Proudhonism and Distributism, seemingly. note that it's literally untrue when Hatfield attacks can always happen out of the blue.
3681. If nobody went to work and made money, there'd be no need for labor movements
3682. If nobody ever voted, nobody would get angry about voting
3683. If nobody ever left their houses, nobody would have to wear masks / If nobody ever left their houses, it wouldn't be necessary to force anyone to wear masks
3684. If nobody ever got vaccines, we could have perfectly rational discussions about them / If nobody ever got vaccines, there'd be no need to debate them -> jamming proposition to catch especially stupid thought-diversity rationalists. I, personally, am sitting here never getting vaccines just because since the beginning of COVID everybody was treating vaccines as a conspiracy theory and you couldn't discuss them, so I ended up never leaving my house in order to be safe during COVID, and never being able to ask anybody to take me to get vaccinated when I can't drive on my own. I could walk 8 km for the whole trip there and back, or tell a lie, but both of those take enough effort I usually don't have the energy. the ideal method is for me to ride a bus by myself, but this place doesn't believe in public buses, so I get no vaccines. this isn't even due to health insurance coverage; Medicaid covers them. it's due to the fact societies are built out of factions and if you don't fit into them you have no society. if I gripe to someone about a lack of buses they'll ask me why I need vaccines, as well as why I need buses. the only way I can allow Tories to exist and stand by and "criticize" them is to sit in my house all month and never vote and not get vaccinated. if you think society is not fundamentally made of factions and you can just stand by "criticizing" them you're stupid. and I'm going to fill this wiki with propositions until you can't function as a capitalist or a Liberal representative any more because everybody sees through all this bullshit.
3685. Information is just for your information
3686. I'm just putting information out there / putting information out there to make sure you have a choice / putting information out there so you can do your own research -> an excuse used to publish anti-vaccine material legally; this particular motif is distinctly negative, although Q36,85 might be positive sometimes. [160] seems connected back to core Existentialist propositions. in its own weird way it's like a nonfiction parallel to "don't like, don't read".
3687. Putting Harry under the stairs is freedom from Harry Potter -> this is what bugs me about anarchism. every time everyday people oppress you in your life, they're probably doing it because they want freedom from you. anarchism thinks you can fix that with freedom freedom freedom but it just doesn't make any sense when freedom is actually one of the quickest roads to prejudice and oppression.
3688. Prejudice is a form of freedom -> follows from: solidarity is strictly optional. this is really awful to realize; it's not something you want anyone embodying and making use of. but, it neatly explains exactly why people continue to have prejudices. people have prejudices because when you give them enough freedom they will simply decide what demographics they do and don't want to interact with, turning freedom into this runaway train you can't stand in front of without it declaring your death under the train is less important than it having ownership over the railroad it's already barreling down.
3689. vaccine hesitancy / vaccine distrust / vaccine refusal / vaccine denial (center-Liberalism) -> I was unsure what swatch to give this because brown seemed too negative. I went with "anarchism" because as much as some Black towns have genuine reasons to be afraid of doctors, anarchism is an ideology promising social transition; even a few anarchists against vaccines is a few too many.
3690. Anything is true if your population is small enough / Sunny's dream world fallacy -> "Sunny" in reference to OMORI, and how it becomes "true" that he has no problems if he isolates himself in his dreams.
3691. All facts are culture, thus one Culture is superior to another / Because culture is the only thing that's true, one Culture is superior to another -> this is the crux (no pun intended) of Christianity reaching its fascist form and why religion causes problems. it's true that in theory, you can combat hateful religion without ever talking about religion or telling people they can't believe it. but if you want to do that, you have to realize that religion boils down to the assertion that whatever ladder of cultural signifiers people stack up into an ontological model of how the world works is the truth. monotheistic religions archetypically assert that their group of people is behaving the correct way to be chosen by God; what this means in practice is that they have the correct culture to keep persisting as a civilization and telling everyone else what is moral while somebody else has evil, incorrect culture. progressive anthropologists and various people often unknowingly duplicate this same assertion that culture is "somebody's truth" in trying to define what tolerance is and how it is that people tolerate identities, but this is a nasty fallacy that nobody should be using. people in each town believe that culture is the truth because we can never experience reality except through culture, but whenever they do this they always believe the culture of one town is the truth for the whole world, not just for that town as sociology wants them to. this leads to the bigoted behavior of acting like one town's culture is the truth but another town's culture is lies. it's easier to get everyone to tolerate each other by simply asserting that culture is never the truth and Lived Experiences are not the truth, while creating a working model of how the universe works including a meta-Marxist analysis of how each society or subpopulation internally functions of its own power and under its own values is a different matter. maybe our model of reality is never reality, but culture, being the shared ontology of a specific socially-linked population of people, is definitionally insular and definitionally ignorant.
3692. Any "inevitable" social structure inevitably holds up a gun / a phenomenon which is real and tangible is capable of holding up a gun -> a little opaque out of its original context but very clear in context. societies are composed from elements which are material, and which must live and exist materially as any Animal does. any proposed element which makes up a society in a consistent way across time or throughout various different events would have to be material. if The Subject is an unavoidable element of society, then we should expect The Subject has the ability to fight for its life and try to kill us whenever we try to impose something on it it doesn't like. if political parties are an inherent or permanent fixture of societies, then we should expect that whenever we make reactionary political parties accept pronouns or whatever makes them really mad reactionary political parties will fight to the death and try to kill us. whether these two hypothetical cases have actually happened yet is debatable; one could argue that these cases have happened or that they haven't truly happened, depending on whether one feels that "unavoidable" or "fight to the death" is the more important part of the conjecture. either way, if we assume "unavoidable" is the part in question versus reality, then it would be the case that we should want it to be true that the unavoidable elements of society are fairly large, and not want unavoidable elements to turn out to be as small as we can imagine. thankfully, it's arguable that the smallest unavoidable element of society is the Social-Philosophical System, which is of variable size but in some cases can be as large as a society itself. Catholic, Muslim, Latino, native-Hawaiian, Trotskyist, mainstream Marxist-Leninist, Kropotkinist, North Korean, and certain unclear sections of majority-China might be examples of unavoidable social units, but "The Individual" might not, and likewise, "The United States" might not, being too big to meaningfully form its own "organism". which, if true, is very good in terms of the (il)legitimacy of global empire. there is no easy answer in terms of exactly how local units are supposed to be combined to create peace. but, we do know that the more we understand and substantiate Social-Philosophical-Systems the implications would be that coexistence becomes increasingly obvious while empire makes less and less sense.
3693. Vaccine distrust is a deeply human response -> every human being is near-deterministically obligated to strive against things that will harm their own survival or their children's survival if they want children. the intuitive human defense to threats is to group together with people who are trusted to protect a person's survival. if somebody just suffered the death of a child and you tell them "life is unpredictable, there's nothing you can do about it" [161] then you are generating anti-vaccine social groups through your actions, because human beings require enough predictability to be able to survive and reproduce without their babies dying. they won't lie down and accept a world where they can't build a group of people to help them survive better. I feel like the appropriate response is actually to connect all of these people to research on their specific baby disease or something so they can have a "community" which isn't just opposing vaccines
3694. no one in these comments supports gay marriage! / awful CNN comments section -> looking at a CNN comments section, there was a certain contradiction to it. it seems like only a certain swath of older Tories actually watches "the news" any more. so they all come to the CNN comments section and post about how "I've never seen anyone support gay marriage", because the only commenters they've seen are the commenters boring enough to watch solely The News and hardly anything else. the easiest way to fix a comment section like this is to report half of them for the blatant TOS violations in their posts, given that "hateful content" is already not allowed. but there's something not satisfying about that. the problem here is that comments sections are designed expecting a bunch of progressive people to flood into the comments section and post comments, as if everyone has identical interests and there are never self-selection effects. two countable Cultures are graph-struggling over the comments section in an unavoidable competition and in order to stop "echo chambers" you have to ramp up the competition by progressives over every comments section to change who wins. but progressives are never going to watch every single video, even collectively. there's no way to just "push them upward" in the struggle over every video and win the comments just so Tories won't see a comment section full of Tories. people don't want to watch the videos toxic Tories watch. but you don't really want to ban news stories with negative outcomes just because Tories will flock around them. you always see some sort of shepherd sheet structure forming purely because there is networkism and the ability of people to freely associate around one social-graph owner instead of another potentially generates negative, anti-social behavior. if there isn't a Communist party then there will be a central body of YouTube experts determining what are the terms and conditions to not have horrible anti-social Cultures forming inside YouTube. people think you can escape the prospect of having a government that regulates the formation of Cultures but you really can't. escape an overarching Culture-federation in your republic and you'll just get a smaller one inside the chunks of society large numbers of people actually use.
3700. ??
3709. the freedom to not encounter Jews -> it is strange and bizarre how much some people can get offended by "BCE".
3710. the freedom to not encounter Black people / freedom to not encounter ethnic subpopulation -> the motif of people insisting that a few Black people cast in a movie or TV show is due to "a political agenda" — which is, of course, some mysterious secret agenda beyond people wanting to see more demographics represented on TV shows. I never had any idea what my parents were even grumbling about until I got to the age of 27 and I finally learned about the existence of Gramscianism and went "....oh". everybody had been lying to me, some lying that Media Representation was an evil conspiracy and others lying that there was no such thing as Gramscianism. the terrible thing is that when you finally find out what it is, the United States has utterly vulgarized Gramscianism to where it's like, everybody take over all the job slots before the White people notice you've done it so the center-Liberals will get votes and there will never be Gramscianism, but if they notice too fast you're trying to get a few Liberal-party votes for anti-racism they'll all get furious you're even doing that. that's this motif.
3711. the freedom to not encounter LGBT+ people
3711. ??
3712. ??
3713. ??
3714. ??
3715. ??
3716. ??
3717. freedom to not encounter social-democrats / the freedom to not encounter social-democrats -> somewhat rare to see, but several Marxist articles complain about it and tell Marxists not to shun people who could help build overall national movements. so this is a motif in what some people say
3718. freedom to not encounter Stalin-followers / the freedom to not encounter Stalin-followers (Stalinists, mainstream Marxist-Leninists; Trotskyism) -> basically every Trotskyist believes in this, whether they say it out loud or not. to me it's never made sense because it seems just as stupid as Q37,17.
3719. freedom to not encounter White people / the freedom to not encounter White people -> when "freedom" goes on long enough you'll get small groups of Black people or LGBT+ people just absolutely and utterly tired of straight White people to the point they almost don't want to see them, most often in reference to fictional media and not necessarily in reference to its audience.
      Berdly's character feels like an instance of coding this in the middle of an abstract fictional world — in a way that is mostly inoffensive until perhaps the moment you spell it out like this.
3720. freedom to not encounter U.S. people / the freedom to not encounter the United States -> an idea which is nearly specific to China, or other Third World countries. definitely not as known in countries like the United Kingdom, Germany, or Australia.
3721. freedom to not encounter HTML / the freedom to not encounter HTML -> although I can understand this for about five seconds before I really think about it, it drives me up the wall and makes me not really want to use Gemini or the fediverse, just because it is so uncomfortably similar to all the other entries next to this. I have gone into detail about this on another entry.
3722. freedom to not encounter Javascript / the freedom to not encounter Javascript -> this one? this one is actually valid. when it's implemented as a kind of personal defense inside a browser where you can forbid all Javascript and only sometimes allow it when it's actually useful, that's about ideal. I don't really like attempts to try to ban the use of something that was already standardized such that there are no competing proprietary versions of the basic thing. the world needs more things like that, not fewer of them.
3725. ??
3730. ??
3735. ??
3739. Pointing out demographics facing racism is racist / If Trotsky says people in Alabama are racist, Trotsky is racist / If Joe Biden says "if", some hypothetical, "then you ain't Black", Joe Biden is racist -> both of these anecdotes of people saying this are real, unfortunately.
      the second one is the absolute worst because somebody actually tried to use it to explain logical fallacies, and in the process I think that person showed formal logic to be one giant fallacy itself. Joe Biden saying "...then you ain't Black" is a "some occurrence" statement, neither entirely true nor entirely false. it's another version of the trap statement "Black people experience structural racism. true/false?" to which the answer is "some occurrence". no other answer creates a sound statement than "neither true nor false, some occurrence". just like the trap statement "Communism is oppressive. true/false?" where the truest it gets is "rare occurrence" and it never gets all the way to "true". it says a lot about people's general ability to reason when they take the two statements "Communism is oppressive: rare occurrence" and "Trotskyism will succeed: no occurrence" and a ton of people sided with Trotsky. what those statements say is that Trotsky literally has no power to prevent Communism from being "oppressive" even if it was, and supporting Stalin or supporting Trotsky would have the same result if you actually want to end neoliberalism. if you support Stalin then you don't get Trotskyism, and if you support Trotsky then you don't get Trotskyism. and yet even so you get your Noam Chomskys who would literally rather take the 0% chance that Trotskyism succeeds.
3739. primitive communism -> a motif in early Marxism which basically amounts to remarking on how tribal populations are not yet divided up into tiny competing populations of one person each due to property lines or otherwise, and instead tend to form a single cohesive unit. this entry represents the motif exactly as it would appear in Marxist texts. the propositions below take it and attempt to make it more materially precise or fit for an era of meta-Marxism where there is not only one ideology interpreting things and we have to lay out the anarchist hypotheses as well as the Marxist hypotheses.
3740. Tribal populations model something about current societies -> in general this has to be true because even under historical materialism all societies contain the same palette of structures and processes.
3741. Tribal populations are a model for anarchy / primitive anarchism claim
3742. Tribal populations are a model for individuals taking care of other individuals -> pay attention to how quickly people leap in logic from this to it being materially possible to create government programs.
3743. Tribal populations are a model for a classless society / primitive communism claim -> rather old now. somewhat doubtful for reasons nobody could have expected.
3744. Tribal populations are a model for the whole world being one population -> because the Item number was 44, I tried to think of some reason that tribal populations could be a model for Trotskyism. the first thing I thought of didn't make sense whatsoever. then I realized that the total nonsense statement was more insightful than things people actually say specifically because it was clearly wrong. Trotsky is like when you tune your guitar and you adjust it way too low so you can tune it up and tell where it's actually going. I swear Trotskyism will save us all specifically because it's the only thing where its wrongness is obvious; it's the only actual baseline standard of wrongness. yeah, anyway. one of the most obvious things about tribal populations is that they're plural. they were never a single indivisible population, and they easily come into conflict at various times in history. it seems to be fundamentally hard for humans to understand this fact, just looking at the Christian Old Testament, and Buddhism, and Trotskyism, and general-sense psychoanalysis or all its counterparts of the bourgeoisie becoming convinced that chopping everyone into a bunch of tiny islands makes humanity one population instead of a billion humanities as it actually does. human beings around the world have a really hard time with the concept that countries are plural, whether they want to dominate others or want to cooperate with others but end up being bad at it because their failure to understand plurality makes it impossible.
3745. Tribal populations are a model for not destroying the environment / primitive environmentalism claim / indigenuity claim -> before anyone makes fun of this one, we have to remember that the tribal populations could be proposing it in this case. this doesn't mean they can't be wrong.
3746. Tribal populations are a model for government programs / primitive Menshevism claim -> why do we not. take a moment and realize that tribal populations are much smaller than the huge population we want to apply government programs to. they don't have government programs. (?) not in the specific large-scale sense the United States would have.
3747. Tribal populations are a model for Deng Xiaoping Thought / There is such a thing as primitive Deng Xiaoping Thought -> this sounds like a total troll proposition purely put here as a joke, but I swear it's a proper jamming proposition. this is the claim that the thing tribal populations model is solid borders between physical populations where the people in the population interact mostly with each other and only sometimes with the outside and this encourages the population to develop or to take care of itself. it is then proposed that Deng Xiaoping Thought is a way to restore "primitive Deng Xiaoping Thought". if this proposition is accurate, it would provide evidence that there is a missing step in mainstream Marxism-Leninism. a country can achieve Whatever This Is before it creates Bolshevism, or it can create Bolshevism before Whatever This Is while risking that outside countries totally tear it apart. it also may be possible for a country to create Whatever This Is inside a country using multiple subpopulations, and in the process get rid of one of the major problems plaguing the United States that people become stuck on elections but every election becomes about badly arguing over whether subpopulations should destroy each other.
3748. There is no primitive Menshevism / The "primitive communism" concept doesn't apply to Menshevism -> many people observe over and over that tribal populations in North America, Australia, etc, or around ten thousand years ago, often had this particular configuration where people inside a tribe "take care of each other" without attaching payment to the concept. what practically nobody realizes is there is a very particular set of conditions surrounding a tribe under which this happens. a tribe is often isolated from other groups of people by a large physical area such that even if they meet occasionally they cannot come into conflict. this one thing is drastically different from the modern age where tribe-sized subpopulations are constantly squashed into each other and fighting each other over things. the real question to ask ourselves on primitive Menshevism is whether societies of old would be able to take care of their people if they were constantly fighting each other, or constantly fighting European empires.
3749. Industrial societies are a model for Existentialist-Structuralist ideologies / primitive Existentialism claim -> I think this is relatively easy to show. this is just a statement that the assumptions inside early-existentialism, Lacanianism and psychohistory, and so forth come directly from baking in certain aspects of Liberal-republican capitalism without ever thinking they could be different.
3750. ??
3760. What is the function of a union?
3761. The function of a union is to change capitalist behavior / The function of a union is to change the behavior of individual capitalists -> what I swear is the position in center-Liberalism and connected Existentialisms.
3762. ??
3763. ??
3764. Unions are for creating workers' governments / The function of a union is to directly create workers' governments -> weird position in early Trotskyism that was strongly countered by Lenin.
3765. Unions are for empowering workers to change culture / The function of a union is to empower workers to change the popular mentality -> I have no citation for this right now, but this proposition is supposed to be the Gramscian position on unions. it can be redone if necessary
3766. Unions are for the next generation to secure its right to exist / The function of a union is for the next generation of people to fight for subpopulational possession of territory against older generations who form into capitalist Filaments and Wasp swarms -> mainstream Marxism-Leninism doesn't like to think this way, but it's the kind of question we have to contemplate to end Gramscian identity politics and Idealism. one of the things that keeps Liberalism going is clashes between whole demographic subpopulations as socially-linked subpopulations, and petty-bourgeois experts rising to the heads of the subpopulations to make sure each subpopulation is safe from whatever the other one is really or supposedly about to do to them. these could be a Black population versus a White population, or they could be a Democrat population versus a Republican population, or a Protestant and Catholic population against each other, etc. to take away the power of those experts to dictate everything that politics is, you have to have models of entire subpopulations operating headlessly as coordinated subpopulations; a simple statement that subpopulations have Archons and the Multitude has to kick the Archons out will not be enough to stop the subpopulations from kicking out their Archons and then descending into a blood feud. so, we begin here: the function of a union is to tie together people of a local subpopulation to fight for the right to be a proletariat instead of getting scattered off a territory and effectively Artisanized. the function of larger unions is to create a proletariat instead of plural proletariats. in the United States the entire existence of the proletariat has been attacked, and it has been variously shattered into smaller proletariats or sometimes extirpated from a region. this does have racial correlations — although not in the way that people want to think it does. United States people try to extirpate the proletariat because they are already linked into countable cultures covering spatial areas, such as "The Democratic Party" or "White Southern Baptist Christians" and they see the birth or entrance of the proletariat as a threat to existing countable cultures. in some senses, it is a threat — when a subpopulation of proletarians forms it forms its own countable culture socially and politically and may break up old traditions and bigotries. at the same time, it's quite easy to have a process like Black people trying very hard to integrate into the United States republic, studying the constitution and case law and becoming representatives and so forth, and in the process creating their own anti-proletarian subpopulation of experts that threatens to extirpate the Black proletariat if it doesn't do exactly what they say. it's generally the dynamic of whole countable cultures colliding with each other while containing separate proletariats that causes all the problems.
3769. ??
3770. Carl Sagan was lucky to land the best professors -> Demon Haunted World. I find it pretty funny I cite this book for Careerism more than for secular philosophy against religion
3771. job doomscrolling -> I have never seen this term but I don't know why, as it's perfectly intuitive to me as a concept that follows from saying people-gambling on social platforms is bad. if so, is there a point where you can be "doomscrolling" jobs looking for good ones but really just being addicted to the concept they'll magically get better and you'll find the only good one?
3772. The reason petty bourgeoisie won't carry a revolution is precarity -> I won't mess around and try to tell you the bourgeoisie are the prime ingredient in a workers' movement; that would be ridiculous. the only reason I have to talk about such stupid things is the way literally all discourse in the United States is run by the bourgeoisie and has become this weird game of "how do we rationally convince the bourgeoisie to not be asshole (pronounced asshole)s". all right, let's examine the Western Marxist question seriously. why is it the bourgeoisie are bad at committing to a workers' movement to break through capitalism? I'd say one of the top reasons is simply precarity. there are a far greater number of petty bourgeoisie than anyone wants to admit. and for them in particular, their career is always really precarious. they can't expect to remain in the same town. they can't expect to stay there and learn from all the workers. they have to attend to this fragile tiny business constantly and it takes away from their time to even go around and connect different groups of people. their ability to live is constantly threatening to shatter itself and they have nobody to turn around and protest about that. it only makes it worse that capitalism contains a natural shattering process where over time any particular business easily dies and when it dies everything the workers built up over their lives potentially dies and all the people become Artisanized a bit, pressured to make new businesses and start from scratch in their careers or have nowhere to work. when businesses are dying sometimes they guard against death by laying off a bunch of workers and keeping the non-dead part the best they can. a business which is greedily thriving is easy to strike against but a dying business may be harder because there's simply nothing to take back, it's just a case of the proletariat dissolving into nothing and if it fails, everyone being converted back into the bourgeoisie. now to be fair, in a Third World country people can have absolutely no hope of survival and build a workers' movement to gain that. in a First World country people chicken out of situations of great poverty and migrate to the first place they aren't precarious any more, and this has to do with the way that anyone who isn't suffering in First World countries joins into these big nightmare Filaments where 2,000 people oppress one poor person before even 50 poor people can get together. in one sense the United States has always been colonial, aided by the "friendship" of people socially linking together just to build a farm and build a business and build the next generation and build the next generation, but dragged down by that same "friendship" when individual people fail to fit into countable cultures and suddenly 200 other people in the countable culture are all oppressing them at once. you see how a lot of the way, social problems are tied to not being able to predict the way populations reproduce and build and realize this structure and that structure from generation to generation. people being selected out of colonial cesspools in the United States and Soviet microdistricts failing people over generations are each ultimately kind of the same exact problem. that Marxism still sees human populations as static and doesn't model humanity as a thing that continuously reproduces and re-creates and realizes. as a material object that regenerates new instances of itself called "towns" or "suburbs" and can always suddenly regenerate the bourgeoisie just because it reproduced. if we knew the chemistry of this continuously reproducing thing and the different possible regeneration processes, we could fix it so that capitalism didn't realize again. it's in thinking that a single revolutionary event actually fixes the fundamental problem, rather than a science of actual continuing development, that we make our great mistake. back to this entry: having that particular science, you could maybe get some of the bourgeoisie into position so towns are more stable against business failure and they don't run away. no guarantees though.
3773. ??
3774. ??
3775. ??
3776. Solidarity is strictly optional / Any individual being part of any particular faction or subpopulation or town or business or party or ideology or country is strictly optional and voluntary -> the heart of how Existentialism in particular generates capitalism and anticommunism, how Deleuze and Guattari are essentially just screwing us over by exalting what oppresses us all. everyone's conception of progress is fundamentally this weird kind of "Freedomism" where it's thought that the exact opposite of any particular social oppression is Freedom. this is dangerous because it takes the notion of "solidarity" that emerged during the French Revolution and breaks the whole thing in two. if you think Freedom is the secret to everything (or even that Lived Experience is) then nobody will ever be required to form an enduring group which experiences solidarity, full stop. people will just look at their own needs and whenever their biological organism experiences suffering they'll get up and leave — exactly the way people left East Germany just because being in group of people doesn't make survive good. center-Liberals try to rapidly toss water out of the sinking ship by asserting that people have to be bound together by morality, and surely if nobody has to be connected they'll all connect together just because not standing with marginalized people against racists is morally wrong, but that doesn't really work. morality can never overcome ability and disability. if people are "free" to do whatever they will always desert you the moment the ability of their biological organism to perform the actual actions that help you drops off. this is how the notion of progressive struggles gets vulgarized into "the few people who are able to leave donations donating money". that is baseline existence before progress happens. donations are the symptom of everyone having separate parallel existences and not actually being able to help each other with anything because they are each individually struggling to stay alive. donations punish disability and reward the people who miraculously have the physical ability to do what is required of them whether or not anyone has made the requirements clear or left everybody to flail.
3777. Democracy is government of the person by the people / Democracy is government of the person, by the people and for the people / culturocracy proposition / democulture proposition (one of them)
3778. Democracy is government of the culture by the people / Democracy is the people overcoming the Spanishness Office / democulturocracy proposition / democulture proposition (more proper one) / anarculture proposition (one of them) -> culturocracy is a "real" meta-Marxist term, but "democulturocracy proposition" is to be taken as a proper name, not an actual term; even I think that word is too silly.
3775. ??
3779. ??
3780. rhizome mathematics -> terribly mathematical descriptions offered by D&G themselves; "neither one nor multiple" yet still growing sideways in some kind of graph-theory terms
3781. arborescent society / arborescence (schizoanalysis) -> I have no idea what this even means. we're going to find out edit: this fundamentally has to do with countability and the countability of subpopulations. Deleuze was trying to be all smart about the perfect principles that would supposedly keep a society from dividing, and basically ended up with the notion of a unity of opposites, which he decided to name "multiplicity". in the middle of this he seems to have obscured one of the most important distinctions in Materialism: the sheer division between material objects including populations.
3782. rhizome sign regime / rules by which rhizome contains uncountable(?) Philosophical System -> sounds impossible in real life but definitely very interesting
3783. rhizome (schizoanalysis)
3800. ??
3805. ??
3809. ??
3810. Linear time cannot capture lived experience / Linear time can never capture the intuitive experience of time (Henri Bergson) -> Henri Bergson's assertion contrasted with Deleuze, which is this weirdly positivist conception of time that somehow inner experience equals time. when it generally really doesn't. if Bergson had just known about relativity he'd have seen that there can be separate parallel timelines (world lines) without any of them necessarily being consciously experienced. follows from: all events that occur around a person occur inside that person
3811. ??
3812. lived experience and Santa Claus / Existentialism and Santa Claus -> this phrase sounds like a joke but I'm mostly being serious. Christmas movies are so weirdly obsessed with even after they are secular, appealing to what is basically Lived Experience. this seems to happen because of how religion takes a long time to fully leave people and thus people are always tempted to frame replacements for religion in magic-ritual terms. thus, you get these weird themes in Christmas stories about how Santa Claus just has to be experienced. to deny magic is to squash the Lived Experience you could be having but have closed yourself off to. the story is secular in that magic is taken as a fantasy element, imagined by the narrative, but the purpose of magic in the narrative is that it stands in for the notion that Lived Experience just has to be experienced and there is nothing like it except to experience it. Santa Claus stories are smuggling in Henri Bergson.
3820. ??
3830. ??
3838. Can science be the Last Unicorn? / Is scientific data vulnerable to the Last Unicorn fallacy? -> I think the answer is that it can be but it doesn't have to be. getting more information about different but similar scenarios can help break out of "unicorn" illusions. in some ways "psychical elements" are just one big problem with human perception that causes mirages.
3839. drawing out a totality of human capacity (Marx) / the possibility for each human being to develop all powers, capacities, and talents they possess for the benefit of the overall society (Daniel Guérin 1970) [162] -> a motif in Marx that for a while I would always keep thinking about periodically. what does it mean? should it be taken literally, that people have various abilities? or should it be taken more figuratively, that people have time to have well-rounded personalities with many interests? at first I took it literally, and I was like, is this a wrong projection of the future, given that people do that today as a product of dissolving the proletariat and "Saiyanizing" society into a fierce competition between individuals that paradoxically stands together? now I wonder if I overthought it and it was meant figuratively to simply say, if Bolshevism is prosperous then this incidentally happens, this is just the goal rather than a step anywhere in the middle.
3840. Applin is a scam -> several ideas to unpack
3841. The "Existentialist-Structuralist tradition" equals Idealism / The "Existentialist-Structuralist tradition" is synonymous with Idealism -> I would call this statement "fair" but missing only one tiny nuance. I think that Idealism is trying really hard to evolve into an ideology which is fully as elaborate as revolutionary ideologies, which is genuinely capable of replacing every part of Marxism. so I speak of the "Existentialist-Structuralist tradition" to try to characterize the process of Idealism narrowing itself down into the "perfect" Idealism capable of creating the perfect "anti workers' state". this seems to be a very messy process which has had many many attempts going in different directions and which has had many failures getting there, and also which may go multiple directions when it gets very close to being finished, producing a plurality of two or three different schemes for Existentialist republics. just as there are multiple competing Marxisms — mainstream Marxism-Leninism, Trotskyism, Gramscianism, etc. the bright side is that Marxisms can actually reason through their differences to ultimately come together, while Idealisms are incentivized all the way through to fight each other.
3842. It's a Wonderful Life
3843. A Christmas Carol
3844. superstructural world or cosmos -> superset of: superstructural fantasy world, superstructural boring world.
3845. superstructural fantasy world / Superstructure, meet base / what happens out there affects us in here (check wording? FNaF World)
3846. superstructural boring world -> rather special case. Deltarune, Fionna & Cake
3847. non-magical magic creatures -> using the horror swatch rather lightly, but in a case like Fionna & Cake it can definitely be cast as mildly horrifying
3848. Unicorns left texts due to extinction / Unicorns vanishing from manuscripts means unicorns went extinct (The Last Unicorn) / Dragons are only seen in books because dragons went extinct (The Fire Within) / Last Unicorn fallacy (proposition) / Last Unicorn effect (perception-internal, "Amalthean" framing) -> the motif of mistaking descriptions or perceptions of reality for the reality a text's author experienced. named for the book or animated film The Last Unicorn, where this fallacy was used imaginatively to portray a fantasy world where unicorns vanishing from manuscripts happened because real live unicorns gradually went extinct. (at least, apparently — it's a long story.)
      I partly wanted to make this the charcoal color for Idealism, but the fantasy color might be better, just because of how The Last Unicorn is in some ways a quintessential embodiment of what fantasy stories even are.
      also... oh gosh. this + Trotsky = Trotsky's letter describes an alternate reality
3849. Perceptions are names for objects / Perceptions are names for perceptual constellations making up real-world objects / Inside the mind sensory information is indistinguishable from signifiers -> what I thought of instantly when Mach talked about "symbols". but somehow that wasn't what he was saying.
3850. crossing from mental images into physical world -> appears in: Materialism and empirio-criticism, Deltarune. this motif is blue because it appears in Jungian psychoanalysis. (which is also arguably part of the basis of Deltarune)
3851. Experiencing a unicorn doesn't make it real / Regarding the whole world as qualia fails to explain where the world comes from -> there are definitely reasons people try to build models like this, and I think those reasons are somewhat orthogonal to this complaint. I think the justification will often be something like trying to explain human error from lack of knowledge, or individuals' prejudices. the dumb thing about that though is Idealist models are never prepared to comprehend the existence of multiple minds having different kinds of errors, or how that actually affects behavior or interactions. it's always, I could be wrong but I'm still the only person that exists. you could do better with Gödel's incompleteness theorem. that actually presents a way of taking logic or thought and stepping out of it to treat it as a self-contained thing to evaluate how well it can evaluate itself. Idealism is like meta-ontology but bad.
3852. People's minds are not a single mind-plane / We don't live in Deltarune / Idealism is unworkable because Stalin doesn't perceive reality through Trotsky / Stalin doesn't perceive reality through Trotsky / Vegeta doesn't perceive reality through Goku
3853. If the brain was a liver you wouldn't see anything / If the brain is a liver, you won't see anything / If the brain secretes consciousness like the liver secretes bile, that does not explain where external objects come from and how there are any external objects for people to see
3854. Structuralist linguistics is better than empirio-criticism -> I don't think this is much of a hot take. I think structuralism gets better when you see it specifically as ontology rather than language, but otherwise, yeah, it's literally better
3855. If we can only perceive sensations and not object models, there's no way to predict how they will connect -> somehow both a problem in Idealism and fiction
3856. ??
3857. ??
3858. ??
3859. the earth was the experience of a worm / prior to man the earth was the experience of a worm -> this one is violet because this thought experiment would get you all the way to meta-Marxism if you only did it with "the world before mainstream Marxism-Leninism" or "the world before Trotskyism". if Trotsky was only smart enough to be able to see a world where he hadn't been born and realize that for a Marxist theorist people are fungible and the actual world shouldn't be different we wouldn't be in this mess
3860. Sensation is a fence / We can only perceive psychical elements, not physical elements -> the positivist core of empirio-criticism
      yeah, it's more of a fuzzy boundary between a lawn and a road if it's anything.
3861. Everyone has their own unicorns / Last Unicorn effect (neutral, "Beagelian" framing of the phenomenon) -> the claim that all perception is vulnerable to the problem of people's internal ontological models distorting into incorrect "fantasy worlds" containing unreal mirages known as "unicorns". the unicorns are artifacts of everything a person knows, sees, creates, or discusses with others, but not what real material things a person actually bumps into. sometimes, unicorns are harmless — some unicorns are cultural fabrications that some number of people manage to agree on and thus are able to communicate with each other about without any confusion even though they are not "real". to some extent, unicorns enable us to be able to do pure mathematics, construct systems of logic, write fantasy books, and generally think abstractly. at the same time, they can cause problems when they blatantly do not match the real things they are supposed to represent, or when they are abstract and two people do not have the same particular unicorn they need each other to understand and frustratedly keep trying to explain it to each other but for some reason one person refuses to stop and reconstruct it.
3862. "𝖺 (pronounced 𝖺)" is a unicorn -> the claim that Freudian theories are often talking about the Last Unicorn effect, and specifically that the concept of "𝖺 (pronounced 𝖺)" is a unicorn because it is always generated in the mind instead of reality. I honestly have my doubts that the small-a concept is even true, because it's like, no, the whole body generates desires, not just the mind, so some of them have to be real needs that are in contradiction with the world, not simply imagined things that are false. even the things that you come up with intellectually could fall under this, because they are separated by the barrier between your body and the world, not the barrier between your mind and reality itself.
      I do not think you can end up at an accurate analysis of Trotskyism unless you have an interpretation something like this. and you know what that means. it means you don't understand the assembly of societies or the progression of history. and if you don't understand history, you can't even predict with strong confidence that "democracy" will still be standing tomorrow, so don't even try that.
3863. ??
3864. ??
3865. ??
3866. ??
3867. ??
3868. ??
3869. ??
3870. Chinese-speaking room / Chinese room thought experiment -> it's supposed to be about language but it is weirdly relevant to all forms of perception.
3871. Dr. Mary in the monochrome room / Dr. Nancy in the monochrome room (typo) / colour-ese speaking room / colour-ese room (color-ese; thought experiment)
3872. Mary in the monochrome room does not understand perception
3873. Mary in the monochrome room understands perception / Mary the color scientist in the monochrome room does understand color perception (colour; scientific studies of conscious perception) -> controversial, but I feel like this is the better Materialist position. you can't actually experience other people's Lived Experiences, so at any given time the absolute best ways of studying people's perceptual processes from the outside are sufficient. there is nothing wrong with observational studies of people's anecdotes, but it is implied in this proposition that observational studies of people's anecdotes are also equally considered studies from the outside, because you are never inside their heads.
3874. Henry-seconds and Felix-seconds -> a concept that came up on Term:multiplicity, to demonstrate the relationship between general relativity and Lived Experience. two people Henry and Felix may each be having an inner experience of the "irreducible" flow of time, but if Henry will never experience Felix-seconds then it is useless to try to get him to appreciate Henry-seconds by talking about Felix-seconds or vice versa. although relativity may be mildly unintuitive at first, it does do a great job of showing how Henry-seconds can exist even though Felix doesn't experience them. Henry and Felix are each experiencing separate timelines that interact, not a single overarching timeline. no need to get into Henry-seconds and how great and un-captured by science they are, when assuming they aren't described by science is just failing to understand science.
3875. ??
3876. ??
3877. ??
3878. ??
3879. Colorblind people also have a different red / Colorblind people are indistinguishable practically from people with a different red -> it's so typical for people to say "when I talk about people seeing a different red, I don't mean they're colorblind". why not? what are you asserting the difference to be? it could be that philosophers think that there are unique activations in the brain for red and blue, and they are saying that the eyes are the same but the brain is different. this is at least somewhat possible, in that some people with brain damage cannot recognize colors as particular names. [163] but. let's consider the world as a collection of material objects. every person learns to recognize colors by grouping physical things, like water on a sunny day and blue jays. if the person cannot see blue, and groups sand and water together, there is a difference in perception, because the person sees the details of the objects as belonging to a new signifier. if a person groups cardinals with pine trees, that is distinctly a colorblind perception, but if a person groups cardinals with sunsets and pine trees with jade, that is distinctly a typical perception. say that somehow there was such a thing as absolute color, and red and green were cosmic objects, but humans always named things in crayola colors: cardinals are rose, blue jays are robin, pine trees are forest, and sand is lemon. say that in that world, there are three people: Alex, Bob, and Carol. Bob says that cardinals are forest and pine trees are rose; he sees cardinals as yellow and pine trees as yellow. Alex says that cardinals are rose and pine trees are forest; they see cardinals as red and pine trees as green. Carol says that cardinals are rose and pine trees are forest; she sees cardinals as green and pine trees as red. there is no practical difference between Alex and Carol. every single thing they communicate with each other will be understandable, and every action they take in the world will be comparable. Carol can even create art that does not look colorblind and looks perfectly normal to Alex, because Carol has always observed the natural world and the relationships between things in the natural world the same way she draws them, while Alex also perceives the same set of relationships between all things in the natural world. we need to step back and look at the social impact of that. Alex and Carol are much closer to seeing the world the exact same as each other than Stalin and Trotsky. Stalin and Trotsky see the same colors but the messages they attempt to communicate with each other and their ability to perceive those messages are drastically different. they technically both believe in Leninism. they should be the same. but they're not the same, because Trotsky perceives a particular arrangement of groups of people one way and Stalin perceives it another way. if significance to an ideology and recommended action were a color, Trotsky sees state businesses as robin, Stalin sees state businesses as rose. the difference between them is in what category or signifier they parse a particular object as being part of. but, in whatever way this may have happened, they have learned this categorization of objects into signifiers during their lives. and this active categorization and assignment is what makes perceptions different; if you didn't choose what category something is in and somebody else was assigned the exact same categorization system, they are mathematically equivalent perceptual systems. let's go back to Bob. even though he did not choose to be colorblind, it directly affects the process of his brain categorizing objects into signifiers, in his case in a nicely predictable way. when Bob categorizes cardinals as forest or pine trees as rose, it is subjective in the same sense as Trotsky categorizing state businesses as robin based on his knowledge, because both perceptions rely on The Subject taking objects and putting them in signifiers. subjective perceptions matter to daily life because differences between them result in the need to understand subjective experiences and experience intersubjectivity or empathy, or at the very least in the need to do meta-Marxist analysis of the development of countable cultures and ideologies. if Trotsky had some weird perceptual issue where he literally looked at state businesses and saw an undulating hydra, but all he said was that state businesses are rose and genuinely believed that signifier and all around was a mainstream Marxist-Leninist in both his actions and his beliefs, that inner experience wouldn't matter to anyone. it's when Trotsky looks at state businesses and sees them as robin and then says they're robin versus somebody else categorizing them differently that it actually matters to everybody. so, really, colorblind perception should be more significant than a stupid thought experiment where Alex and Carol both agree cardinals are rose and pine trees are forest. when Bob says that cardinals are forest, that is his red. everything that has ever been red to most people is yellow to Bob, but as Bob goes through life he always has to see everybody else call it red, so it is red to him inasmuch as it is rose to him. I guess what I'm saying is that there is no practical difference between red and rose or green and forest. I have a mathematical reason, in structuralist linguistics and perception. I have a historical reason, in Stalin and Trotsky going through subjective perception and forming warring "countries", which nobody should want. I have a humanities reason, in that it is pointless to talk about inner experience and lived experience and qualia if the point is not to better experience it and understand how to treat other people — well, inasmuch as those results are the whole reason people usually talk about lived experience in the first place and without the usual motivating rationale of talking about lived experience then what is the logical reason to even bring up lived experience. I feel like that's pretty sufficient, even if not exhaustive. this old thought experiment misses the point of talking about perception.
3880. ??
3881. ??
3882. [S] dreadfully unclear word (meta-Marxism) / ambiguous word or phrase / term useless for communication / term with different interpretations in every philosophy, ideology, and belief system -> earlier today this started as a half-joke labeled "words RD hates", but the rules are that you're supposed to be able to cite some kind of work or in-draft manual, so I settled for this being some heading in a hypothetical meta-Marxist manual about word usage. ironically enough, this Item itself is highly useful for defining our policy on Lexemes. Lexeme - instance of - dreadfully unclear word
3883. ??
3884. ??
3885. ??
3886. ??
3887. ??
3888. molecularized theory of fascism / molecular fascism
3889. ??
3890. ??
3891. atomized theory / atomic theory / theory defined by individuals
3892. molecularized theory / molecular theory / theory defined by Particle Theory / theory defined by graphs or constellations / theory defined by connections but ostensibly discarding individuals
3983. ??
3984. ??
3895. Caesar Antichrist sees all possible worlds while men glimpse just one
3896. ??
3905. Lesbian writers would never want to write about lesbians / Show writers including lesbian relationships is always fanservice / Show writers writing about lesbians are never lesbians -> encountered this in a video recently. video essayist seemed to believe writers would only ever write about lesbian relationships if some great Rhizome of people came down on them and forced them to. which is a really funny belief when their two examples, Adventure Time and Steven Universe, included actual LGBT+ people at least somewhere on the cast. you can't exert democulture on a lesbian to force plots about lesbians when the ideas are already there. that said, there is a deeper issue to look at. what do we term graph struggle between microcolonies? if people are mad that one microcolony for LGBT+ characters is enclosing people instead of another microcolony, is ignoring this some kind of lesser parallel to condoning inter-imperialist conflict? lesbians or progressive people taking over what amount to empires is only so much of a victory if the real complaint is people are tired of being herded into empires and told what to think, even if the things they're told to think are good things.
3911. Twentieth Century Continental Philosophy (May 1997) -> not-especially-remarkable compilation book outlining many of the periods of philosophy which appear to form a single tradition known here as the Existentialist-Structuralist tradition. I do not believe either "analytic" or "continental" to be synonymous with this tradition; it seems to straddle both categories at times.
3912. ??
3913. [S] molecular nationalism / molecular Toryism -> believed to refer to: right-Existentialism
3914. [S] molecular imperialism -> believed to refer to: capitalism
3915. [S] molecularized democratic regime / molecular democracy (generic)
3916. [S] molecular Liberalism -> believed to refer to: Existentialism
3917. [S] molecular Socialism
3918. [S] molecular Anarchism
3919. [S] ??
3920. [S] molecularized Multitude theory -> I'm slowly becoming more certain that Rhizome is this
3921. [S] molecularized Existentialism -> Existentialist periods that believe in graphs or Social-Philosophical Systems
3922. ??
3923. ??
3960. al-Qaeda -> basically, it's a tiny army for fundamentalist Islam spread over a few countries, and it was associated with 9/11. it appears that many people especially in Russia have gotten very confused about it and sometimes insist it's protecting the Third World from the United States when in reality it's not necessarily doing anything good for anybody. I vaguely know about three other buzzword names that get thrown around when people want the United States to hate other countries. I don't know very much about the motivations behind any of them.
      note: al-Qaeda is relatively "Take It Seriously", but joke statements where the joke is focused on something else are fine.
3961. Turning Red's universe experienced 9/11 / The Turning Red universe experienced 9/11 -> this is so funny because like, it's technically true, but not exactly. would 9/11 affect the overall country even in the universe of the movie? yes. would it necessarily affect the city or town the movie takes place in? no. that's just it. this statement is "has some occurence" but it's not flat-out "true". this goes in the "Causality in fiction" ontology along with "Steven Universe revived Pinkie Pie"
3962. Turning Red's narrative should mention 9/11 / Turning Red's narrative would be affected by 9/11 -> this is the version MrEnter (pronounced MrEnter) actually said.
3963. Al-Qaeda is anticommunist -> this statement might sound dumb because many people are immediately going to say "aren't there more obvious reasons to be against it?". but in terms of world history and where things came from, it's very much worth pointing out. if Communists don't win in Iraq, then somebody is obligated to "protect" Iraq from the Soviet Union. and if al-Qaeda is there they're certainly going to try. and if the United States eradicates Communism in Russia, Alexander Dugin can look over at al-Qaeda and go, hmm, at least there's still one group of people protecting the Third World from the United States. being anticommunist in the Third World is a dangerous game, and the United States doesn't understand this at all — if the United States is a nation of ideas founded on freedom and prosperity why would anyone be afraid of the United States? and that's the fatal fallacy of Existentialism. that walnuts can be free when other "free" walnuts are constantly threatening to crack them open and take away their "free will" by any reasonable definition.
3964. The CPC (pronounced CPC) is not as bad as al-Qaeda / The Communist Party of China is not as bad as al-Qaeda -> seems objectively true but many people don't figure it out.
      honestly. I don't think Trotskyists have figured this out.
3965. ??
3966. ??
3967. ??
3968. ??
3969. ??
3970. ??
3971. ??
3972. ??
3973. Reactionaries are just like Voldemort / Center-Liberals are just like Harry Potter fighting the death eaters -> this old trope becomes so bizarre when you realize how much transphobia and destructive nationalism comes from buying a Harry Potter book. comparing Harry Potter to the real world is like death eaters versus death eaters. the really terrible thing about this proposition? you'd have to prove center-Liberals have more principles than the Harry Potter series to prove the analogy is not accurate, and I'm not sure that's actually possible. the most accurate assessment might actually be that transphobes versus nazis is about where actual United States elections are, and the comparison is right for entirely the wrong reasons.
3974. Transgender people can't own Harry Potter books / Gay people can't own Harry Potter books -> there's a pretty good argument for not buying new ones. that said, some people really do go as far as getting rid of all of them because they know a transgender person, and not knowing the context that would look pretty weird. [164] this begins to look like the same basic form of statement as "Protestants can't be gay". it raises a lot of questions about where this general form of statement is coming from in terms of what basic social dynamics are producing it.
3975. Platform 9¾ / Platform nine and three quarters (9 3/4) -> this came back to mind when I was thinking about schizoanalysis and Rhizome and their worship of everything "in-between", and then how Platform 9¾ becomes the key to letting wizards freely exist in the Harry Potter universe. runs narratively parallel to: secret abnormal Gaster hallway
3976. retroactive LGBT+ character / Dumbledore is gay / Word of Gay (TV Tropes) -> Rowling's idea of representing the anomaly and the exception. very interesting when you think about it that people hate this when an author does it but when fans do the exact same kind of retcon people more or less receive it well. what would the difference be? in either case the same group of "meddling executives" is telling the writer or fan that the original work, that any self-respecting Disney show, can't show people a queer couple, so they're both getting around it with secret retcons.
3977. unofficial LGBT+ retcon / "I don't care if it isn't canon" (LGBT+)
3978. assigned harpoon at birth (Ahab) / Land Gay Before Time / Maoist who Loves Men (MLM) / mainstream men (MSM) -> the motif of accidentally reading acronyms that have nothing to do with gender / LGBT+ as "definitely" being a strange new variation of an LGBT+ acronym. not to be confused with acrostics where a word is simply structuring an arbitrary set of words. this is when two actual acronyms collide and people start reading one of them as the other even if they aren't exactly the same
3979. don't listen to the MSM -> the motif that gay and bisexual people are supposedly at all media outlets or every popular media outlet filling them with "the LGBT agenda"
3980. taking baby, fleeing Estonia / taking baby, fleeing Russia / taking the baby & escaping dystopia / taking the baby and escaping the bad society -> now that this has appeared in two things, The Giver and a Growing Around theory, it can be a motif.
3981. ??
3982. ??
3983. cognitohazard / infohazard -> I think entirely too much about how this is similar to the concept of containing information about a government or society that would cause people to take a narrow view and behave the wrong way. I mean, when this concept is connected to crazy conspiracies about what the government is "really" covering up, of course it is... but SCP entries and modern 2010s horror stories in general have really taken the concept in a new direction by making the anomalies something people genuinely would not want to know and regret learning about.
3984. secret room of forbidden books (The Giver, Girl from the other side) / decisions made in elder council (The Giver) / figurative priests (anarchism) / "hermetically-sealed compartments of knowledge" (Demon-haunted world) -> Sagan's quote is so good
3985. The Giver quartet is about wrecking Trotskyism -> this sounds random until you look at the books very closely to discover how they have clearly misinterpteted specific Trotskyist texts
3986. The Giver quartet is about building an Anarchism -> when I capitalize Anarchists, it's a placeholder for civilizational shape words like "Kropotkinism" or "Bookchinism". I don't have a lot of knowledge about specific "Anarchisms" but I do know a few different kinds of named "Anarchisms" clearly exist and it's worth distinguishing which ones to be able to evaluate whether they will be successful. also? if anarchists get mad when you try to broadly categorize different kinds of Anarchisms, it only further identifies that they do have specific beliefs that set them apart as a specific group of people. being an Existentialist and thinking that believing in utopia really hard or believing in the concept of non-ideology really hard will unite people together and build an Anarchism is also an ideology. you aren't free of ideology just because you believe in Existentialism.
3987. The Giver is about Anarchists wrecking Trotskyism / The Giver quartet is about Anarchists wrecking Trotskyism to create an Anarchism -> this is such an interesting concept to talk about because if true, the book is a sectarian quarrel or inescapable conflict between two different civilizational shapes (Bauplans) rather than a universal message for everybody. don't even try to twist that into an anti-Anarchist, pro-center-Liberal argument though. if the inescapable conflict between Social-Philosophical-Material Systems supports Liberalism, then it supports the constant oppression of different groups of people beneath each other such as center-Liberals under Tories because minus colonialism no group of human beings would ever be guaranteed to behave.
3988. ??
3989. ??
3990. ??
3991. Philosophers have tried to change the world; our job is to interpret it / Philosophers have only tried to change the world in various ways; our job is to interpret it -> my pet peeve and the absolute heart of most of the E-S tradition
3992. named molecular Marxism -> a named molecular Marxism is simply a named Marxism which has been molecularized. when this entry was first added to the list I had some actual names of Marxisms below this but I decided those more appropriately go in the 4000s next to all the "things that are more materially possible than Trotskyism".
3993. ??
3994. ??
3995. ??
3996. ??
3997. ??
3998. reverting from the anomalous hyper-future to the past
3999. beyond the end of history in the hyper-future / Communism as bad fake historical period -> the motif of real history versus fake historical periods applied to workers' states. usually a workers' state is asserted to be a "fake" historical period for reasons having to do with central government; that seems somewhat more common than it being based on fine-grained social structure. people will pinpoint one figurehead or a tiny council of people as a reason to attack a whole population.

4000

Concepts related to Trotskyism, or named Leninisms in general.

4000. Bolshevik-Leninism / Leninism (Trotsky's definition) -> use to mark highly specific definitions of "Leninism" in Trotskyist texts. all Trotskyist definitions of Leninism are this, and all non-Trotskyist definitions are not.
4001. Stalinism (prejudice) -> use to mark the concept of "Stalinism" specifically as defined in Trotskyist texts, and not in any non-Trotskyist text. if you simply gather up data on this you'll realize it refers to something much more specific than you'd think it is. "Stalin's Marxism" isn't actually the same thing as "Stalinism", even though in practice the concept of "Stalinism" is being used to reject Stalin's Marxism.
4002. Stalin's Marxism isn't Leninism / He calls it Marxism-Leninism, but it isn't really Leninism / Marxism-Leninism (disputed theory) -> components: the most correct Leninism is Trotskyism, Stalin Thought is a revisionist Leninism
4003. degenerated workers' state
4004. restore the soviets
4005. State businesses equal capitalism -> Hayashi
4006. State capitalism inevitably evolves to uncontained capitalism -> Hayashi
4007. Workers will all take action given crisis
4008. Workers will all take action given spontaneous tiny breakages / clinamen (Althusser) / The Fracture (meta-Marxism) -> Althusser actually
4009. ??
4010. internationally-scoped collection of connected Trotskyist groups -> important element of - international-conference Trotskyism, international-party Trotskyism, Trotskyism in one identity-federation
4011. Abandon Trotsky, and Bolshevism has failed / If Bolshevism fails to take the educated individuals who are dedicated supporters throughout a revolution and integrate them into society such that they will not starve and can use their talents to improve society then Bolshevism has failed -> sub-case of: I'm not anticommunist but. this is about the only anticommunist argument I have ever found convincing. every anticommunist argument that wasn't Trotsky was totally confusing to me and just left me digging deeper and deeper until I saw how false every one of them was. but this is the only one that's sort of held up as I got more and more information. and it's haunted me ever since. it's easy to blame Trotsky and say he made the wrong choices. but like, what happens if he obeys? if the country is actually failing at things and every time he tries to get into a position the should theoretically be worthy of the experts just kick him out until he's standing next the handful of peasants still starving, isn't there actually some point where he has a right to complain? that has never sat right with me. the notion that even when you build Bolshevism it could have a fraying edge where people are still shunted into a world of individualism with no support, and perhaps treated really badly for just failing to spontaneously be unbelievably excellent at things, tossed quotes about revisionism because their actual skills are not perfect. it feels like there are natural points where people simply aren't materially part of the material object called society and it makes them angry because in a world where everything is claimed by a group of human beings they don't want to be treated as not human beings.
4012. A Trotskyist group is a countable culture / Any particular Trotskyist group is a countable culture -> seems weird to say until you have to explain to mainstream Marxist-Leninists how Trotskyite conspiracies happen materially — why they aren't trivial to stop and yet why it's not productive to just mark the people in them Evil.
4013. Trotskyist groups are a safe space for Trotskyist identity -> this sounds like a joke until you realize what it actually means, at which point it sounds more reasonable. this is operating on the definition of "safe space" as a Social-Graph System or Social-Philosophical System that people dive into in order to be accepted and not to be questioned on basic facts of their individual identity; under this definition, things such as a Christian church or a Muslim mosque may qualify as a safe space for Christian or Muslim identity, due to the fact that within that space a particular religion is condoned or practiced consistently. thus, this is the claim that Trotskyist groups exist partly to be a loose "congregation" of Trotskyist theorists where Trotskyist theories are condoned and practiced consistently, rather than being rejected from "Stalinist spaces". the Trotskyist theories in question do attempt to do what Marxist theories should do, to unite groups and mobilize workers, yet at the same time, when a group is founded it must explicitly make a choice on whether Trotskyist theories are allowed at all or perhaps preferred, versus whether they are fundamentally rejected from the group. this necessity to either accept or reject people who align with the 1930s Trotskyite conspiracy, or modern Trotskyism, creates a fundamental cultural divide between different Marxist organizations similar to the divide between a Marxist organization in one country versus a Marxist organization in another country, or between a movement for White transgender people inside the United States versus a movement for Black subpopulations inside the United States — Trotskyists are their own countable Culture, as much as Ukrainians are distinct from Russians. the matter of how Trotskyist identity as a countable Culture interacts with "other" demographic identities is not necessarily well understood. there are only two small thoughts I can offer on that: A) look at a British Trotskyist group, and you will probably observe that its members fail to see outside a White, British perspective, for instance often failing to quite understand what is going on for Black subpopulations in the United States and why they frame things the way they do, based on what locally-preferred ideologies (often anarchism or some Fanon-based non-Marxist theory). B) this same problem didn't necessarily exist for Trotsky's circle of people, who at the very least understood Jewish subpopulational struggles, even if they were baffled in their own way by United States racism. so, there are times when Trotskyist identity clashes with racial subpopulation identity, although it does depend on the quality of theorists admitted to a Trotskyist group. this + ?? = Trotskyism is the prototypical oppressed group.
4014. Trotsky syndrome of countable cultures -> the usually-nonfictional motif of someone being able to realize, assuming they're smart, that various people are forming into a countable culture and fighting for their rights against the rest of society legitimately and perhaps effectively, but utterly not being able to fit into that countable culture as a culture and remaining a cultural "foreigner" to countable civil rights movements that they never actually want inside them. you can see this with the Trotskyite conspiracy, which did it with very little wisdom or awareness, and separately with the way modern Trotskyism reacted to BLM / 1619 Project — although they were marginally smarter in that case. though it's hard to pinpoint exactly why it happens, this is a really big problem for progressive theories and movements in general. it has the potential to kill schizoanalysis through the failure of different sorted cultures to "properly" act as a freeform, uncountable unity of opposites that inherently wants to go together, but it can even kill particular Marxisms, as historically it arguably did. any movement or party or cluster of people-groups hit with Trotsky syndrome sees that it can't possibly control the people who don't fit into it and its days are numbered.
4015. ??
4016. ??
4017. Trotskyist revolution -> very theoretical concept despite a great number of Trotskyists claiming they are described in the collected works of Lenin
4018. They'll have to talk about Trotsky someday -> I am madly trying to find a video. there was this video by the IMT, and Alan Woods is on a stage. the overall room looks kind of bluish. it's kind of like he's giving a Ted Talk or something. and he says, he says something to the effect of "They're going to have to talk about Trotsky someday. [glib, barely not winking]". I cannot find this video for the life of me. does anybody have any idea where it went (2023-12-06)
4019. ??
4020. named Trotskyism
4021. international-conference Trotskyism -> motif, Particle Theory
4022. international-party Trotskyism -> motif, Particle Theory. Fred Weston believes that certain groups apart from Ted Grant were getting absorbed into reformism; Grant, apparently, is a believer in watching for crises (S2-4007). was trying really hard to name this thing a person's name but couldn't quite land on one
4023. multiple Trotskyisms in one country / multiple local Trotskyist parties -> hypothetical Particle Theory; Trotskyism - taking the shape of - North American Maoism / New Democracy
4024. Trotskyism in one supranational federation / Trotskyism in several union republics -> hypothetical Particle Theory; actually suggested by Trotsky once or twice regarding North America and Europe
4025. Trotskyism in one subpopulational minority / Ethnic Trotskyism -> believed to be different from: Maoism in one subpopulational minority
4026. Trotskyism in one union republic / Trotskyist nationality / Trotskyist local-state -> hypothetical Particle Theory; Trotskyism - taking the shape of - local state
4027. Trotskyism in one country / Trotskyist nation-state -> hypothetical Particle Theory
4028. Fortress Trotskyism -> subset of: Trotskyism in one country; Trotskyism - taking the shape of - Juche-socialism
4029. Trotskyism in one identity subpopulation / hegemony Trotskyism -> hypothetical Particle Theory; Trotskyism - taking the shape of - Gramscianism; superset of: Ethnic Trotskyism
4030. Trotskyism as structure integrated with other theory's structure / Trotskyism as large Particle Element containing smaller elements / Trotskyism as small Particle Element contained by larger elements
4031. Trotskyism-in-Maoism -> subset of: Trotskyism in one union republic
4032. Maoism-in-Trotskyism -> subset of: Trotskyism in one supranational federation
4033. Trotskyism in one identity-federation / international-identity Trotskyism / world hegemony Trotskyism / Trotskyism in Gramscianism in Trotskyism -> hypothetical Particle Theory; International or international-party on top, otherwise-anarchic political-identity subpopulations below
4034. economic peace Trotskyism / Deng Xiaoping Thought in Trotskyism in Wilsonianism -> hypothetical Particle Theory; Trotskyism - taking the shape of - Deng Xiaoping Thought
4035. Trotskyism for export / Deng Xiaoping Thought in Trotskyism in Liberalism / Trotskyism in Deng Xiaoping Thought / economic-imperialist Trotskyism -> hypothetical Particle Theory; Trotskyists hide inside Liberalism and smuggle all their activities through Third World exploitation. honestly, one of those possibilities I ironically came up with just because it was horrifying
4036. Stalin is basically Monokuma / Trotskyites don't know the difference between Soviet history and Danganronpa -> an analogy I used in a historical fiction summary and now after digging up again cannot get over. the idea is that people think the Soviet Union was just one big trap where because people are in such fierce competition to exist until the country is properly built up, the government then just starts accusing people of things to preemptively get rid of them. almost exactly like Monokuma sets the students up to be in trouble for killing each other, blaming them for each other's graphic deaths over and over when really he started the whole thing
4037. Pigs theory -> the motif of models of workers' states that center around "bureaucrats" or experts taking the country away from the people. you sometimes see "Pigs theory" in Maoism independently of its appearances in Trotskyism. so with only that much information it's vaguely possible Che Guevara also came up with "Pigs theory" on his own without having to be drawn toward Trotskyism. the fact he only knew so much about Leninism only makes that more likely, I mean, look at how Trotsky barely understood it and came up with Pigs theory. the bigger question is, is "Pigs theory" actually right? I feel like in some ways it can be true but the way Trotskyists formulate it it never is. I feel like if it's true it's probably much more complicated how it comes to be and how to prevent it. for one, I'm almost half convinced that populations like China and even Cuba have figured out how to have a "Pigs theory" structure safely although the Soviet Union did not.
4038. Pig state -> the motif of a republic which is primarily run by a limited number of specialized experts who eat up large salaries while, archetypically, everyone else remains peasants or low earners. people are under some kind of illusion that this is caused by Communism, when it absolutely isn't, and even Animal Farm acknowledges that.
      it's quite arguable that both the United States Congress and universities operate like Pig states. "pig" being such a negative word usually, this sounds like far more of an insult than it actually is. all this really means is that the United States population is constantly churning and re-inventing and requiring experts to make decisions for everybody else and constantly send new experts through extensive training to keep doing this, when the predictions of Marxism didn't think it would shape up this way because eventually the experts would just have made all the stuff and people would only be copying the same things over and over much more cheaply. a few things really are that way, like 15-year-old books and the CD-ROM standard. but many things are not because people just keep subjectively deciding on new frameworks and The Pigs keep fighting each other over university time, thesis defenses, which inherently prejudiced thing is less prejudiced, shareholders or customers, totally subjective interpretations of the Constitution where really nothing even makes any coherent sense any more, these angry arguments over which incredibly-difficult-to-test hypothetical science ontology is more scientific, and overall, it's like the whole point of capitalism is constant culture war where The Pigs, foolishly convinced it will be safe if they only present their own side in the most calm and rational possible way, are the ones that lead each side of it. science is like democracy? sure, in a totally backhanded way. democracy is a bunch of capitalists endlessly fighting over subjective cultural pronouncements and by now science is just like that too. Liberal-republicanism isn't just the government of capitalism, in a way it literally is capitalism. there isn't really a place where capitalism ends and government begins. it takes something like abolishing parties and creating a single party-nation to even begin ending capitalism and the influence of capitalism.
4039. A Pig state isn't the end of the world / A Pig state is not the end of the world / Orwell handed Russians to butcher knives / Orwell handed Ukrainians to butcher knives / Animal Farm is a reality where George Orwell saw an effort to take a living, breathing, thinking ethnic group and cut them up with butcher's knives and eat them and didn't think it was worth it to do everything to resist that -> when you think about it hard enough, Animal Farm's setting should make the choice to stick to Bolshevism way easier rather than any harder. it really says something about the people who would read or write a book like this when they can't see it as arguing Marxism by accident.
4039. ??
4040. ??
4041. Great productive forces mean great carrying capacity -> very popular and common remark in early 1900s Leninism, still pretty controversial to challenge, yet graph theory + chunk competition models bring some worrying suggestions for how trivial it is to make a reality. doesn't mean it's impossible to solve of course, just harder than we thought
4042. Extra production over the number of people who will buy at full price is waste -> the typical counterpart up to the time of Lenin; why Lenin's and Masnick's line graph is not widely accepted. notable weakness: does not explain how to actually tell if society needs something or not, only how to sell an unnecessary thing for as much as possible
4043. Socialism-in-one-country is basically Existentialism with countries -> Ted Grant
4044. Hegemony politics is reformism and Gramscians are a bunch of bureaucrats -> Ted Grant
4045. ??
4046. ??
4047. Having a movement at all is half the battle / Having a Social-Philosophical-Material-System is half the battle / Having an SPMS is step zero / The key to beginning socialist transition is grouping people into a movement -> the claim that for instance the Paris Commune (perhaps the example I would pick is North Korea) is important primarily because it actually created a movement, Factically existing within the real world; a single physical movement of people doing anything is worth far more than any stack of ideology because it can, in theory, be transformed into a more intelligent system with more accurate theory as time goes on. I have only tiny issues with this concept, such as: if a movement is based on things fundamentally incompatible with any of the suggestions Marx made, to the point you have no idea at all how to transform it into a workers' state, can this really be true? this is a big problem in the United States. we base all our movements in things like racism and transphobia, in the specific sense that progress itself equals people already in power deciding not to be mean to the people they oppress, and progress couldn't possibly equal ethnic minorities or LGBT people being workers and actively building a new society to replace the old one, it has to be solely based on the right of populations and individuals to merely exist and the responsibility of populations to coexist. it's in the name (that I gave all this stuff), "Existentialism" — capitalism is over if Black people are doing capitalism but they're not being horrifically shot to death in inner cities and they now live and exist. capitalism is over if homosexuality isn't illegal and trans people can be in public instead of hanging out with the mafia because they have nowhere to go. you can get gigantic protests out of this and yet it only regenerates capitalism, because it's not doing the duty of trying to unify individuals into a country around a new Particle Theory; it's not actually building a new SPMS even though people falsely believe it is. how do you transform that? you need a really good new theory that can actually analyze the moving parts of every movement and how movements relate to each other — meta-Marxism — so you can actually listen to each movement and compute the most effective way to transform the whole country out of capitalism with that particular class-ignoring ideology, or successfully fit the class-ignoring ideologies together.
4048. Capitalism only ends when workers' states cover the world -> note how different plural Trotskyisms twist this different ways, some claiming a sea of socialisms-in-one-country is enough, some claiming there are more stringent requirements of having a Fourth International, freeform international party, etc
4049. Capitalism only ends when workers' states form into a single government -> the generic Trotskyist version.
4050. derived Trotskyist proposition / statement that Trotskyists should logically believe although in practice they might not -> there are so, so many of these if you think about anything Trotskyists say for even a moment.
4051. Socialism in one country will fail because borders leave people unconnected / Socialism in one country will fail because the point of Bolshevism is to connect people, and borders leave many people unconnected
4052. Any particular group of individuals pursuing socialist transition benefits from being part of something larger -> molecularized version of the statement that there can't be a socialist transition in one country.
4053. If Trotskyists turn against a workers' state, they create a population too small to succeed -> logically true if you accept Q4052. if most of the people in the Soviet Union don't want to join Trotsky, the best result for Trotsky is he forms a teeny tiny Trotskyist workers' state, and if there can't be socialism in one country, by Trotskyist logic, that tiny Trotskyist workers' state will fail.
4054. Trotskyists benefit from standing together with mainstream Marxism-Leninism -> clearly follows from Q4052 and Q4053. if it is more or less impossible for Trotskyists to ever form into a workers' state bigger than South Korea without eventually running into "Stalinist" interference, they will only ever overcome the rest of the world's capitalists by joining together with other named Marxisms and each socialism aiding the others.
4055. ??
4056. ??
4057. ??
4058. ??
4059. ??
4060. ??
4061. ??
4062. ??
4063. ??
4064. ??
4065. ??
4066. ??
4067. ??
4068. ??
4069. ??
4070. Trotskyism-in-one-country would not be a Trotskyism / Trotskyism-in-one-country would not fit the definition of Leninism given by any Trotskyism -> this seems to be the case as far as I have ever seen, but I still have no idea why it's true. if the definition of Trotskyism always includes separating from Stalin, then why would a Fortress Trotskyism not fit the definition of Trotskyism? the Trotskyite conspiracy never had very many people in it; practically speaking you'd think a tiny Trotskyism-in-one-country would be one of the most realistic options. Stalin's Marxism, funny enough, doesn't go around cracking open workers' states the way Trotskyism does, so it might actually leave a Fortress Trotskyism alone if it only returned the favor and resolved to primarily join up with other Trotskyisms.
4071. Trotskyism-in-one-country would be a Maoism / If a group of Trotskyists built socialism in one country it would actually be a Maoism and they would not be Trotskyists any more
4072. Trotskyism-in-one-country would be leadership socialism / If a group of Trotskyists built socialism in one country it would actually be a Juche-socialism and they would not be Trotskyists any more -> this proposition is easier to define than it being a Maoism because if you start with the claim that "Trotskyite" is a national identity, all of a sudden the notion of Trotskyism and the notion of leadership socialism don't actually seem that separate any more. the primary concept of Juche-socialism was... let's see if I can remember... it was like, a holistic system where it was largely about getting the country to cohere together and operate as a single entity, it was about pursuing the population's development into its own entity with its own populational identity as part of that, the Materialist stuff supports the basic construction of the country and its immediate immaterial wants, the immaterial wants of the country feed into cooperation with Materialism and Marxism. a countable culture has certain immaterial desires to build identity and cultural activity and connection, to feel something; North Koreans wring out participation in Marxism and scientific thinking from allowing and encouraging the stuff that humanities people think is supposedly beyond words. looked at from that angle... there are significant handfuls of people who become aligned with Trotskyism at least temporarily because it supposedly is less harsh on the immaterial exercise of the arts. Eric Flint, Lois Lowry's husband (who dropped out if he was in it at all but sure did know a weird amount about it), Noam Chomsky claiming to be aligned with Trotskyism and then just retreating into his university to do a lot of stuff about language, etc. I feel like there are more people in Trotskyist parties who are strongly aligned to Materialism and actually understand it. but, Trotskyism transforming into Juche-socialism on the grounds that people want to break from Stalin and not fight a global war and create a Trotskyite identity by growing the arts? doesn't seem impossible. I think one reason this isn't the primary "other thing" Trotskyism would be is that Trotskyism is relatively material whenever it attempts to describe internal structure. it actually begins its spitballing on structure with concrete concepts like "restore the soviets", "free the unions", where both soviets making up factories or towns and unions are material things, not a squishy description of how people are tied together by shared cultural activity and acts of chronicling history that feed back and forth with their material life. and that leads me to think that a Trotskyism-in-one-country would actually describe its independence and new identity in a different framing than that. I want to say they would be gloating about how well it was producing, not in a "maximum productivity" sense but in a particular sense of no part of the system being broken because if anything is really evident about Trotskyism it's that they hate broken things. Trotskyists are really grounded in Materialism, they just don't have a good scientific method.
4073. Trotskyism-in-one-country would be mainstream Marxism-Leninism / If a group of Trotskyists built socialism in one country it would actually be an instance of Stalin's Marxism and they would not be Trotskyists any more -> this is what I thought in the beginning. this is what everybody thought. but by now I doubt that it's actually true. the image of a country which is Stalin's Marxism in every way except it hates Stalin is very funny. but practically, the way the Trotskyite conspiracy so strongly resisted every specific thing Stalin was doing and in particular the way that Trotskyists get upset about China and Cuba as violations of some freedom to be Trotskyist makes me think that there is something core to Trotskyism other than it just being really big or containing all nation-states — something core to Trotskyism which could actually be pointed to inside the area of one country instead of having to look at any other country.
4074. Trotskyism-in-one-country would be Trotskyism / If a group of Trotskyists built socialism in one country it would distinctly still be Trotskyism and have its own particular Trotskyist content and identity, regardless of what other groups of Trotskyists feel like saying about it -> this is the one I've been thinking is the most likely. the content of Trotskyism is weirdly specific. it doesn't matter if they think they got it solely from the works of Lenin. whenever they bash Cuba or Vietnam it's really clear that even if they had to live in a one-country socialism there's still something specific they want instead.
4075. Trotskyism-in-one-country would be Bordigism -> this statement sounds like "the gostak distims the doshes" or "colorless green ideas sleep furiously". I think it's false but I don't know where to start. I guess step one is: what is Bordigism in one country? from the little I know, it's supposed to be a world workers' state just like Trotskyism is. which does open up the question, if Bordigism in one country were possible and Trotskyism in one country were possible, how would the two be different?
4076. Trotskyism-in-one-country would be Deng Xiaoping Thought -> troll proposition. I do think there's a decent argument to be made that every single socialism in one country devolves into Deng Xiaoping Thought, and so then you could say that if there were a Trotskyism in one country it would do that too. I had a thought once that Trotskyism and Deng Xiaoping Thought were superficially similar although I don't know if the reasoning was good. I think what I was saying was something like Mao was relatively lenient on other factions and ideas which allowed Deng Xiaoping Thought to happen, and Trotskyists hated it when a central party would be strict on them so ultimately they'd end up doing the same thing. either way I think it's worth noting that Trotskyists don't like it when the initial plan for workers' states devolves into something new but lesser, so I think it's almost certain that kind of thing happening is not part of the core definition of Trotskyism. I guess that has actually provided some information: Trotskyism in one country is closer to early Maoism than it is to Deng Xiaoping Thought.
4077. ??
4078. ??
4079. ??
4080. ??
4081. ??
4082. ??
4083. ??
4084. ??
4085. ??
4086. ??
4087. ??
4088. ??
4089. ??
4090. ??
4091. ??
4092. Communism doesn't work, but polycommunism (pronounced polycommunism) does -> the claim that a central party-nation such as the Communist Party of China is incapable of steering a country toward the right path because of how little control it has over the rest of the world and the needs of the population inside the country to survive, while a bloc of two or three Communist parties is actually capable of making decisions that affect all three countries as long as the countries are tightly linked economically. a reasonable person would allow that this could be a new form of Trotskyism, but I am not sure if Trotskyists are reasonable people.
4093. poly-Maoism -> case of: Bauplan. the hypothetical configuration of several separate Maoisms forming as party-nations, going through Deng Xiaoping Thought, and then connecting to each other only to turn back into one large Maoism.
4094. poly-Trotskyism -> the hypothetical configuration of several smaller Trotskyisms-in-one-country forming and then joining into a bigger more favorable Trotskyism. if there is anything categorically wrong with this according to Trotskyists the color swatch can be changed. this entry does not specify the content of the Trotskyisms-in-one-country beyond that they dislike Stalin's government and are "somehow" Trotskyisms.
4095. poly-Bordigism -> knowing that Bordigism is supposedly more than one country to begin with, this may be logically possible?
4096. ??
4097. ??
4098. ??
4099. poly-Menshevism -> the hypothetical configuration of three or more center-Liberalisms joining together to make it so that not having social-democracy in any of the individual countries is somehow utterly illegal and considered basically treason. I don't know how this would be possible, but if you propose poly-Maoism or poly-Trotskyism somebody's going to propose it.
4100. Leninism (top-level category) -> this entry is the same thing as "Marxism-Leninism"; it ignores Trotsky's claim that Stalin did not correctly continue Marxism. it also tentatively grants that Trotskyism is a garbled version of the same Marxism-Leninism, just as it says it is. (well, it doesn't admit "garbled", but, you know.)
4101. early Marxism -> this refers to Marxist theories or movements that existed before Lenin, notably Marx and Engels. it genuinely might not include the people Marx thought were "hardly Marxists". definitely not if those people can be shown to be integral sources to Western Marxism or in some particular grouping of their own, like Menshevism or some new category of "proto-Western-Marxism" or whatever. at the same time: it is always technically okay for things to be grouped into multiple traditions if they were important to both.
4102. Third-World Marxisms
4103. mainstream Marxism-Leninism / Stalin Thought / Stalinism (Marxist model used by Stalin; rarely used definition)
4104. Trotskyism / Leninism (Trotskyist movement) / revolutionary socialism (Trotskyist movement) -> this is the top level category for all things Trotskyism, not the signifier for what specific Trotskyist subsets say Leninism is
4105. Juche-socialism / leadership socialism
4106. Maoism
4107. Deng Xiaoping Thought / Dengism / socialism with Chinese characteristics (Deng era)
4108. Western Marxism
4109. Gramscianism
4110. Bordigism (named Marxism) / Bordiga and ICP's Marxism -> this is not affiliated with Trotskyism as far as I know right now. it has the swatch because from the little I've heard about it, I half remember somebody accusing it of being sectarian. still learning about it, so the swatch may change later
4111. ??
4112. ??
4113. ??
4114. ??
4115. ??
4116. ??
4117. ??
4118. ??
4119. ??
4120. ??
4121. ??
4122. ??
4123. ??
4124. ??
4125. ??
4126. ??
4127. ??
4128. ??
4129. ??
4130. ??
4131. ??
4132. ??
4133. ??
4134. ??
4135. ??
4136. ??
4137. ??
4138. ??
4139. ??
4140. ??
4141. ??
4142. ??
4143. ??
4144. ??
4145. ??
4146. ??
4147. ??
4148. ??
4149. ??
4150. ??
4151. ??
4152. ??
4153. ??
4154. ??
4155. ??
4156. ??
4157. ??
4158. ??
4159. ??
4160. ??
4161. ??
4162. ??
4163. ??
4164. ??
4165. ??
4166. ??
4167. ??
4168. ??
4169. ??
4170. ??
4171. ??
4172. ??
4173. ??
4174. ??
4175. ??
4176. ??
4177. ??
4178. ??
4179. ??
4180. ??
4181. ??
4182. ??
4183. ??
4184. ??
4185. ??
4186. ??
4187. ??
4188. ??
4189. ??
4190. ??
4191. ??
4192. ??
4193. ??
4194. ??
4195. ??
4196. ??
4197. ??
4198. ??
4199. unknown Marxist subdivision / Marxism unknown -> may be used for coding any work that "sounds" Marxist but whose particular preceding Marxist theorists or movements haven't been traced. in practice, some works that are technically anarchist or Existentialist in their affiliation may get marked with this, just because sometimes it can be difficult to separate these non-Marxist traditions from Western Marxism. again, sometimes that is not necessarily harmful, and there's a "topology" effect where a non-Marxist theory describes something very real, and yet the theory is something other than Marxism.
4200. ??
4201. Trotsky thought he believed in Leninism -> the claim that Trotsky thought the theory he held of workers' movements, revolution, and/or constructing workers' states was the same theory Lenin had leading up to 1925. mostly uncontroversial, although some may tell you Trotsky was absolutely nothing but a liar. I think that's an exaggeration, because he spent significant effort telling parties in North America and Europe things that sounded like correct Marxist positions (but had subtle errors hiding behind them in terms of actually applying them). I think the evidence supports that Trotsky was dedicated to Leninism but his "Leninism" managed to be a garbled, totally wrong version of Leninism. many Marxists don't like to admit that that kind of thing is possible, because it would vulgarize Marxism into a mere identity that doesn't guarantee the class composition of the movement. but I think the dark truth of things is that that has always been the case. mathematically, all arrangements of people are identities, even if they're class subpopulations. organizing people always creates identities. the fact East Germany came to exist shows that all workers' states are identities, like any other nationality. so what's wrong with realizing that "theoretical" Marxism and the basic phenomenon of people sorting into movements are always separate until they're not? it explains how there can be multiple rival Marxisms. it might be that several of them are not connected to the people at all, that some of them connect to a really specific subset of actual workers but not all of them, or that none of them are correct, none of them predicting or guiding what people are actually doing at all. it's particularly believable this could happen if every current movement is operating under a different theory of connecting people together that replaces Marxism.
4202. ??
4203. Every Trotskyite Stalin eliminated was a Leninist [165] -> read Trotskyist talks really closely and you see the assumptions between the lines. past Trotsky and Zinoviev (? if he even was, which I usually assume he wasn't.) practically none of the Trotskyites were Leninists or "allies of the world revolution" — which, sure, they only have to be workers if the conditions are right, but knowing how many capitalists were in there, you'd have a stronger claim if they were Leninists. can you build a revolution with enough Gramscis? who knows, but if you have anything less the chances don't look good.
4204. ??
4205. Bonapartism is when Germany prevents the Berlin wall / Bonapartism is when a bourgeois and proletarian subpopulation become deadlocked and The State becomes an instrument for keeping the lid on the country and preventing the proletarian subpopulation from breaking out -> okay. that's more of a word definition than something that's strictly a wrong application of a concept. I wish this wasn't the same word as they use to criticize Stalin though. if this is what it means then why do they use it on Stalin?
4206. ??
4207. ??
4208. ??
4209. ??
4210. British Trotskyists care about Vietnam [166] -> Trotskyists are so quick to tell you that this is true but I highly doubt it. Trotskyists assembled against the Vietnam War? believable. Trotskyists actually care about Vietnam? don't think so. behind the scenes there is this oddly specific thing they do where it's almost like they are taking advantage of other countries rather than actually helping them. imagine Trotskyists were effective, and they liberated Vietnam from empire. what would they do then? they'd probably start trying to subtly dominate the country like Vietnam has to do what Greg and Ted in Britain and some random Rosa over in Vietnam want rather than what the workers of Vietnam want.
4211. ??
4212. ??
4213. ??
4214. The Cuba blockade preserved the republic / The blockade of Cuba is what's preserved the regime (Alan Woods) [167] -> as far as I can tell, that's correct. one of the most successful things Marxists have ever done is simply close off Third World countries from foreign capitalists.
4215. Deng Xiaoping Thought has a limited lifespan / You can't have both capitalism and a Stalinist regime, it'll blow up (Alan Woods) / It's like a pressure cooker (on Deng Xiaoping Thought styled countries; Alan Woods) [168] -> this seems to be the opposite of what's true. practically speaking it seems like Deng Xiaoping Thought might be stronger than either Bolshevism or capitalism, empowered by being open to the world but protected by being closed on the inside. nobody really enjoys that outcome between the CPC quickly lying to people about Bolshevism coming back later and the Existentialists trying to claim party-nations are the devil but we do have to be honest about what patterns exist in history.
4216. Alan Woods had books published in Cuba / I've had my books published in Cuba (Alan Woods) / Cuban Marxists are turning towards Trotskyism -> this remark really stands out because it could mean at least two things: A) the private sector in Cuba likes Trotskyist books B) Cuban Marxism has actually become tolerant of Trotskyism. I have no idea which of these is true. Woods really wants to believe it's the second one and specifically that all the Cuban Marxists are turning into Trotskyists.
4217. Trotskyists don't understand global empire / The reason Trotskyists bash Deng Xiaoping states and East Germany is that they don't understand global empire -> I think there's a pretty good case for this. you lay out what a Deng process is and it seems Trotskyists really don't get that. they are really against measures that happen to make countries actually independent from imperial powers and protect them from utterly being colonized. the bright side? this is a colonialism discourse I actually can stand. fine-scale neocolonialism and crude national independence are both things that make material sense, unlike the notion that prejudices in White people's heads are somehow colonialism.
4218. Che Guevara got his ideas of international revolution from Trotsky -> this seems laughable to me. it's like... didn't everything he did originate from the Latin American people. it's so weird how they have to set up that Che Guevara is supposedly positioned with early Trotskyism to explain why him supposedly turning against the Cuban bureaucracy is good
4219. Che Guevara could have become a Trotskyist [169] -> kind of a ridiculous claim when Trotskyists are saying such bad things about Cuba now. what does it mean for Che Guevara to fight for the people? it means Che Guevara and all the more peaceful Third-World Marxists fight to defend Third World populations from First-World populations. if you tear down their "wall" they'll probably hate you. that said, if you look at this from a class analysis angle it manages to be a little less terrible. here again we have Trotskyists trying to claim Cuba has the wrong internal structure and if it had the right internal structure The Pigs wouldn't have won and created a "Pig state". this thing they keep saying should hypothetically be testable, if you could somehow do a crude simulation of the internal structure of workers' states and watch that structure stack up emergently and develop. I'm really feeling that Marxism can be a science someday if we just had the right meta-Marxist mathematics.
4220. Reason in Revolt (1995) -> this is apparently one of the Trotskyist books that has been published in Cuba. on the surface it seems to lean into "Trotskyism is early-Marxism" and not go into any of the "Stalinism controversy". so, I guess it isn't all that surprising he got it through. still kind of funny he talked about his books like they were really subversive, and from that angle, worth discussing the possibility of what a genuinely critical Trotskyist book getting through would mean.
4221. crisis of capitalism -> Trotskyists are always talking about these. as are most Marxists. it's a fairly good talking point.
4222. crisis of Bolshevism -> the motif of a system within a workers' state ripping apart and not working as intended. everyone outgrowing microdistricts as populations expand could be considered one, as could ripping open the economy into a trapped capitalism. a country opening up to imports and exports isn't necessarily a crisis of Bolshevism in and of itself. in general these are more "orderly" than crises of capitalism; the central party can often see them coming and see why they happened whether they ultimately get stopped or not.
4223. crisis of named Leninist movement -> system-breaking crisis that occurs in a Marxist movement which has not become a workers' state.
4224. crisis of Trotskyism -> there are about two kinds: groups falling apart and everybody simply dropping out.
4225. crisis of schizoanalysis -> when schizoanalysis tries to assert that different movements are inherently connected but the different movements just start fighting each other.
4226. ??
4227. ??
4228. ??
4229. fonts as culture of The Government [170] / Stalinist font / font of The Totalitarian State -> I have heard this trope all my life and I am so sick of it. what is the big deal with "Stalinist fonts" and what is so bad about them. fonts standardize all the time without Stalin, considering how there is this one font on signs that everyone knows, I think it's Helvetica. this concept is so stupid.
4230. Stalin built the country wrong / Stalin's government built the country with structures that are bad although we are not specifying what the actual error is -> what The Revolution Betrayed kept sounding like to me in every chapter. I know the real reason it sounds like something was missing is because of the Trotskyite conspirators' lies, while the point of the book is no deeper than Q4236 "I am sick of eating rat bread". even so, I always think about how the first time I tried to read this thing I assumed what was missing was an accompanying description of the inner Particle Theory of Trotskyism. I didn't want to believe that Trotsky could be both wrong and not even smart, so I kept trying to figure out what he believed to be correct, because, hey, even if the structure of Trotskyism didn't make a lot of sense, maybe we could all learn from it. I was so surprised to learn that Trotskyists really don't think like that at all.
4231. Ministries existing means there is no democracy -> one of the strongest arguments that Trotskyism actually is a distinct form of Leninism with its own idea of a workers' state Stalin could be (supposedly) preventing. still not a very strong argument said Trotskyism is possible, of course. appears in: "Trotsky's mistakes"
4232. ??
4233. ??
4234. ??
4235. The internal shape of a workers' state leads to buffer state conflicts / There is something about the internal activity of a workers' state which can cause it to participate in international war or not -> statements like this are wild when you think about it, because it's like, Trotsky almost accidentally invented MDem and then didn't. if there was actually something inside the Soviet Union which caused it to have to fight imperialist blocs, that would be implying that restructuring the Soviet Union in a specific way changes its outward behavior, which would be claiming that there are multiple possible Bolshevisms. you see this pop up a number of times in Trotskyism, and it's basically never delivered on at any time.
4236. I'm eating stale rat bread and I can't take it any more / I'm eating the stale rat bread and I can't fucking take it any more [171] -> when somebody attempts to criticize corporations for having made bad "culture" that is bad precisely because it intrudes on a person's individual Lived Experience and not because the structure and function of the corporation has any effect on the larger society such as the health of workers or impact on the internal functioning of socially-linked communities that decide to tie themselves to the product. Žižek is guilty of this: he makes strange claims that Lenin and Stalin couldn't create good "culture", which make no sense until you realize he is trying to make a Marxism that has nothing to do with workers and is all about the Lived Experience of existing in the midst of a bunch of bad products — or when it stoops to being about workers is about bad working conditions being a bad individualized Lived Experience. the Zinovievist accusation of bad "culture" is strange. it's like wrong culture is about the consumer's Lived Experience, but the problems with corporations essentially become about corporations Freely Willing to do the wrong thing when they could have Freely Decided to do better. some chunks of Existentialists seem to conceptualize literally every movement as democulture including the function of unions and so-called ""corporate greed"". they don't even believe in Menshevism and political parties. they think all society is just made of good-idea orthodoxies stomping bad people and forcing them to behave better, squashing bad people's otherwise sacred Lived Experiences and forcing them to exist better when they weren't existing good.
4237. the science bureaucracy
4238. science Trotskyites -> the non-fictional motif that there are people who oppose established structures of science purely for their failures without thinking about their successes. this could be a good thing or a bad thing. some people could have legitimate complaints that universities are stagnating and churning out a lot of papers that do very little. other people are Alexander Unzicker and sound comically similar to The Revolution Betrayed in that their criticisms sound like facts but in context do not even make any sense.
4239. science Tories -> the non-fictional motif that people should be presumed to not actually be knowledgeable about science because they "Are Actually Part Of The Right". (examples: Richard Dawkins, Sabine Hossenfelder.) this isn't really correct on a factual basis. somebody can be an absolutely horrible person and still understand science and create an informative book or video about science which is educational to people of all ideologies. in such a case, the work becomes valid through death of the author and other people reappropriating the work, exactly as with fictional works. it is also possible that misconceptions about science will lead somebody into Toryism, or that facts or models will become misinterpreted through Toryism into models that don't actually make sense. but this happens for reasons that a lot of center-Liberals don't want to think about: people form ontologies to comprehend the world, they strain everything through ontologies, sometimes the ontologies are inaccurate, sometimes the ontologies are accurate. in recent decades people really hate the notion of ontologies because of the fact ontologies can form stereotypes, so they want to smash all ontologies, but that's a bad plan when all countable Cultures and marginalized religions and things they want to protect bring ontologies, so smashing ontologies is an easy way to let people get away with forced assimilation, the opposite of the goal. there is such a trend to say reality can't be predicted and people can't be predicted to try to encourage people to be open-minded, but it never really works because people need to form ontologies to avoid catastrophes in their lives and physically survive, and if you don't give them objectively accurate ontologies of how to successfully survive and build society they will use stereotypes for the same purpose, taking down notes to avoid "all men" or "all Black people" just to have a better day-to-day experience with less pain in their individual lives. back to science-Tories: science-Tories are the motif that people form countable Cultures of Toryism and then they do science for the "Tory ethnicity", and you have to root them out of science because the Tory people-group is an evil malicious people-group which intends to use all pieces of the Tory machine to eliminate the center-Liberal people-group so all pieces of the Tory machine are bad. even if this is true... do you see how there are undercurrents in this which indicate some nasty biases or fallacies of some kind? not in the sense of "Tories could be good", but more in the sense of "nations must be adversarial to the extent of internal imperialism and there's nothing we could have done to prevent this, we've just gotta divide and fight a civil war one day because that's the only way countries can be".
4240. Absurdism, nihilism, and existentialism are all the same thing / Existence-philosophy, nihilism, and absurdism are all the same thing -> sounds like it couldn't be possible, but all three of them say individuals make their own meaning. all three of them are versions of the same existentialism. (this has nothing to do with Trotskyism, and is only here because of the number.)
4241. Optimistic nihilism is about making your own meaning -> sic. heard somebody say this verbatim. five years ago I might have gotten pedantic and said "that's (early-) existentialism!!" but now I think there is no actual difference.
4242. Is there a point to believing in existentialism? / Is it possible for individuals to assert existentialism is meaningful? / Is believing in early-existentialism meaningless? -> the hyper-existentialist question. does the premise of existentialism apply to existentialism? entropicism would argue that ultimately this is not true, or at the very least, this is not a thing people can say trivially and it's a really difficult question.
4243. A Trotskyism-in-one-country could invest in Vietnam / A Trotskyism-in-one-country can invest in a Third World country -> not sure why this wouldn't be true considering China does this. but the implications of a Trotskyism doing this are maybe a bit chilling. imagine there's a Trotskyist Britain. it invests in Vietnam before other countries get there, ostensibly in order to keep Liberal-republican countries out, but also to make sure Vietnam doesn't team up with "Stalinist" countries — stay on the good side of Trotskyism and there will be no Trotskyite conspiracy, but the Communist party of Britain controls your factories. British Trotskyists position themselves like they are trying to be nice and they will listen to Vietnam's workers, but the whole thing is an inch from erupting into Trotskyists just gutting Vietnam's government and putting the population of Vietnam under colonial rule of Trotskyist theorists. ostensibly not doing anything worse to them than a workers' state would do to its own people and yet they have absolutely no national autonomy because Trotskyism didn't value it. you know what's worse than this hypothetical scenario though? the fact capitalism can already do this with no responsibility to anyone. if Trotskyism was exploiting Vietnam there would at least be a consolidated group of people to hold responsible. if capitalists complained about the human rights abuses of Trotskyist Britain you'd never hear the end of it. but capitalism manages to be worse than Trotskyist empire would likely be because it's always hiding behind the notion of globally universal individuals that have to be free yet get to dominate everyone with all the choices they make about how everyone else has to be.
      this statement is false if it can be conclusively shown that there's no such thing as Trotskyism in one country and there would never be a group of Trotskyists that would create it at least without all of them deciding they are not Trotskyists any more. if this statement is appropriate to a different named Marxism in one country then a new proposition must be created.
4244. ??
4245. ??
4246. Academic science is a planned economy [172] (7:37) -> Sabine Hossenfelder's somewhat pitiful attempt to justify why science in an environment of chunk competition across the spatial slot hierarchy carefully modifying behavior to conform to selection pressures and survive is somehow the wrong way to operate in that environment. very bad choice of words because you've literally described capitalism.
4247. Academic science is capitalism / Academic science is an undesigned system which creates selection pressures and where the science that gets produced operates on the logic of assembly theories such that scientists are obligated to join socially-linked countable cultures in order to survive expulsion from the environment as opposed to thinking for themselves as individuals
      it'll throw some people off that this claim is violet, but it's using the particular meta-Marxist definition of capitalism as a social-darwinist struggle between countable cultures which each individually would otherwise be the proletariat in the time of a workers' state. I abbreviated it to "capitalism" because in the end saying "it's capitalism" is a nicely equivalent, easily recognizable, and shorter statement.
4248. Absurdism, nihilism, and existentialism are the biased political compass of philosophy
4249. Absurdism, nihilism, and existentialism are reversed stages of grief -> thought of this while adding "all the same thing". first comes absurdism, then nihilism, then existentialism, so it's like, acceptance, depression (optional), then anger and denial. first we realize that nothing actually makes coherent sense including morality or justice. then we get upset. then we try to convince ourselves "in each of ours groups separately in parallel" there really is a meaning and we have the answers
4250. It's acceptable to be a Trotskyist in The West [173] -> a lot of mainstream Marxist-Leninists believe this out of some kind of envy for the people they imagine having successfully become "non-Marxist passing", but I'm pretty sure that as of the 2010s it isn't even true. what's more correct is most people have a really, really low opinion of anybody who claims to be a Leninist or quotes Marx or Lenin at all. "non-Marxist passing" is more like "White-passing" than it is like "cis-passing"; it's a thing of intolerance, not acceptance. this could vary a lot by country. but I think it's fair to mark it false just because believing it will give you wrong impressions of at least one First-World country.
4251. It's acceptable to be a Trotskyist in the United States -> it's generally not. it's very common to see a narrative that (along with Stalin) Trotsky was practically deranged and Psychoanalytically Wrong while only non-Communists are the Real Human Beings. it's weird and contradictory how we have so much talk about prejudice and yet most people would nearly institutionalize Communists as having a mental illness. protest about the treatment of schizophrenics but keep an asylum only for Communists.
4252. It's acceptable to be a Trotskyist in Britain -> this is the proposition I find a lot more interesting but genuinely don't know the answer to.
4253. It's acceptable to be a Trotskyist in Australia
4254. It's acceptable to be a Trotskyist in Canada
4255. It's acceptable to be a Trotskyist in Germany
4256. It's acceptable to be a Trotskyist in Spain -> this is an interesting question because of the history of Trotskyists and anarchists clashing over Spain.
4257. It's acceptable to be a Trotskyist in Japan -> as far as I know Trotskyism is kind of.... forgotten and unheard-of in Japan. in Japan it's weirdly acceptable to be a parliamentary Marxist or whatever the Communist Party of Japan is. but I feel like most people have absolutely no idea that Trotskyism exists or what it is
4258. It's acceptable to be a Trotskyist in South Korea -> a while in the past it used to be really forbidden. I do not remember what year that happened though or how close it was to today. the funny thing is I almost feel like it's less forbidden to discuss a world workers' state in North Korea as long as it isn't an actual conspiracy or campaign against the government — I feel as if a lot of things that are unacceptable in North Korea are actually just socially isolated before anyone ever has to be arrested. is that accurate? I have only shreds of information about the history of this country. but everything I have heard makes it sound like at the end of the day North Korea is incredibly like the United States and every time it is oppressive it's very similar to the way local people in Florida are oppressive to local people — obsessed with Freedom, obsessed with patriotism, not wanting to be controlled by the nearby outside world, not knowing that may lead them to be mean to their neighbor in their pursuit of being Free. in fact, as I always say, Florida is probably a little worse. North Korea is only so good but like, Florida is the cesspool out of the two.
4259. It's acceptable to be a Trotskyist in South America -> this one seems to have some probability of being true. it feels like Trotsky really did make an impact on Central and South America but it just went at this glacially slow pace until... there is sort of a little bit of Trotskyism today.
4260. String theorists are not suppressing dissent / String theorists are not creating localized Spanishness Offices which become more about cliques and socially-linked groups of people protecting each other than actual objective standards of science -> oh boy. one of those questions where I don't like having to talk about it because I know the parties are talking past each other and not even talking about the same thing. when Sabine Hossenfelder and Jim Baggott or people like that allege that string theorists are suppressing dissent, they mean inside individual specific institutions such as a university or a journal. they don't mean nationwide. what The Hossenfelder or The Baggott or The Science Trotskyite is saying is that there is a process that takes hold sometimes inside particular institutions where some particular individual or Filament of individuals takes over them and if you don't fit into that limited local countable culture of scientists and play by exactly the rules it wants then it doesn't let you play the game. while it can be true that Not All String Theorists do it, the accusation itself is that it's an undesirable process that happens spontaneously somewhere without recourse and so it feels like anybody anywhere can "get Gramsci'd". and here's how it historically goes in each of these cases of people complaining about "suppression": when you get Gramscianized or musical-chairs-attacked you start to feel paranoid like all the Stalinists across the Soviet Union or all the string theorists everywhere across all of Germany or all of the United Kingdom are joining together to find you and kick you out — whether such a statement is accurate or not. whereas, the claim that string theory has been improperly accepted across all of Germany is a claim of much greater scope than anybody is practically intending to make. the problem The Science Trotskyites are talking about is less a science problem and more of a social problem of localized countable cultures of people meshing badly and failing to share localized institutions such that the group of people has to divide and each countable culture has to aggressively secure its own territory. really not a problem that has much to do with the scientific method.
4261. Prediction markets could pick the best researchers -> there is definitely something wrong with this but it would take a lot of unpacking to figure out exactly what weird thing is going on. I'm thinking this is a matter of networkism, where in one sense Serializers rule the world because every successful industrial structure can be phrased in terms of a prediction of the future and when everybody believes the future is not a matter of physics investors profit off all of us.
4262. ??
4263. Steven Universe is actually about Trotskyism / Steven Universe is definitely about Trotskyism -> this was the subject of an MDem chapter I didn't finish — one of the off-the-wall satirical "B-side" chapters. I think it works better in chapter form but this proposition can still be about the underlying concept that it's possible to argue a work into meaning utterly anything.
4264. The Matrix is actually about Trotskyism -> troll argument / jamming proposition. the claim that The Matrix is actually about realizing capitalism makes no sense and will inevitably fall into crises, while the whole world is stuck in the illusion that it won't so you have to break the whole world out of it, which leads to Trotskyism. it's funny how almost logical this is when it began as a total ass (pronounced ass) pull, more so than the Lion = Trotskyism one. I think what's so funny about it is that the whole trans erasure red pill proposition is so toxic but although this is meant to be the same thing in a different color it's more or less harmless; if Trotskyists are convinced their message is more important than a trans identity message it will probably just wrap around to them pushing parties that support trans identity anyway.
4265. ??
4266. ??
4267. ??
4268. ??
4269. ??
4270. ??
4271. ??
4272. ??
4273. ??
4274. ??
4275. ??
4276. ??
4277. ??
4278. ??
4279. ??
4280. ??
4281. ??
4282. ??
4283. ??
4284. ??
4285. ??
4286. ??
4287. ??
4288. ??
4289. ??
4290. ??
4291. ??
4292. ??
4293. ??
4294. ??
4295. change your profile pic to Clippy / change your profile picture to a Clippy [174] -> normal people baffle me. how can they so confidently believe that "corporations treating people like human beings" is a coherent thing that corporations would intuitively understand and wouldn't need a whole book explaining it to them. I'd need a whole book explaining it to me just to understand how they think a bunch of Clippy could actually teach anyone the intended message. people who would defend factory workers getting confused about "artists" and whether they're workers is one thing, this is entirely another thing.
4296. ??
4297. ??
4298. Socialism: Stalinist or scientific (Hayashi 1998/2000) / "Stalinism, socialist ..." (typo)
4299. ??
4300. What was wrong with East Germany? / Why was the existence of East Germany a problem? / Why did center-Liberals dislike the existence of East Germany? -> I know "center-Liberals" can almost be neatly replaced with "bourgeoisie" to create a laughable tautology, but come on, we have to at least pretend to sound fair.
4301. Why did Trotskyists not consider East Germany to be progress? -> you have to think about this a bit to realize that it's a good question. Trotsky wants each country in Europe to overthrow capitalists and create a workers' state. East Germany pushed out capitalists and created a workers' state. if other European countries had each become "East Germany", it would have been one possible route to a union of European socialist republics — even one independent from the USSR, potentially, given that the USSR stopped occupying East Germany at a certain point. the process of creating East Germany is more or less in line with the mechanism Trotsky proposed for creating Trotskyism. so why were Trotskyists not on board with East Germany?
4302. East Germany was too small to be Trotskyism -> relatively likely to be the answer you actually get. East Germany small, Trotskyism big. this has never been a satisfying answer to me because it doesn't explain how any group of countries ever gets big enough to form Trotskyism without inevitably forming into unacceptably small "Stalinisms" first.
4303. East Germany did not have the correct internal structure to be Trotskyism / East Germany had the wrong internal structure according to Trotskyists -> derived Trotskyist proposition. some Trotskyists talk about "bureaucracy" and how they don't like the way government ministries and central party structures are put together to unite a country. this would lead to the prediction that Trotskyists look at East Germany and do not like East Germany's internal structure. if this statement about Trotskyism is true, then it implies that Trotskyists have a particular internal structure they require a country to have after expropriating the bourgeoisie or they will not believe the country is in socialist transition. it also vaguely implies that everything Trotskyists say about creating a worldwide civilization and going beyond one country is irrelevant fluff because what they really actually believe is that socialist transition depends on the internal structure of individual countries and each workers' state that has existed is bad because it has gone through transition wrong. a Trotskyism that believed this intentionally and was perfectly honest about it could become a molecular Trotskyism.
4304. If East Germany had been a Fortress Trotskyism, it would have been okay / If East Germany had had the correct internal structure to be Trotskyist, Trotskyists would have found it acceptable / East Germany could have built up to a Fourth International if only it were Trotskyism in one country -> derived Trotskyist proposition. I have literally never heard this. but it's rather confusing why nobody says this. 1) Trotsky believed every country in Europe could become Trotskyist 2) The European countries form workers' resistances separately around local groups of workers, then they link up into a Trotskyism 3) What's wrong with each of the European countries being Trotskyism in one country, when it's the only way you can build a bigger Trotskyism? put another way, if several European countries can be Trotskyist and oppose Stalin's government, why not just one? how does one prevent there being others? I guess you could argue from Stalin's point of view that because Trotskyisms are sectarian two Trotskyisms-in-one-country would fight each other, but I don't think Trotskyists would actually be that mean in criticizing their own parties. I don't think they see it that way.
4305. ??
4306. ??
4307. ??
4308. ??
4309. ??
4310. non-Marxist error in Marxist text / non-Marxist error in Marxist talk / "can't believe all these Trotskyist errors!" (the errors are typos) -> non-fictional motif which may be framed either humorously or seriously. this concept first came to mind when I was reading the first edition of a Trotskyist text with typos in it. but it could apply to any number of things, like Marxists making a background-information error about science, etc. Trotskyists using Kalinin as Trotsky's actor would fall under this.
4311. Slavoj Žižek is an anarchist / Slavoj Žižek is not a Trotskyist in any sense and can only be termed either an anarchist or an Existentialist -> this is true if Q43,12 is true. Slavoj Žižek is "a Trotskyist" if Zinovievism is Trotskyism. if Zinovievism, when separated from the small number of Leninist theorists who would lead it and claim it is Leninism, is definitely an anarchism, then Žižek is not a Trotskyist. this proposition has the charcoal swatch because I saw an anarchist text define "anarcho-nihilism" and it seems very similar to the definition of Zinovievism although I honestly do not have extensive enough historical background information about either of them to verify that they're the same.
4312. Early Trotskyism was actually an anarchism / Zinovievism is an instance of anarchism, not a double-vulgarized Trotskyism (black swatch instead of orange swatch, charcoal instead of flame; meta-Marxist terminology) / The functional purpose of 1900s Trotskyism was to create anarchist movements which would then attempt to realize a world Anarchism -> I know this sounds batshit. but this claim is specifically making a historical argument. it begins with the claim that the Trotskyite conspiracy was not really practicing Leninism and mostly lying about being Leninists — this is a relatively fair thing to say. from there it observes the results of Trotskyist movements, which tended to disintegrate into something of a disorganized mess. Spain contained something of an attempt at Marxism or "a socialist party" but is much more famous for anarchists, and George Orwell. Trotsky and ex-Trotskyists like Orwell became weapons for First-World countries to allege that Trotskyites never were Leninists and that was a good thing. Ted Grant shows up trying to create a hypothetical Leninist Trotskyism that never existed. a little later, schizoanalysts show up trying to explain how countries are made of organic assemblies of parts (is this true? maybe) and implying that the components of any particular entity are arbitrary and throughout history periodically change. core concepts of schizoanalysis become wildly popular. schizoanalytic "science" of joining and separating entities merges into anarchism to supposedly create a practice of non-ideological unity of demographic identities. schizoanalysis-influenced crowds continue to "non-ideologically" unify with Third World anticommunists and bash Third-World countries. so overall, the claim here is that because Zinovievism and modern anarchisms share the characteristics of having no real ideology or end goal, allowing chains of First-World countries and defectors to bash whole Third World countries, and generally having a distinctly international scope, modern anarchisms existed as early as Zinovievism, and it was basically concealing the emergence of modern anarchisms inside it. I'm not at all sure that this claim is true. but if it somehow turns out it is, the Zinovievism swatch can be changed to charcoal. the Ted-Grant-ist Trotskyism swatch can stay orange.
4313. Kalinin as Trotsky's actor / Kalinin in place of Trotsky -> every so often with independent videos you see a video accidentally use a picture of Kalinin to represent Trotsky, as if he's not Trotsky but he plays him on TV. as far as I know this doesn't really happen with actual Trotskyist parties, thankfully.
4314. ??
4315. ??
4316. ??
4317. ??
4318. ??
4319. ??
4320. ??
4321. ??
4322. ??
4323. ??
4324. ??
4325. ??
4326. ??
4327. ??
4328. ??
4329. ??
4330. ??
4331. ??
4332. ??
4333. ??
4334. ??
4335. ??
4336. ??
4337. ??
4338. ??
4339. ??
4340. ??
4341. ??
4342. ??
4343. ??
4344. ??
4345. ??
4346. ??
4347. ??
4348. ??
4349. ??
4350. ??
4351. ??
4352. ??
4353. ??
4354. ??
4355. ??
4356. ??
4357. ??
4358. ??
4359. ??
4360. ??
4361. ??
4362. ??
4363. ??
4364. ??
4365. ??
4366. ??
4367. ??
4368. ??
4369. ??
4370. ??
4371. ??
4372. ??
4373. ??
4374. ??
4375. ??
4376. ??
4377. ??
4378. ??
4379. ??
4380. ??
4381. ??
4382. ??
4383. ??
4384. ??
4385. ??
4386. ??
4387. ??
4388. ??
4389. ??
4390. ??
4391. ??
4392. ??
4393. ??
4394. ??
4395. ??
4396. ??
4397. ??
4398. ??
4399. ??
4400. ??
4410. ??
4420. ??
4430. ??
4440. ??
4444. sectarian Communist International / Communist International formed around specific named Marxism and not admitting other named Marxisms -> on one hand, it was kind of inevitable these would be invented. on the other, it feels like they have never ever been effective. it may be worth saying under the "spanishness office principle" that sectarian Communist Internationals are probably a symptom of Marxist parties consisting of detached Filaments of bourgeoisie that have no inherent reason to work together. (the spanishness office principle: if people are complaining about Spanishness Offices, they're the bourgeoisie, because people who fight for control of "institutions" of elite experts are generally the bourgeoisie. institutions includes the Communist International should it happen people are fiercely squabbling over it.)
4450. ??
4460. ??
4470. ??
4480. ??
4490. ??
4500. ??
4510. ??
4511. Treason of what? / What is treason? / Treason is not a Materialist term (meta-Marxist answer to question) -> on the surface, Trotskyists will love this one, although when you actually drill down into it the question is very complicated. Communism is treason to the United States! okay, but treason of what? the constitution!! okay, but why is the constitution there? you still haven't really answered treason of what. one somewhat valid answer would be "the population". this answer is somewhat meta-ontologically sound, as both the United States and the historical Soviet Union could say it. if there are one million people behind Stalin and ten thousand Trotskyites attack, attacking Stalin's government is treason of the one million people by the ten thousand Trotskyites. however, this also means that if there are half a billion people behind Deng Xiaoping and anybody attacks that government, this is treason of half a billion people. that's so many people that although it should be less bad, in a logical contradiction it should also be much worse. the United States also has a third of a billion people, which is definitely a few. so is Liberal-republicanism good then? no. the amazing thing about Communist revolutions is that if and when they happen they open up the weirdest loophole in this question — if nearly all the people in the United States defect from the United States, can they even meaningfully commit treason against themselves? and the answer is no. this is one coarse answer to how revolutions happen, or at least how they stop not happening. but with that said, how do you teach Trotskyists and Tories and even anarchists that the Sunny fallacy is different from a successful revolution? every single group of people that separates from anything will try to claim it can't commit treason against itself.
4512. ??
4513. A revolution in the United States is revolution against two separate countries at once -> this is part of why it's so hard. in daily life people have to pretend to be part of two separate countries which are violently hostile to each other (quite literally when there are so many shootings), and only a small portion of people are skilled enough to even pull off that act. it's almost trivial for one of the two countries to prevent a strike simply by breaking up the graph population of workers and owners along the lines of the two nations and call foul on one countable culture violating the cultural self-determination of the other countable culture. conditioned by things like religious teachings about the sanctity of religion and humanities teachings about the sanctity of inner experience of individuals and identity-demographics, people are quick to flare up even across countable cultures when they think any "community" is getting hit by an external threat. all this is to say that Lived-Experience nonsense is the weapon of the bourgeoisie against the people. it facilitates the general pattern of all existing owners and their allied [L] (pronounced [L]) Wasp swarm 1:(-)1:(-)1 banding together to crush anything that could actually bring change better than it facilitates anyone actually overcoming them. which should cast a lot of doubt on whether schizoanalyst concepts of the united nonviolence of identities should just totally be dismissed as inherently incorrect. I'm not quite confident enough to say that just yet, although I think with a better explanation of what is supposed to replace them that might become okay. my thoughts are something like this: A) people are made of populations, not inherently born into culture or identity. A1) culture can be developed or created in a group of people once they are linked. B) the proletariat begins at all the slots for people to even be useful for anything filling up, and people thrashing their way back in to be able to work without creating a whole new business. C) the United States is saved if some unknown significant ratio of people thrashes back into industry like ten or fifty times the number of workers to owners, and the subpopulation of workers does almost everything in society of its own will while nobody with the power to create a business does much of anything. D) this outcome is really different from the way things work right now in huge swaths of the United States. E) the cleanest process, which I don't think will happen, would be your fifty Tory types per owner overtaking Tory businesses as a coherent population and your fifty progressive types per owner overtaking progressive businesses separately. F) most identity-politics populations all fall inside the progressive subpopulation and inherently only have the power to take back half the country. G) progressive types have an interest in overcoming all the Tory owners but Tory types have no serious interest in overcoming Tory owners. these two political subpopulations belong to truly different ideologies and different Bauplans, as different as West Germany and East Germany right now at this second. that map with Mao and the KMT graph-struggling over a giant area comes to mind. H) postcolonial theories have to go because at the present second no matter what ideology you choose every single good outcome is colonial. this might be fixable with the brightest Marxists working on it, but that's not the step we're at right now.
4515. ??
4516. ??
4517. Revolution happens when the group of people defecting from a country is so much bigger than the country it cannot commit treason against itself
4520. ??
4530. ??
4540. ??
4550. ??
4560. ??
4570. ??
4580. ??
4590. ??
4591. Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party
4592. Bolshevik party
4593. Third International
4594. Left Opposition
4595. Menshevik party
4596. ??
4597. ??
4598. ??
4599. ??
4600. Trotskyist group, organization, or party
4601. International Secretariat (1953) / ISFI (attempted International)
4602. International Committee (1953) / ICFI (attempted International)
4603. ??
4604. ??
4605. ??
4606. ??
4607. ??
4608. ??
4609. Committee for a Workers' International (defunct) / CWI (attempted International)
4610. local Trotskyist group unaffiliated with larger formation
4611. Denver Communists (??; United States Midwest)
9999. Japan Revolutionary Communist League (JRCL) '23 -> you find the weirdest things when searching for arbitrary Japanese words. one of them is miscellaneous Trotskyist blogs. every time I find one of these, I am like, man, these are the coolest people in Japan. most of the time Japan is so crushingly the same but... if you look around enough.
4612. ??
4613. ??
4614. ??
4615. ??
4616. Žižekian
4617. terrorist (Zinovievism) -> wrecker, rival proletarian revolution
4618. ??
4619. ??
4620. Trotskyist group affiliated with the Fourth International of 1938
4621. Socialist Workers' Party (United States) -> helped split the Fourth International into the ISFI and ICFI, funny enough
4622. ??
4623. ??
4624. ??
4625. ??
4626. ??
4627. ??
4628. ??
4629. ??
4630. International Marxist Tendency (party) -> international-party Trotskyism
4631. Workers' International League (1938) -> [175]
4632. "The Militant" -> [176]
4633. Revolutionary Communist Party -> [177] [178]
4634. In Defence of Marxism (outlet; Britain)
4635. Socialist Appeal (Britain)
4636. Socialist Alternative (United States)
4637. ??
4638. Fourth International (1938) -> became: Q46,01 International Secretariat, Q46,02 International Committee
4639. ??
4640. ??
4650. ??
4660. ??
4664. ??
4665. contentless revolutionary socialism - Rosa Luxemburg
4666. contentless Trotskyite-conspirator ideology / Zinovievism (meta-Marxism)
4670. Literature and Revolution (Trotsky 1924) [179] -> the origin of most of the stupid claims about Trotsky in The Giver. ex-Trotskyist novelists really had some problems with this text apparently.
4671. Trotsky wanted to abolish sex / Trotsky hated the concept of sex -> I found this BS in a YouTube comments section once, and ever since then I have not been able to forget it; it was just too funny. the misinterpretation seems to have stemmed from a work where Trotsky was lightly criticizing people escaping from their problems through one or two genuninely weird pieces of sexual literature that had been put out recently — the key word was escaping, not sex. I have no idea exactly what group of people were getting things so twisted but man, when people want to misinterpret Communists they really go all the way. this was one of those things that led to me realizing that The Giver was a skewed portrayal of Trotsky in the first place, because you see the theme of abolishing sex and "controlling emotions" in both places. in the original Trotsky text he was talking about "emotions" like clinical depression and anxiety, when they did not even really have psychotherapy in Russia.
4680. ??
4690. Left Voice (federated outlet)
4700. ??
4710. ??
4720. ??
4730. ??
4740. ??
4750. ??
4760. ??
4770. the Vegeta of Communism / the Vegeta of Bolshevism (Marxism, Leninism; motif) -> a very silly metaphor I came up with early in MDem 5.1 when I was thinking about Dragon Ball and the relationship between it, religion, non-belief, wars, and historical materialism. there was this particular concept of two people in a rivalry and one of them really upset about not being able to get into the top position of something instead of ever cooling down about it, and it just haunted my mind. I was like, honestly, Trotsky is the Vegeta of Bolshevism. and it never really left me.
4775. ??
4776. ??
4777. Trotskyism succeeding will be a black swan event -> the claim that all the previous events of Trotskyism failing are not predictive of what it will do in the future relative to those events. honestly, this is basically what Trotskyists already say. but given that it has had almost a century to happen and hasn't happened, while mainstream Marxism-Leninism and Deng Xiaoping Thought each have happened during the same time, it's probably fair to mark it false.
4778. Trotskyism is like cold fusion -> it would be so useful if it was possible but it never comes to be.
4780. ??
4790. ??
4800. Maoist group, organization, or party
4810. ??
4820. ??
4830. The Energy Conspiracy (Seman 1981) [180]
4831. ??
4832. The correct group will make you free / The correct relationship and shared culture will make you free / The truth will make you free / John 8:32 -> if you read this the way it's intended, like, it applies to Marxism if Marxism is true — though it equally applies to Anarchism if Anarchism is truer. it is so telling that Tories would use this in a context totally outside of religion and purely against "Big Government". it shows that some people cling to religion purely because they believe having the correct Social-Philosophical System, the correct group of people and culture, will give them a better life either taking away their worries or crushing their enemies, or both. [181]
4840. ??
4850. ??
4861. Trotskyites as similar to Confederates / 1930s Trotskyite conspiracy as similar to Confederate States of America (Confederacy, The South; United States history versus Soviet history) / a poison mirror of your own philosophy (hypothetical remark from mainstream Marxist-Leninist allies to United States Trotskyists) -> there is a lot to get into as far as actually explaining this. it definitely has nothing to do with the ideological content of Trotskyism or claiming they aren't Leninists or aren't progressive. this is a very mathematical argument based entirely on the outer borders of the Trotskyite conspiracy and the Confederacy versus a larger republic. this argument is solidly grounded in meta-Marxism, existential materialism, and general-sense historical materialism, it's not very much like any form of argument most people are used to in Liberalism or Trotskyism.
4870. ??
4880. ??
4890. ??
4900. prominent Marxist theorist or organizer / notable Marxist theorist or organizer -> this is the colloquial usage of "very notable", not the Wikipedia usage of "notable"
4910. prominent mainstream-Marxist-Leninist theorist or organizer / prominent Marxist theorist or organizer associated with Stalin Thought
4911. Vladimir Lenin -> note: there are Properties for "believed to be within ideology" allowing the separation of "believed to be associated with Trotskyism" from "believed to be associated with Stalin Thought" and the two statements to coexist at once
4912. Joseph Stalin
4913. ??
4914. ??
4915. ??
4916. ??
4917. Russian Revolution according to Trotskyists / Russian Revolution specifically according to Leon Trotsky -> it's worth taking people's bullshit (pronounced shit) and just repeating it back, going through it line by line. in some cases, you spot the errors that led somebody to think that way. in other cases, you spot the material processes that caused somebody to make the error that led them to think that way. I think the latter applies here. I would read the anecdotes about Trotsky and Lenin visiting Europe and think, huh, so he was reasonably close to some of the actually important figures in the Russian Revolution, and seemed to generalize that to being a serious member of Bolshevik identity. there was a strong theme of groups linked by social bonds rather than by theory.
4918. ??
4919. Enver Hoxha -> yes, he has his own subset ideology, but it still falls under this tradition
4920. ??
4930. ??
4940. prominent Trotskyist theorist or organizer / notable Trotskyist theorist or organizer
4941. Leon Trotsky -> Soviet Union / miscellaneous; Fourth International
4942. Rosa Luxemburg -> Germany
4943. Ted Grant -> United Kingdom (?)
4944. James P. Cannon -> United States; Socialist Workers' Party
4945. ??
4946. ??
4947. ??
4948. ??
4949. Hiroyoshi Hayashi / Hayashi Hiroyoshi -> Japan; (retrieve organization)
4950. notable Trotskyite resistance leader or advocate / notable Zinovievist advocate or leader / notable Trotskyite conspiracy member
4951. Grigori Zinoviev -> he became my arbitrary example of Trotskyite conspiracies versus what Trotskyism claims it is, after a few Trotskyites called him a hero just for wrecking the Soviet Union
4952. ??
4953. ??
4954. ??
4955. ??
4956. ??
4957. Nikolai Bukharin / ニコライ・ブハーリン -> he quit, but there's not a better place to put him
4958. George Orwell -> by some definitions of Trotskyite, the most famous one ever
4959. Slavoj Žižek -> may sound surprising to call him a "Zinovievist" or Trotskyite, but after much analysis of his rhetorical patterns and motifs he truly belongs here
4960. ??
4965. ??
4970. ??
4975. ??
4980. ??
4981. ??
4982. ??
4983. ??
4984. ??
4985. ??
4986. ??
4987. ??
4988. ??
4989. Anarchism is over
4990. Stalin Thought is over -> had some vanishing chance of being true in 1940, not very believable these days
4991. Trotskyism is over -> why is it that all Trotskyists refuse to believe this while most or all mainstream Marxist-Leninists believe it and about half of all center-Liberals and Existentialists believe it? this should be less controversial than "Bolshevism is over". if Trotskyism isn't materially possible but mainstream Marxism-Leninism is, you'd think that nearly everyone would be unanimous about the first part of that, because advocating for Trotskyism isn't advantageous to either Existentialists or mainstream Marxist-Leninists.
4992. Non-molecular Trotskyism is over -> the most generous interpretation of Trotskyism. probably too generous. but very useful for getting Existentialists to actually think for once
4993. Leninism is over but "Marxism" is not -> I'm half convinced that every time somebody implies this (and isn't from China, Cuba, or Vietnam) that it's literally just a way to sneak in Existentialism and deceive people into believing all the things smaller than Liberalism and capitalism that ultimately reconstruct capitalism. half the time I laugh at this one and half the time I get angry, because it tends to trap people in this loop of insisting that if you don't believe Marxism can be used to purge people of all incorrect beliefs and create a perfect society full of nice people before getting rid of capitalism you're racist, while due to the actual material definition of capitalism, if they believe it it makes them absolutely, absolutely incapable of stopping people from becoming racist, digging them deeper and deeper into this hole they can never get out of.
4994. Party-nations are not actually Marxist / Marxism is over but party-nations are not / Marxism is over but Leninism is not -> the claim that central party-nations are not over but the attempt to regulate the stochastic sorting of people into corporate countable Cultures basically is. somewhat credible when there are about three countries that can vouch for it. many people like to think you can immediately springboard off this to justifying Existentialism but you actually can't. it almost implies the opposite: that primitive Existentialism is most stable when it's regulated from above and not allowed to become a government in and of itself.
4995. ??
4996. ??
4997. No Marxism is actually over -> MDem's basic working model of Marxisms. if you want to prevent all future Trotskyite conspiracies, you have to talk to Trotskyists as human beings and not immediately scare them off. you have to recognize the existence of different Social-Philosophical Systems around different Marxist models and discuss every model as if it's vaguely possible in order to guide people into forming an agreement for all the different divergent Marxisms and so-called "leftisms" you more commonly find everywhere to live in the same world and not fight each other. this is not a trivial thing given that people unify based on the outcome they believe in rather than whether they are currently oppressed.
4998. Deng Xiaoping Thought is over -> this one is terrible to discuss because I am convinced that up to now almost everyone in the whole entire world has the wrong interpretation of what the thing actually is. I have heard mainstream Marxist-Leninists casually put the word "overthrow" next to "CPC" / Chinese party-nation without realizing that this is one of the most forbidden things you can say in China and only Trotskyists say it. despite what people think there are very few statements that are big-time illegal to say in China versus just getting deleted off a message board, while that's one of the very few things that actually might be. the Chinese party-nation takes protecting the population very seriously, for better or for worse, and everything it does is in response to possible threats. imagine a reality where most Marxist literature is banned in China but there's still a central party-nation. that's kind of what you invite to happen when you fail to understand that the CPC primarily exists to protect the people from other countries. you must understand that behaving in a non-threatening way toward China is necessarily to get a proper understanding of what it is and how to change it. this of course goes about 100 times as much for Trotskyists, who never even would have thought of this.
4999. Liberalism is over -> fun. cathartic. as time goes on, bizarrely not true. why not? that's the question of the century.

5000

Welcome to friendship hell
(Perfectly okay works about "community", and dubious Existentialist theories that resemble them)

5000. Item representing analogy or mathematical microcosm / Item comparing structure or process of thing A to thing B -> does not necessarily have to be a correct analogy, but this category does exist to hunt for correct analogies
5001. comparing anything and everything to friendship / unexpectedly comparing things to friendship / comparing things of larger scales than individual relationships to individual relationships -> note that this is not a bad thing in every case; some MDem entries point out real similarities between individuals and populations which lead to real similarities between large and small relationships. that said, it can create jarring contrasts between stories and real life, or Existentialist theories and real life
5002. comparing city-wide phenomena to individual friendships / comparing town-wide phenomena to friendship
5003. comparing region-wide phenomena to individual friendships
5004. comparing nationwide phenomena to individual friendships
5005. comparing global phenomena to individual friendships
5006. comparing whole social graphs to individual friendships / comparing whole communities to friendship / comparing fanbases to friendship / comparing platform membership to friendship
5007. comparing galactic or cosmic phenomena to individual friendships
5008. comparing institutions to individual friendships / comparing workplaces to friendship / comparing government ministries to friendship
5009. comparing local community centers to individual friendships / comparing forums to friendship / comparing churches to friendship
5010. individual described by common pronouns -> important to define basic categories, but may not be necessary to add except within works where below kinds of characters exist ↓
5011. individual described by nonstandard pronouns / character described by pronouns not in common use outside work -> note that "they", "any pronouns", and "it" (background object) are common usages, not nonstandard language
5012. individual described by neopronouns / individual described by "nonsense" pronouns / individual described by "nounself" pronouns
5013. individual described exclusively by pronouns from another language -> Damara Megido. this is a true example of a character with "nonstandard pronouns"
5014. individual described by alternating pronouns / individual described by cycling pronouns -> thanks Mangle
5015. individual described by pronoun of surrounding physical object / ghost using possessing object's pronoun
5016. fictional individual described with insulting pronouns / fictional individual frequently misgendered in-universe / fictional individual frequently called coarse pronouns in Japanese not necessarily related to gender
5017. individual described by pronoun of characters from other planet / fictional human described with alien pronouns -> thanks Piccolo, thanks Crystal Gems.
5018. ??
5019. pronoun not listed as Lexeme (type pronoun in qualifiers) / pronoun listed in external Lexeme (ex.: ey)
5020. ??
5025. ??
5030. ??
5033. individual described by pronoun usages containing ARG clues -> I have never heard of this but I bet it will happen some day wait. this technically already exists. people were left using the pronoun "him" to trace tenuous connections between Gaster and Deltarune. so technically. there is already at least one example out there of pronouns being used as ARG clues, although it's simpler than the silly idea I had in my head of some cryptic letter hiding some kind of cipher key in pronouns.
5035. ??
5040. ??
5045. ??
5050. vote -> a single show of support or non-support
5051. denial ball / black ball / black cube -> ball used as veto in anonymous ball vote. sometimes balls are the same color and put on opposite sides of the anonymous box.
5052. approval ball / white ball -> ball used in hopes of collecting a unanimous vote
5053. ballot
5060. ??
5070. Humans have free will / Humans have Free Will
5071. Larks have free will / Larks have Free Will -> the claim that songbirds such as larks and sparrows also have the thing called Free Will that humans are said to have.
5072. Ravens have free will / Dolphins have free will -> the claim that non-human animals that have been demonstrated to be highly intelligent possess the thing called Free Will.
5073. The cause-breaking dome has free will / The perfectly round ball sitting on a perfectly round dome that breaks Newtonian causality has free will -> generally accepted not to be true.
5074. A twenty-sided die has free will -> generally accepted not to be true.
5075. A pseudorandom number generator has free will -> generally accepted not to be true.
5076. Twilight Sparkle has free will / Twilight Sparkle has Free Will within the defined fictional universe of My Little Pony, and this is the process by which characters enact friendship lessons -> often accepted to be true but isn't really necessary to accept.
5077. Free will is the capacity to desire freedom / Free will is the resolve to resist un-freedom -> the only definition of Free Will that makes any sense to me as something that could be real. it's a little bit of a weasel definition to replace something that doesn't make sense with something else that does. it doesn't actually save the claim people can choose not to choose to choose something. instead it's just meant to explain why humans perceive a thing called Free Will and what we might actually be looking at when we see that.
      I initially got this definition from studying the relationship between center-Liberalism and Trotskyism, which to me was one of the only places that defining freedom or Free Will would ever truly matter. you can say there are other times like periods of slavery where it would matter, but honestly? I think in that case there are ways you can get out of having to talk about free will and just turn it into a matter of preferable or ethical kinds of interactions of whole populations that have material ways of being achieved whether anyone ever experiences free will or freedom or not — constitution, government, laws, just wars, history, etc. some of those invoke morality but morality doesn't even require free will; it's just making people do things.
5078. Populations have free will
5079. Populations do not have free will -> I am not sure if the core Marxist theorists ever made this claim, but this claim is very helpful for arguing general-sense historical materialism. if you are able to dispel the notion that populations are totally unique individuals, you can then go on to show that populations actually consist of patterns. sidenote: it's so bizarre to me that psychoanalysts are obsessed with unique individuals when quite literally, psychoanalysis and psychohistory don't work if different individuals don't show the same patterns over and over? psychoanalysis seems like an accidental argument for general-sense historical materialism in and of itself, which simply starts the concept of "historical patterns" at really tiny scales and refuses to look at big scales.
5078. ??
5079. ??
5080. ??
5085. ??
5090. ??
5095. ??
5100. intersubjectivity -> this should be considered a motif to scan texts for. the label can be changed to something more easily recognizable while keeping the internal definition the same thing.
5101. When The Subject simply is, it compels people to listen
5102. The unpredictability of Subjects will save the world / whatsisname the unlikeable guy (Excessive Subject, Žižek) will stop the problem by stoking empathy -> I only caught this one after three or more times of listening to a Deltarune analysis. on Noelle's blog there is an incident where Susie is about to bite Kris, but then she stops because Kris said something unexpected. the blog post does not even explain what Kris said, underscoring the motif that Kris is an "excessive Subject" even to The Player. outside Deltarune, this same concept is portrayed much worse in The Excessive Subject. Rothenberg and Žižek clumsily try to explain that basically if a person is just really unpredictable people would eventually be forced to have intersubjectivity and learn empathy. honestly? I really do not think so. the problem isn't that reactionaries don't understand things. the problem is that the processes of society are much more physical and "inanimate" than people want to believe, reactionaries understand those processes all too well, and they choose to perpetuate cruel patterns because it's genuinely materially easier than doing otherwise. like, to get them to change you'd have to force them to expend energy and create things when they don't want to. doing nothing is much easier than doing something. people being unpredictable doesn't make Actually Getting Off Your Butt And Doing Things become easy.
5103. watch my taffy dance ("Come along with me") -> the motif of either of the above two propositions being enacted in fiction
5104. Wrong ideas can be corrected if you simply cease thinking -> I've been a little wrong when I said everything in Liberalism is about turning everything into metaphysical quality sliders and claiming that artificial excesses of particular adjectives must be solved with "moderation". there's just a little bit more to it than that. some people seem to believe that when people have wrong ideas or prejudices it's possible to simply stop thinking entirely and become able to take in new information that way. I know from experience over a period of five years this is almost wholly false, and only leads to great confusion. I am being very generous by not marking this F2. but, there could be some subset propositions of it that are technically true.
5105. ??
5106. ??
5107. ??
5108. ??
5109. ??
5110. language game / language which is not post-language (locally-used version of a language which has not been forcibly standardized and can be basically anything; meta-Marxism) / plural language (alternate version of the same language inside a national language; meta-Marxism) -> a language game is essentially a plural instance of language which is used by some particular group of people toward some particular end. two different language games used by different people do not need to overlap whatsoever even as they use the same words. I have complicated feelings about this concept. on one hand I do think that the way people construct language is relatively arbitrary. on the other hand, I find it strange that, at least the way people use these works — maybe we're getting a bit of a Gramsci situation here where everyone misuses them — people think Wittgenstein was out to eliminate language games and standardize language within the realm of philosophy. but if language games exist, which they probably do, you aren't really going to be able to achieve that. language games suggest that the most basic role of language is something other than communication. so I feel like the best you can realistically do is make sure people use ontology consistently even though the language games that point to ontology are never the same
5111. The only way to learn language is in the doing -> this is a nasty slope. it's one of the many ways philosophers smuggle in Lived Experience and positivism. this is why I refuse to refer to all exercises in ontology as "language" just because dictionaries contain definitions. no. ontology is not a matter of Lived Experience, as humanity has unfortunately learned by building machines that do ontology. a machine that doesn't seriously experience anything can now build an ontology which can be looked at two levels removed from subjective experience.
5112. ??
5113. Logic probes ontology / Logic probes the connected graphs of words inside words inside words that we call language -> stop, Wittgenstein. stop calling ontology language. ...you know, there's a certain irony here. he said the whole purpose of philosophy is to untangle language. but you can't even do that if you think ontology is language and you don't eventually untangle them.
5114. Language cannot be private -> the clam that language must refer to something outside each individual mind in order to be able to communicate. I think this is technically false. this assumes the goal of language is to communicate, rather than purely to describe the ontological relationships between things. I feel like if you go in assuming language is for communicating you could pick up a stack of academic papers and think they aren't really language because most people don't understand any of those words. but if you worked in that field you'd know that what the jargon terms contain is particular ontologies of things connected to each other. it only really takes one isolated mind to come up with that, not even two. the fact another human being can interpret a heap of jargon is almost incidental to its original purpose, a thing that happens in parallel rather than in a neat causal line from jargon to interpretability.
5115. Language can be private -> I really don't think it's impossible for individuals to have a private language referring to only their own thoughts and perceptions. it's certainly inadvisable, but inadvisable things are not impossible. here's why I think this is true. a group of Egyptian priests can all agree on a language, but other people could come back to an inscription hundreds of years later and have no idea what it says. the inscription created by the priests wasn't in reference to anything that was public to the whole world of all humans. it was only public to everyone in the group of priests. which is to say, it was private to all European archaeologists, not public. the hard barrier between ancient cultures and modern-day countable cultures shows that nothing has to be truly shared between minds, all perceptions are potentially localized and individual until the moment that they are communicated in a way that another person really truly understands. this is a different statement than saying that people don't live in or perceive the same reality, which they do. the problem is that all minds are separated by the Last Unicorn effect, where everyone starts from the same world but constructs their own "fantasy" version of the world complete with both realistic models that come very close to how real objects behave and unreal mirages we can call "unicorns". everyone has the same reality, but everyone has their own unicorns. and this difference in unicorns means that some words refer to unicorns other people don't have at the moment, at least until they very closely examine what on earth another person is assuming and successfully reconstruct the missing unicorns.
5116. Every language contains a plurality of languages / Languages are always plural, even when they're singular / language versus post-language proposition -> yeah, this is what bothered me about the overview I listened to of Wittgenstein's theory of language. the overview did not go into the concept that "the way philosophers use language" could represent multiple Englishes rather than one English, multiple versions of German, and so forth. if such a thing is the case, telling people it's important to use the same terms and concepts won't even work, because people will just rebel to defend their right to have their own local languages. when people are all converted to the same "cultural language", such as German, it doesn't mean they all actually speak the same language, because they then just speak different versions of German based on the different ideologies they believe. serious Christians in Germany might have one version of German, nonbelievers might have another. West Germans might have one version of German full of anticommunism, East Germans might have another full of definitions friendly to Bolshevism. in other words, ideologies are the new languages. ideologies are countable cultures; countable cultures have languages; countable cultures rebel when not given self-determination. even if the people in them are Evil. national independence and Freedom don't care if people are Evil, they just thrash around to realize themselves.
5117. Dawkinsian language usage / Matt Dillahunty language usage -> the type of language usage that does not prescribe required meanings for each word but does prescribe underlying ontological distinctions which should be used in defining all words: Dawkins says Einsteinian religiousness is not religion and means precisely that whatever words people use should preserve that distinction, whether the words are "the spiritual" and "religion", "Einsteinian religion" and "religion", etc.
      I would censor this to demote "Dawkins", but that doesn't actually work on normal people because they'll always say the person you claim to be better than Dawkins is just as bad and practically an Arab- and Jew-hater purely for not letting people believe religion. so I've given up on trying to make any statement about religion sound "sensitive", because why even try that if it's the abstract concept that makes people angry? I guess angry concepts just have to have angry words.
5118. Wittgensteinian language usage -> the type of language usage that fails to separate words from ontological constructs (signifier equations) that lie inside language and that large language models trace in a superficial way. this doesn't have a precise definition yet but one thing it could mean is insisting that every term applied to things is really literal instead of a figurative way to refer to something which could practically be the same thing depending on the circumstance — that Einstein can't refer to awe as religion as a way of defanging religion and showing that it was only another name for awe.
5119. ??
5120. Language is just a bunch of math -> sounds ridiculous at first unless you've already come to understand language is a bunch of signifier equations, and then you're like, oh, yeah, it really is just a bunch of things inside of other things that we only assign arbitrary names to, it's not too big of a leap from that to saying it's literally just math.
5121. Language is about intensional set definitions / Language is about intensional set definitions, not intuition -> you can separately claim that intensional set definitions are based on intuition, but I think it's critical to make this separation between studying language and studying intensional non-well-formed set theory so that we show that language is more mechanical and less intrinsically poetic than people think. (replace "mechanical" with "reterministic" if that word sounds too anti-dialectics to you. I tend to use the words mechanical and mechanism very colloquially so that even dialectical things are called machines; I think everyone constantly bringing up Deleuze and Guattari is what helped corrupt me there.) if you show that much, it's easier to tear people away from the concept that everything social is about Lived Experience versus dialectical materialism and repeated historical processes.
5122. Language is actually lambda calculus / Signifier equations can be conceptualized as lambda calculus functions, which means that the meaning of any sentence amounts to one big lambda calculus calculation -> it sounds like a joke until you really think about what it means for a language model to hypothetically truly know what an apple is and what it can do with an apple. an apple is an edible round object that can be cut with a knife. this is a signifier equation saying that three kinds of physics apply to the object arbitrarily called an apple.
5123. Unicorns are abstract math / Unicorns are just unrealistic math / Unicorns, the mirages which appear under the Last Unicorn effect, are simply lambda calculus constructs which make hypotheses about some defined reality and then do not predict that reality; in concept they may predict some other defined reality, even if that reality is fictional
5124. ??
5125. ??
5129. ??
5130. root-word mirage / name-element mirage / reading meaningful name elements out of the wrong names -> something of an arts trope. usually harmless. the only exception to that might be everyday instances of somebody reading a Chinese or Vietnamese name as "dung", etc. most of the time it's just funny, like Edward being a direction? gold. wondering if Oliver Wood is a beating stick? dark, but fine. turning the name Rowling into some dumb pun about rolling downhill and being unable to stop? perfect. I'd say that a name like "Darkstalker" doesn't fit into this motif because it's made of words that already have multiple meanings on their own. this motif is more like a frame shift mutation for words.
5131. Squidward is a direction / Directional words end in -ward, therefore Squidward is a direction, and so are its original counterparts Edward, Hayward, and Siegward -> very silly, one of those things that normally you wouldn't think about for more than a minute, but does wrap around to being interesting in the context of "language games". you can't just make signifiers mean anything because to some extent there are reasons they mean the things they currently mean.
5132. "Hogwarts" is a direction [182] -> I have no idea if this is intentional or this is the same statement as "Squidward is a direction".
      arguments in favor: "hog" could be read as rightwards depending on the language. if that's true.... oh boy, it really doesn't look good for the meaning of the books does it? like, Hogwarts would be the same thing as the bad meaning of "redpilled".
5140. ??
5145. ??
5150. ??
5155. ??
5160. ??
5165. ??
5170. ??
5175. ??
5180. ??
5185. ??
5190. ??
5195. ??
5200. microdistrict / walkable neighborhood / car-free neighborhood
5201. microdistrict (Soviet Union)
5203. mass-produced building
5204. Trotskyists could have created microdistricts -> I have been looking for so long for one possible policy that Trotskyists would not be too stupid / too tiny of a group of somewhat smart people to figure out. I have finally found one example. in the weird in-between period between the death of Stalin and the overall erosion of the CPSU was exactly when the country created cheap mass-produced buildings. it would seem that the cause of this is more that from 1920-1960 there were constant wars and right after this things were calmer than that the anti-Stalinists truly showed up with all the only good ideas. that said, this stuff certainly happened without Stalin, and microdistricts are one of those things where as soon as someone invents them they're almost harder to screw up than to do correctly. in my mind, this means that if Trotsky had not been lying to people, he could have gotten people together to build some microdistricts in Kazakhstan before everybody migrated out of there, and it would have at least been something. if you put up a number of sensibly-structured towns you don't have to go complaining that the bureaucrats took them over and there's no way you can restore the soviets. whatever a soviet is going to look like in your mind you have a better chance if everything is well-structured rather than strung out. right? why is it that Trotsky believed he could change the whole world and yet he seemed to get hopelessly frustrated with changing a single meeting. why is it that it's easy for me to think of ways Trotskyism could have proved it wasn't one big lie but it was so hard for the actual 1930s Trotskyites that think it's their critically-important duty to keep the country going and save the country from Stalin to think of any of this
5205. Microdistricts are a Filamentist deception / Walkable cities are practically speaking a creation by linked circles of small businesses who will continue to have all society's agency and education -> the depressing reality that set in after I saw a mini-documentary about capitalist developers "kindly" building walkable neighborhoods in Arizona. [183] they reacted with surprise that people actually wanted to lease business spaces. they had to build a parking lot at the edge of the thing to support businesses actually getting income from outside. realistically, this is going to be pitched as a real place to live but then the people who draw in commerce from other cities to the parking lots are going to be the people who control the rest of the people living in the town. because where is the income that causes your walkable neighborhood to exist? is everyone going to take a bus to a factory or what? quite honestly, this makes me nervous about the whole concept of microdistricts. do you accidentally bake in reversion to bourgeois control by building those? capitalism fundamentally comes from the chunking up of society into separate islands where particular people are responsible for holding the island together (capitalists, investors, Filaments of First-World banks, etc.). I'm now having a crisis wondering if microdistricts actually sunk the Soviet Union because they accidentally created isolated chunks of people.
5206. Microdistricts have terrible parking -> the more prosaic claim that microdistricts are badly designed to accommodate expansion, such that when anything else is added it results in people driving significant distances to shopping malls. this came with the implication that apartment complexes always need a churning business layer at the bottom. I have no idea if that's really true. it sounds... okay. it's not very different from deliberately placing things inside the microdistrict, and it makes them more "repeatable". the one thing I'm pretty sure of is that without a small-scale class-based model of society there's no properly understanding microdistricts and how to fix them. all of the issues connected to a microdistrict are directly connected to population growth and the active growth of cities out of nothing as well as the conflict between individuals for slots in things. you'd have to have an active model of people being added to a population one by one in various patterns and creating businesses in various patterns to get things right over time and not make mistakes. suburbs are the error of not knowing what comes after the core of a city (which the bourgeoisie always get to make the first move building), while "microdistrict parking disasters" are what you get if you start at the houses and hit a wall of not knowing the edges of the thing beginning there. there's like this fundamental error in predicting the result of the city as it realizes where you can't just bring in an expert to make a good city on day one and you genuinely have to fix the predictions of where the city is going each year to plan it correctly.
5207. Soviet lawn nightmare -> so apparently, microdistricts led to huge areas of lawn between buildings that were annoying to keep mowed. that's kind of a funny anecdote subject. I wonder how much anarchists would hate this when they're always going on about lawns and the "colonialism" of lawns. would they think this was just as bad? I have no idea.
5208. housing queue -> one of the consequences of microdistricts or more specifically of building housing on demand. people still have to interact with the availability of slots in a city and see if they actually get in.
5209. ??
5210. Are you building a neighborhood for retired people? -> a question everybody trying to fix capitalism through "urban planning" needs to contemplate. for a lot of existing United States housing developments the answer is "yes". they're built for people to retire into but not for anybody to actually be able to go to work.
5215. ??
5220. ??
5225. ??
5230. ??
5235. ??
5240. ??
5245. ??
5250. ??
5255. ??
5260. ??
5265. ??
5270. ??
5275. ??
5280. adventure
5281. kingdom (Adventure Time)
5282. ??
5283. Adventure Time -> great series. has a bunch of themes of character growth and maturity, between coming of age stories and Simon, Jermaine, etc. makes me think about Existentialism. not really a problem with the show in any way. the show actually makes a number of jokes about how it could try to complicate things with philosophy and then is like, I don't know if this actually means much of anything to be honest, I mean maybe it could but dunno. I think that's very respectable. I wish all the Existentialist writers like Sartre and whoever had that much humility.
5284. Candy Kingdom
5285. Ice Kingdom
5286. Fire Kingdom
5287. Evergreen's wishing crown (Adventure Time) -> hypothetically, I may or may not be coding this in order to compare it to fanmade universes.
5288. Princess Bubblegum
5289. Ice King
5290. Flame Princess
5291. apocalyptic event (Adventure Time) -> there are at least two on the core timeline, not just one.
5292. ??
5293. Fionna and Cake
5294. Cake the cat
5295. Fionna the human
5296. Jake the dog
5297. Finn the human
5298. Shermy
5299. Beth
5300. GOLB
5301. Simon Petrikov
5302. Betty
5310. ??
5315. ??
5320. ??
5325. ??
5330. Chronicles of Narnia
5331. wardrobe (Chronicles of Narnia)
5332. Narnia
5333. Everything moral comes from God / God is the source of everything moral / The nature of God informs everything we observe which is moral, which means the nature of everything we observe which is moral is an example of the nature of God -> religious claims are boring until you start logically combining them with other things that overlap onto the same topics, and then they become way too funny. 1) God is the source of everything moral. 2) Trotskyists believe the 1930s Trotskyite conspiracy was moral. 3) If you're a Trotskyist, God is the source of Trotskyism. 3b) If you're a Stalin follower God is the source of mainstream Marxism-Leninism. 3c) If you're Ronald Reagan, God is the source of the Cold War and will be the source of Donald Trump. 4) Which thing is actually God?
5334. Aslan
5335. International war is similar to friendships / World War I is similar to friendships -> Wings of Fire
5336. Monotheism is similar to friendships (fiction) -> more or less seen in real-world religion, but that should be a separate item
5337. Escaping reality is similar to friendships / Detaching from reality is similar to friendships / Fantastical adventures in another world are similar to friendships / Escapism is similar to friendships -> see also Deltarune; connects friendship to schizoanalytic Escape
5338. Preventing global empire is similar to friendships / Preventing imperialism is similar to family relationships -> Steven Universe, Wings of Fire. for the longest time I didn't understand this one at all until I realized it was basically a depiction of intersubjectivity theories and the problem was that it was based on theories about real life which were false.
5340. ??
5345. ??
5350. ??
5355. ??
5357. Progressives deserve the mandate of competence because they "refuse violence" / Progressives are better than reactionaries specifically because they do not practice "violence" -> thanks Giggleland. evil sorcerer who shut down our schools? while the game narrative is said to have been written by a kid in some version of "the real world"? could be a coincidence, but if it isn't, is kind of transparent.
5360. ??
5365. ??
5370. ??
5375. ??
5380. ??
5385. ??
5390. ??
5393. Alchemy is a metaphor for the individuation process (Jung) -> well that's a claim. I feel like people have been saying this kind of thing about alchemy since alchemy was first invented, and they've tried to fit it to several different ideologies according to what ideology they believe. I've even had some fun with this myself. is alchemy a metaphor for Marxism? the point of alchemy is to look into the deep workings of the universe and apply them in order to create changes in it. you could say, "natural philosophers had only interpreted the world in various ways"... I think there's a much better case for comparing alchemy to Marxism than for comparing it to religion or whatever mystical system of self-discovery educated people believed back then. but by the time you get to that point it's like, are metaphors like this actually useful or are they just not adding any information in any of the cases? different thought: why do psychoanalysts believe in comparing alchemy to individuation if they adamantly don't believe in comparing chemistry and quantum mechanics to a scientific theory of society. those should be contradictory beliefs. but I think the answer always ties back to the conflict between historical materialism and historical "FreeWillIsm".
5398. Freudian psychoanalysis (early 1900s)
5399. Jungian psychoanalysis (mid 1900s) / analytical psychology (Jung's term) -> so apparently Jung spoke of government as "slavery" in that it was capturing individuals and forcing on them a kind of fake identity. this is the kind of guy that is trying not to be racist (?) but unlike Marx doesn't realize that uniting people into a population which is not based on religion is a critical step to not exterminating other religions. this kind of view of individuals and Freedom as being totally autonomous from a national population is why I think early-existentialism and psychoanalysis are part of the same connected thing.
5400. Lacanian psychoanalysis / Lacanianism
5401. Subject who is supposed to know -> broadly correct but misleading. people assume that experts and celebrities have the answers? yes. nobody is actually an expert? no. groups of people actually have to make decisions that affect the group, which means somebody will always be nominated to explain them. tasks actually require experts to draw up plans of action and mobilize people. people really do depend on other people to supply their needs, they don't just go to experts to feel better than if they were alone as this framework implies.
5402. If it's bad to trust the "Subject who is supposed to know", then "stale rat bread" arguments are bad -> derived Lacanian proposition. Žižek acts like he's as good as Trotsky (as low of a bar as that should be) because he doesn't like capitalists making the wrong decisions. but he also says that people "falsely" trust experts and therapists to have the answers when they don't. do you see the problem with putting those together? I'd think that if you put any value on the "Subject who's supposed to know" concept you wouldn't be able to argue that capitalists can be held responsible right now and you'd have to argue that every individual has an obligation to understand exactly how society works well enough to take it away from capitalists as the only way to ensure that anyone would run corporations responsibly.
5405. ??
5410. People are not constantly open to sex / Human beings are not constantly open to sex -> the first claim in Freudian psychoanalysis. technically true. hard to dispute this one.
5411. People have boundaries / Human beings have boundaries around any particular thing that another person asks them to do and can always reject it -> the ultimate point of Q54,10 is precisely that it proves this.
5412. Children learn boundaries from parents / People learn the concept of boundaries from their parents / oedipus stage (Freudian, Jungian, Lacanian; psychoanalysis) / symbolic castration (connection of personal boundaries to language; psychoanalysis)
5417. There exist Political Acts / Even though Lacanianism does not believe in the abolition of Liberal-republicanism there still exist "political acts" that can empower the individual -> this confused me to no end the first time I saw it until I started combining it with other propositions from Žižek's interviews and in anarchism and early Trotskyism, and then I finally started to get a vague idea what it really was. so in Rothenberg's book Žizek says these three things: A) Communists and fascists are paranoid dictators. B) History cannot be predicted; theories are dictatorial. C) There exist political acts. I got so confused by the contradiction between B and C given that it is a clear case of "Idealism forbids itself"; why did you write a book then? when I got into the history of poststructuralism, structuralist linguistics, phenomenology, and existentialism, I started to see how it wasn't a contradiction; yeah, there could be political theories without theory if they were solely about The Subject and the notion of Free Will somehow being more important than any theory. I had never even really heard of this before in my life or from any internet blogger or encyclopedia so I scrambled to give it a name and called the overall thing "Existentialism" with a capital E. inside Existentialism, the reasoning is this: acts of Free Will by either one person or many connected people are units of history, and they can theoretically create "democracy", defined as something like the construction of countries out of Free Will and freedom, but these acts of Free Will cannot be predicted by any group of theorists at least as long as they are not explicitly Existentialists and embedded into a particular group of Existentialists aiming for a particular act of Free Will. if Existentialists were smart but still believed in Existentialism, then they wouldn't actually say theories were impossible, they would simply say that nothing except Existentialism can predict Existentialism. they would also say if they were smart that Existentialism isn't impossible to racialize and it could totally form a race-based movement or an LGBT+black&brown movement as long as the thing contains no predictions and revolves around shouting Free Will and freedom as loudly as possible. all this is to say, almost all United States progressivism for the past 10 years or so has been Existentialism. Existentialism is on a basic level nonviolent and against anarchist violence, even when this limits its ability to actually enforce anything on anyone faced with a whole population of socially-linked people that isn't on board with Existentialism and sends in all its cops. Existentialism is like, this weird artifact of the United States tearing into two totally distinct nationality subpopulations of people joined together by but separated by politics in these almost purely culturally-defined ways where you get absolutely forced out of a political milieu as strongly as if you were a different class or a Tory stole your passport, the two populations locked in stalemate in every material way, and yet these two nations of people that utterly hate each other as much as they hate Cubans or Russians are both the bourgeoisie. so those are the basics of Existentialism. but Žižek has his own weird twist on it. he seems to have appropriated the concept in anarchism and the Trotskyite conspiracy that although a movement of Trotskyite conspirators will never be popular, once it sets its sights on an intolerable "stale rat bread" regime, culture, or general experience of living on a population, when it makes the right kind of precision cut into the heart of the problem it cannot actually be stopped. Žižek's Communism is Zinoviev's Communism. he believes that although some things can never be justified in any sense that is meaningful, they will still happen in a particular necessary way when people are pushed enough. which is.... very strange when he doesn't believe in specific-sense historical materialism. he doesn't believe in historical materialism and yet he made a deterministic statement of historical necessity. this is part of why I place Žižek within the awful run-down edges of Trotskyism. he accidentally speaks of historical necessity much like a Trotskyist organization giving a talk about dialectical materialism within early Marxism and claiming to understand it, but he's against Stalin's government and he conceives of revolution as a special activity instead of something that is connected to class analysis and greater patterns in history. a very archaic philosophy. pre-Leninist in every meaningful way and yet he's totally a "Communist".
5419. Property is as natural as not having sex / Because boundaries are natural, the Property boundary around business territories is natural -> the secret fallacy hiding inside most attempts to use psychoanalysis to "fix democracy". they inherently start from this concept of a "golden mean" that because everyone is a human individual the definition of boundaries and Evil conspiratorial acts of malice must be obvious. but if this is true, the best bad outcome that it results in is that Dave the sovereign citizen who hates Black people and wants to chill out in his cabin not following any of the laws of the United States is totally justified. and it only gets worse from there. is building Palestine a natural crime? is separating Ukraine out of Russia a natural crime? if you begin with the concept that the world is fundamentally made of individuals and individuals' reactions to others' behavior, it's quite easy to end up there. related: every event that occurs around an individual while a particular individual is alive is called "Life".
5420. ??
5425. ??
5430. ??
5435. ??
5439. the culture / The Culture (written reference to "the culture" of a national population such as the United States, making no attempt to analyze where it comes from and yet making the bold assumption there is only one) / Our Culture (written reference to "the culture" of "our" national population belonging to a single ostensibly undivided "we") -> the motif of the entire United States population or everyone in some specific region of the United States being an arbitrary series of cultural events in time, or supposedly being a single countable culture when in reality it might not be.
      example: "the culture had changed". how do you know culture is a "The"?
5440. When two people have information, everybody has it / When information is available to a few people, it's available to everyone / When two people know something, everybody knows it / printing press fallacy -> dreadfully common in every single discussion of "culture" and "prejudice". in fact, it's vastly more common to find people who believe this than people who don't. but, it's demonstrably untrue in the physical world. all you have to do is locate somebody who has never head a thing and you've shown that information doesn't spread instantaneously.
5441. Knowledge cannot teleport / Knowledge cannot travel faster than a photon -> what actually appears to be true, and was depicted in XKCD 1053.
5442. Random individual Bob Stills is critical to all movements / Random individual Roberta Hill is critically important to movements -> fallacy that occurs based on "information can move faster than light" and "I believe that everybody" statements
5443. Ghost of Individualities Future / Ghost of Possibilities Future -> SCP-8000, It's a Wonderful Life, A Christmas Carol.
5444. ??
5445. Random individual Bob Stills can puppet four million people / Random individual Roberta Hill can change the behavior of four million people
5446. ??
5447. ??
5448. ??
5449. Can Bob Stills choose who is president? / Can some random individual Bob Stills or Roberta Hill freely choose as an individual what the result of an entire election will be? -> this question sounds laughable but it is a very real and widespread fallacy across all of center-Liberalism. it's become that the major engine of center-Liberaism is telling everyone that they can individually choose who is president if they only vote. but if you think for only a couple seconds about that it isn't logically true — you voting doesn't directly affect the way 5 other people will vote or a million other people will vote. your vote only matters to anything if the process that actually decides the outcome of the election decides that it matters. worse, most cases of you not getting the result you wanted don't come from some conspiracy to throw away votes (regardless of what Tories may think). they come from other entire subpopulations of people potentially numbering in the millions not caring about your vote all at once. that's what an election is. that's how elections work when they're even working in the first place.
5450. ??
5460. ??
5470. ??
5480. Societies are made of values / Societies are made of values such as hard work and perseverance, which can then be exploited by bad actors resulting in the undoing of the society [184] -> this is Idealism. I think the realisitic interpretation is that it was never guaranteed from the beginning that any of these things would lead to a "social fabric" or "social contract" in and of themselves. you never have control over what a boss does. you're closer to having control if you look at the corporation as its own runaway entity that exploits workers itself and just "happens" to be owned by the boss and try to contemplate control of that.
      if you are paying very keen attention to everything I wrote on this page, you might ask, well, but aren't societies made of Social-Philosophical Systems, and don't those contain ideas? and yes, they often are. but the SPSs succeed on the basis of actually containing material models of a society, not on the basis of containing abstract concepts. even in the case of a simple Social-Graph System which is a tribal population, there is material structure to the tribe which is contained in culture that acts as the true social fabric of the tribe.
5481. ??
5482. ??
5483. ??
5484. ??
5485. ??
5486. ??
5487. ??
5488. Wasp swarm -> I'm increasingly convinced this model is accurate enough to reality to code as a Z Item; through more observations of real-world history the precise, predictive definition can be refined later. (also, the need to say this word all the time without a perfectly-convenient template for TTS-friendly writing is getting annoying.) A [L] (pronounced [L]) Wasp swarm 1:(-)1:(-)1 is when any number of capitalists — it could be just one or two — gains control over the population by rounding up a bunch of people of any class who all share a demographic identity, such as White people or White Christians. the people in question don't actually have to be White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, despite that being the etymology. the [L] (pronounced [L]) Wasp swarm 1:(-)1:(-)1 operates on the sheer power of capitalists to control Liberal republics and the whole process of "democracy" just because they are capitalists. this is the proposed material-historical process inside "fascism". fascism is the shovel dream of one capitalist and one countable culture of Tories which is linked together and joined to the capitalist almost purely on the basis of culture. this definition does imply that some [L] (pronounced [L]) Wasp swarm 1:(-)1:(-)1s could be broken just by disconnecting the capitalist, but I would caution against believing that when some of them are bound to be more like the Afrikaner period where all the Afrikaners linked together while all similarly having sufficient Property to have power. taking this too naïvely might be one of the fallacies inside that one Trotskyist video.
5489. Trotskyists in Britain didn't understand anti-racism, therefore Trotskyism will never be realized -> follows from: nothing should be done unless everyone considers it wonderful. this is an Idealist model of the variety "if everything doesn't magically conform to universal cosmic ideas immediately it actively chose to be evil". Trotskyists failing to understand a single other movement doesn't mean Trotskyism will not gather more people and continue trying to realize. Trotskyism is a material object if and when it successfully connects itself to any particular Lattice of workers, just like a particular finite anti-racist movement is a material object. to fully understand whether Trotskyism will succeed or fail you have to understand its unique internal structure and how it attempts to further realize it.
5490. Wow, I've never heard of Schrödinger's cat! -> this became notable the moment I saw it twice. first on Big Bang Theory, then on a discussion of the TV Tropes page for Echo Chamber. I feel like in both cases it has to be the same thing. there is like, a certain section of people. the Berdlys. that become obsessed with intelligence because they don't know anything, and then they portray the "intelligent" characters they worship as knowing really average things they managed not to know.
5491. Wow, I've never heard of France before! / I've never heard of France (motif) -> a really dumb pattern you see in basically every Pokémon facts video. there is a certain genre of "Pokémon fact" which consists of acting astounded that a Pokémon actually references the history of a real-world country, and going into detail about that history or country-based folklore. this would not even be much of a problem by itself except that the more of these videos stack up the more you start to see the hidden pattern that all of them are subtly implying that it's normal not to know anything whatsoever about other countries. Pokémon is the highest-grossing media franchise! okay, cool, so that means the great majority of all people who live in industrial countries have watched it or played it. did you know Emboar is a reference to Romance of the Three Kingdoms? did you know Serperior is a reference to the manga Rose of Versailles? hmm, so a great number of kids and probably also adults haven't heard of historical fiction from other countries. did you know AZ is a reference to Louis XIV? hmm... that honestly seems like something people should already know about if they speak English or French. (I half thought I remembered him as being in a Shakespeare play but I guess I was thinking of Henry V. funny enough he does appear in As you like it?) did you know about Yggdrasil, the mythical tree that since 1995 every thirteen-year-old with access to Wikipedia knows about? did you know about carnival? did you know about kapu and tapu? did you know that Jynx had to be changed because of accidental similarities to blackface? the more these "fun facts" stack up the more you start to ask questions about which things people actually do and don't know and what this says about us. you start to ask if the purpose of Pokémon games is for game developers to go visit other places and learn about the history or traditions of other "cultures" on expensive tours while the rest of us get to stay uniquely isolated and for the propagation of Pokémon games to actually normalize not knowing about the rest of the world until a capitalist does the whole task inside a self-contained corporation and sells it to you as opposed to knowing things. this may sound crazy at first, but I certainly know that when I was a kid I was baffled to hear the fact Jynx had to be censored because not a single person around me knew anything about racism or the lives of people who make any kind of noise about the existence of racism and it took until after I was 25 for huge protests to break out and it to actually become remotely normal for hearing about racism to actually cause anyone to want to learn anything about what causes racism or how to prevent it. Existentialists really want to believe that just seeing diversity and seeing "other cultures" on-screen causes people to have any kind of empathy for other populations or countries, but it really doesn't. it feels more like what's true is that Media Representation works a bit like carbon credits and people buy Media Representation so they can give other demographics a bit of money and then go back to work and go back to their ignorant families and keep being racist. every product is something that you delegate, and you are not doing. if products can sell people "other cultures".... I think you can see where this is going. products easily become a way to self-contain national culture (or self-contain it within a second country well-off enough for tourism) and push it away from home.
5492. Wow, it's so cool Pokémon includes imperial colonies! -> one of the most egregious subsets of "I've never heard of France". I am very much not making this up: I saw a video where somebody remarked on "how cool it was" that a past region was included in a newer one (I think it was Galar in Paldea) because that area had been a territory of another global empire. they said this with a totally straight face like learning that somewhere had been a British territory was truly interesting, and it was wonderful to have British Empire representation in Pokémon games. to the credit of Pokémon company itself, the actual games were careful about the concept of the Spanish empire and tried to avoid the concept of multi-continent empires and instead place down the notion of explorers inside the regional history of Spain. I... would hate to see how fans think an African region should be constructed. are you going to put Galar all over Africa too? even if Pokémon has a rather metaphysical approach to avoiding world wars, and there's a lot to say about that, it's more remarkable fans don't even go that far.
5493. To be good is to live in harmony with metaphysics -> explanation of Arceus and the creator Pokémon pantheon and how they function as moral devices for arbitrating karma in Pokémon narratives. [185]
5494. People attack metaphysics because they don't see each other as equals / The opposite of controlling metaphysics is being equals -> this bothers the hell out of me because it's outright used to argue against Communism in naïve terms of "utopia" and "forcing equality", yet in explaining why Existentialism will create a moral world people will say the word "equal" about ten times. the hell is up with that equivocation of the word equal?? it's like there is a secret definition of how being equals actually means existing in total mutual exclusion but doing it really really nicely and politely. it's like the definition of being equal was made up by Artisan types and Careerists who believe the way not to be dominated is to break everything apart to exist in individualized mutual exclusion. [186]
5495. To seek greater life is to take life -> I've seen variations of this statement like four different places and hated it each time. Journey to the West / Dragon Ball, FNaF, Fullmetal Alchemist, Pokémon. I found it the least objectionable in an analysis of the metaphysical logic of Pokémon, where because it begins from such a mundane setting and can claim to be about chunk competition it at least felt logical [187]
5496. The Divine Truth: Arceus and Our Sins Against It [188] -> first of all, this is a wonderful video. it's here to showcase that it had real effort and thought put into it. there's nothing I would change about the video. that said? wow. it shows everything "wrong" with Pokémon, or more specifically wrong with the world where people would make it. it is such a good piece of research into things I didn't know needed researching but after seeing it certainly knew then.
5497. Alchemy failed because it is an offense to metaphysics / Alchemy failed to become a science because it is an offense to the metaphysical order -> an unexpected but sadly logical interpretation of Fullmetal Alchemist, if you've already heard of the Existentialist-Structuralist tradition [189]
5498. Science without metaphysics is a tool of domination / Scientifically analyzing The Subject is an offense to metaphysics / Studying identity is an offense to metaphysics / Scientifically studying culture is an offense to metaphysics / Too much science is an offense to metaphysics -> the sci-fi corollary that seems to apply itself to gender, historical materialism, and misplaced research & development efforts such as "AI". in simple forms, it is asserted that science "without a reason" is morally wrong as the natural order can trivially be expressed in terms of "exceed" and "too much". in more elaborate forms, it is implied that trying to understand how identity, individuals, or culture function and develop must be forbidden. to try to understand the development of countries is to crush the living, breathing nationality and squash or gut under the scary boot of Bolshevism some of the living processes that constitute individuals interacting to produce what is truly Russian or truly Chinese, or truly German. to try to understand the sources of gender and what develops to produce gender is to crush the inherent ability of the transgender individual or "the transgender community" to thrash about, to out-produce, to weave itself into the Filamentocracy, and compel respect. this is why I don't like this axiom. a loud shouting of movements without a science of movements is basically reducing people down to literally out-living others and whoever is powerful enough to stay alive in a cruel world getting to stay around to supposedly tell everyone else how to be nice and good when none of that actually determined who lived and died.
5499. Discoveries come from violating metaphysics -> the 'pataphysics axiom that I like so much better than the way Pokémon appears to see things
5500. Media Representations are the new carbon credits -> this is a bold one but I think it can be argued at least in some cases. the claim that while many people believe Representation in Media is making people less prejudiced, in reality it's unintentionally leading to a kind of segregation as one of two things happens: A) all the people who don't already know the lessons that are supposed to be learned continue to constantly bury themselves in bad media and avoid Media Representation B) people actually buy Media Representation but check out of making anything better in their own lives because minority demographics have already represented themselves and they have nothing to add to that but a shred of money.
5501. Arceism (motif) -> the motif — or definition of a hypothetical anarchism — where anarchism is portrayed as any arbitrary assortment of individuals in the world spontaneously coming together into "a community" strictly independent of the existence of all governments and nation-states and the simple act of making everyone part of the same countable culture shortly solving everyone's problems potentially including xenophobia, racism, and poverty.
5502. Community is a historical process / Community is a material-historical process in which individuals form into society but society is totally uncountable and national borders have nothing to do with society / the community delusion (proposition, fallacy, or model; meta-Marxist framing) -> I think this is one of the big propositions that's lurking inside Existentialism. and I think it's totally wrong.
5503. Di-community is a historical process -> the minimum correction that is required to make anarchism and Existentialism make any sense. individuals form into "community" but for every individual that forms into Community one way some other individual simultaneously forms into a separate plural Community somewhere else, which may in fact be a toxic group of people rather than a good one, and which the "good" instances of Community have no control over. or more likely, neither instance of Community is inherently toxic but they can end up meshing so badly and being so incompatible with each other they absolutely hate each other and find each other terrifying and basically Evil based on outward behavior. the very worst instances of abuse come precisely from the fact that individuals have no control over another individual or a relationship.
5504. ??
5505. Di-avarice is a historical process / Avarice as a historical process works as follows: if the people of earth are all being nice and non-greedily forming a peaceful community, Freeza or Vegeta IV will still spontaneously appear from space to wipe them all out and take their planet unless they can fight back -> minimum correction. if you stop avarice in North America, it's gonna come hit you from England or Spain because if you're standing in North America you don't control England and Spain. just like if you stop empire per se in China it's gonna come hit you from the United States because no matter how nice people are in China you don't control the United States.
5506. Avarice is a historical process / Greed is a historical process -> sort of true in that dragon processes are real, but not true in that avarice "processes" are associated with population growth and after the time feudalism goes away basically come from it. if you become committed to this proposition you'll very easily accidentally end up at the proposition that Black people having too many babies is inherently greedy and the way to reduce racism is to have less sex, fewer dates, fewer babies, fewer random instances of theft and crime, and more Lacanian discipline telling everybody how to behave good and study and study and train and train and make money because that will surely result in fewer attacks between populations. that is a known Tory proposition that constantly appears on Fox News, so it's worth thinking about exactly how you ended up spewing real actual right-wing talking points. there's almost a direct line to Fox News from the simple statement that greed is a historical process.
      Avarice is a historical process + All set arrangements of people are called hierarchies = the Peter principle.
5507. anarchist historical materialism (motif) / historical materialism is when nobility and capitalists Freely Choose to manufacture a bunch of poverty and hire soldiers and construct culture to tell everybody it's natural rather than, perhaps, that they can all spontaneously grow a Free Will and socially construct something different -> it took me like a day for this to hit me after seeing it in a video before I woke up the next day and said.... this is anarchism. practically speaking this is anarchism. I have a very specific reason for concluding this: the anarchist proposition that anarchy comes from individuals or small groups of people all choosing to come together into a supportive Community. this motif sounds like the opposite of that definition. I don't think this is a rock-solid argument but it will do for simply giving the Item a name.
      I think I need a special name for this definition of anarchism just so it doesn't get confused with anything else more specific like Bookchinism, Bakuninism, etc. we'll go with.... I'm tempted to pick a name from Pokémon, the anarchist bible. Arceusism? I guess in Latin that declines to "Arceism". I don't know if it's funny or dumb to imagine actually calling people out as Arceists — I'm leaning toward "dumb". well, I've got a name for the Item at least, we'll see if it gets a better name later.
5508. Freud is one of the people who "only interpreted the world in various ways" -> every time I think about Freud, Jung, or Lacan this is exactly how psychoanalysis feels to me. what set me off remembering this is a search result that claimed that "despite attempted refutations of Freud's work its spell remained powerful". [190] if the theory is based on observations instead of detached logic of course it will come across as real. what trips people up is that they don't realize this doesn't guarantee it's useful or possible to apply to further real situations.
      the difference between Freud and Lenin is the difference between a large language model and a physics equation. anticommunism is, more or less, what resulted in the world slowly being taken over by language models
5509. post-psychoanalytic Existentialism -> a philosophy which is aligned with the Existentialist-Structuralist tradition (ideally one which is part of it, but there's always a chance for Items to be misapplied) but has rejected many of the concepts core to psychoanalysis. versus all the fake divisions I've come up with to try to classify and describe Existentialisms, I think this one might actually be real. right now you might genuinely be able to support this one with a bunch of citations, assuming you can first come up with some working definition of Existentialisms that manages to skirt by under people's current understandings and definitions of things.
5510. general-sense psychoanalyst / stable property-having equates to moral decisions and "good character" (being a capitalist, being a White homeowner; meta-Marxism) -> the motif of someone who happens to have the same model of society as psychoanalysts without thinking about it or possibly even knowing at all what psychoanalysis is. a general-sense psychoanalyst believes that crimes are something that exists ontologically and almost cosmically outside of all societies even as they are inevitably invented as categories by particular societies. and also that bad behaviors due to trauma (or botched acculturation into the obvious universal intuitive mandatory culture everybody is supposed to have) are similar; bad behaviors just ontologically exist in the sky rather than being defined by the actual negative reception of behaviors by real people. this is marginally different from natural law in that we are not describing any pattern that is ecological or biological or that could possibly have existed without being logically made up by self-aware entities — although to be fair, if you were to make up a second kind of natural law that says there is a sort of perfectly ur- government which is the most ecologically natural to all human individuals regardless of separate populations and drastically different cultural environments, then it would be the same thing.
5511. Freudian discipline can be maladaptive / Lacanian discipline can be maladaptive -> every abusive parent performs discipline and teaches lessons. every father and every father figure is capable of raising children so badly-adapted they avoid all authority figures and steal things and get into fights, and this is inseparable from the process of discipline itself, not simply "an absence" of it. it's possible to get out of this and tentatively save Lacanianism by claiming that "discipline" can come in the form of love and acceptance rather than the prohibition or cutting-off of incorrect behaviors until potentially people become afraid to do behaviors that would be correct.
5512. Freudian discipline is plural -> the claim that whenever you observe a Lacanian discipline process in the real world it is inseparable from culture which then means that plural cultures carry out plural Lacanian discipline processes, disciplining their children to function within their own countable culture but to be non-functional in other countable cultures. Lacanians typically assume that Lacanian discipline could not be maladaptive because there couldn't be multiple countable cultures. invisible-committee anarchists make this error too. but in the real world it's quite easy to have one population of people disciplining people one way and one population of people disciplining people another way and the big problems with "culture" to come from people disciplined into one culture being released into the other and promptly getting disciplined again for wrong behavior and whenever they interact with either culture and accidentally fail to totally switch over and pretend to be part of it they just get battered and battered and battered endlessly like nothing is correct and nothing is okay.
      let me tell you, if you grew up in the United States, the Trotskyite conspiracy period where you could just not believe in the Trotskyite conspiracy or be their friends and simply side with Stalin sounds like a dream. the world has fallen so far from that. Liberal-republicanism has become such a farce where it's literally like nobody is allowed to have beliefs. nobody can have principles, nobody can have identity, nobody can have culture, if you're Black you have to pretend to be White, if you're White you have to pretend to be Lacanian or anarchist when you meet progressives and pretend to be a Protestant racist transphobe when you meet Tories. you have to pretend to understand Native American culture even if you'd never meet any and they wouldn't really want you talking about it but you can't go talking about an overseas country like Japan or India unless you meet a Tory when now you can talk about Japan and medieval empires but not about the existence of minorities or sometimes women. I couldn't juggle all that. I had to just give up one day and say, I'm going to take everything everyone has "taught" me and reassemble it to where it's actually logical and sound, and then I'm going to believe that. and thus I ended up at meta-Marxism: medieval empires and warring states periods and imperial colonies at the beginning, religious confusion and the Enlightenment in the middle, minorities at the present, Communism and anarchism and pluralities and superpositions in the future. religion in the past, science in the future, and countable cultures and historical processes in the present.
5513. ??
5514. The Trotskyite conspiracy was a case of maladaptive discipline -> I think the notion of maladaptive discipline is a blue proposition, but the difference is that psychoanalysis doesn't necessarily acknowledge it, depending, and schizoanalysis always does. this is the claim, based in a corrected version of Lacanian psychoanalysis, that the Trotskyite conspiracy is loosely comparable to a highly abusive parent instilling an all-around set of wrong behaviors instead of compliance with the abuse, through creating fear of authority and society. this isn't my favorite way to analyze societal structures but I do think it can be argued. if you have "the good version of Lacanianism", what you argue is that Marxism is just fine and the good outcome is that Trotsky stays in the Soviet Union or maybe Europe and builds a form of Leninism which does not run against mainstream Marxism-Leninism, and this good outcome is more likely to be achieved if mainstream Marxism-Leninism clearly communicates how to get Trotskyites integrated into the structures of mainstream Marxism-Leninism rather than only constantly accusing them of malice and saying bad things about them whenever they make a mistake. this harsh treatment should have been replaced with not exactly excusing bad approaches and understandings but simply with a more neutral treatment where is recognized that science corrects itself, Marxism is hard, and anyone can make mistakes, although you will probably be demoted in the overall structure if there is someone who makes far fewer mistakes; as bad as the demotion outcome sounds, Bolshevism can make it less painful than it is under capitalism where it also happens all the time. I feel like if you do this you would have eliminated the emergence of Marcuseanism. Marcuseanism really seems like a way to launder resistance to Stalin into something that seems like it would have obviously happened with or without Stalin existing. it's like, if you were only less mean to Trotskyites such that instead of being crushed under the weight of two countries they had a significant support in the Soviet Union as well as their natural inclination to form everywhere else, people would just be one big population of Trotskyists. they wouldn't need to invent a second or third new Marxism, aside from their own internal fractures at least. Trotskyism is plagued by this cognitive dissonance between thinking everyone in the world who isn't a capitalist ally should immediately be unified and the material reality that Trotskyists have a hard time unifying with anything and Stalin is quick to kick their entire Marxism out. this makes me think there would be a lot fewer variants of Marxism if only people had noticed that pattern faster. of course, maybe I'm now just making excuses for people having non-Materialist understandings of the world and all internally believing in general-sense psychoanalysis uniting all human individuals when they shouldn't. I don't know. I did start this proposition by saying I was arguing Lacanianism. I feel like "Trotskyists secretly believe in general-sense psychoanalysis" is a weird place for that to end up but I couldn't give an immediate reason off the top of my head that's not true.
5515. ??
5516. ??
5517. ??
5518. Differences between species are not culture -> the book I was reading kept referring to biological differences between human beings and chimpanzees as animal "culture". I don't think I like that usage because... it sounds a bit racist. a couple centuries ago, there were a lot of people who wanted to draw biological distinctions between North Americans and Africans which accounted for differences in culture; these days every single racist remark hides behind "culture" when it's unclear if in actuality people are still thinking of South Africans in the same phrenology-styled physiological terms. so, I don't think I like that link being drawn again even if the direction is reversed, because it's inadvertently training Tories to think that the concept of countable cultures could be connected to "primitive minds" or "primitive physiology" rather than existing solely on its own layer. monkeys having different behaviors from White people is not culture. that said, I think it's a more up-in-the-air question whether differences between neurotypical people and autistic people can be categorized as culture or not. it's very common for people to go labeling every single difference between populations as culture, and to just say that there exists autistic culture and disabled culture. I feel like, on the surface, this is not harmful in the particular sense that referring to animal ecology as culture is. sometimes this usage is meant to refer to methods of inclusion and retaining people as these subpopulations form communities. I don't think I have any strong thoughts on that right now.
5519. Chimps do not have discipline / Chimpanzees do not perform individualized discipline in the Freudian sense of isolated aristocratic or Artisanal households teaching children mandatory behaviors to also carry to the rest of a population -> every time they tried to discourage a behavior the chimp took it as a fight and sometimes bit people. it's crazy how much confidence they had in their own way.
5220. Poor people are created to make you work [191] -> this is.... kind of correct but a little misleading. you can see the contradiction inside the lecture itself. nobility used money in order to arrange people into a kingdom. into an armored, armed "crab". it's easy to think the key word is "used" and that they're exploiting people and burning everything valuable for their own gain, but the key word is "arrange". in that example money is empowering people to form into societies. in Europe we can bring up how churches weren't entirely malevolent and sometimes they'd take their money and land and do administrative functions; today they run kindergartens. money enables merchants to test out the tiniest experiment in global capitalism before settling back into local small-capitalism because going around the world is hard. but what money is doing there is proving that people can connect one city to another city. the merchants actually succeed on the basis of creating connections. then when they create banks, again the bank is creating the connections between the nobility and the armies or the royal ministries later. with the development of capitalism-proper the local states lose control and the chunks become the businesses, which have to expand to accommodate population growth, but they succeed or fail based on how effectively they link to various other businesses in the world. particular rings of success take slots in society away from people who don't become inherently compatible with strengthening either individual business territories or the arrangement of connections. those are the poor people. so, the reason it's hard to end poverty is all the other individuals are actively working against all the individuals below them. they wouldn't have to be if they could just see the business lattice and realize that everybody has to be fit into it, and if everyone would just get a little smarter about arranging people nobody would have to waste work or arbitrarily take someone else's slot in the structure only to make the world a little worse. at this point they can kick out the capitalists. the issue is, capitalism keeps totally falling apart and leaving people unable to build up the business lattice fast enough to be able to remain united instead of necessarily having to fight each other and the outside "poor people" or Refuse layer.
5221. Wars prolong artificial scarcity / Wars aim to destroy wealth [192] -> true and also not true? it's undialectical but if you duplexed it it would then be true.
5522. ??
5523. ??
5524. ??
5525. wolf slaying lamb as Original Sin / lion slaying lamb as Original Sin / eating animals as forbidden fruit -> alternate version of book of Genesis that crops up frequently in fiction, sometimes quite literally as in Pitch haven mythos, sometimes much more figuratively in things like Zootopia or Kimba. runs narratively parallel to: Buddhist imagery of the existence of individuals being harmful
5526. Zootopia [193] / Zootropolis (UK / AU) -> animated movie about the concept of intelligent animals getting along or not. clearly wasn't originally designed to be a metaphor for humans, but somewhere in the middle of writing got "corrected" to be a bad metaphor for anti-Black racism. I prefer to ignore that when analyzing the work and pretend it's only about the concept of animals trying to live in society. I do this so it becomes easier to compare this movie to things like Kimba the White Lion or Warriors, which clearly were designed on that more literal level, and Beastars, which kind of falls in the middle between the two categories.
5527. heaven is a place on earth -> the motif of a story presenting a superstructural heaven, god-world, or supernatural world that existed at some primordial time, but treating it as if it still very much exists.
5528. Heaven Is a Place on Earth (Belinda Carlisle, 1987) [194]
5529. The garden of Eden is basically a Narnia book / The garden of Eden is a superstructural fantasy world -> the claim that the purpose of the garden of Eden myth is to show the difference between the Social-Philosophical Systems of culture people process the world while embedded in (sociophilosophy, socio-culture), versus the problem of being a material object living in material reality. in one sense all human culture is a fairy tale, whether secular or religious. we always tell ourselves assumptions about reality in order to make living in reality less scary. but those assumptions, such as "in the reality that was supposed to exist, all the animals lived in harmony without any growth or change", can amount to a made-up fantasy book that doesn't do anything to affect or change reality itself. technically, Marx briefly touched on this idea in The German Ideology. in that first part that may have been scrapped (?).
      this turns contentious if you get too far into it because people start asking things like whether Confederate slavery is the reality of what people are doing or whether it's culture. it should be a quick thing to dispel most of those questions: it's culture. it's part of the inner ontology of the Social-Philosophical System of The South, which is made up to reassure people they don't have to fight with The North as long as they mind their own business and buy enough people. it's the notion that whatever set of connected concepts people have come up with, just setting them down and letting them do them will always be fine, that leads to slavery. unfortunately this creates a huge paradox for progressive anthropology because the foundation of the modern study of countable Cultures is that you have to first accept whatever are people's cultural constructs before you do absolutely anything else. but this is not realistically possible because all forms of bigotry are culture in a way that is indistinguishable from "benign" forms of culture. after 200 years Liberal-republicanism grinds to a halt because within its Existentialist origins it is fundamentally about creating Freedom by obligating all countable Cultures to tolerate other countable Cultures, but if you obligate a whole Culture of people to do anything before it internally determines itself, some bigoted Cultures will inevitably feel discriminated against in a very real way and like their freedom has been taken away in a very real way to the point they will become utterly intolerant of democracy and label it tyranny. all republics have a "Trotsky point" where under certain conditions a Culture will try to tear out of them and you'll never be able to get through it intact if you don't truly understand the micro-level structure of society and how Cultures are generated.
5530. God can make animals be anything / If God created the world, He could make animals be anything -> in creationism there's no particular logic for what animals can and can't exist. dragons could exist if only God had made different choices. I'm surprised creationists haven't tried to rationalize fossils as early ideas that never made it out of the garden of Eden instead of trying to act like they just don't exist, or were buried by The Flood. the smartest creationist tries to tell you that ecology and maybe evolution were invented by The Fall, before which they didn't exist. but that doesn't rule out nearly anything you can imagine being possible before The Fall. which means The Fall only actually takes things down a peg.
      isn't there a talking donkey at one point in the bible. yeah, like, there's at least a bit of textual evidence for this, that when God interferes anything is possible and when God fades away things become more realistic
5531. The Fall brings semi-realism / The Fall only forces realism / The Fall only takes things down a peg / The Fall only forces things into science fiction style realism and not strictly into the single possible way that nonbelieving scientists observe things to be -> maybe this is just a derived theological proposition I made up. but it makes everything make vastly more internal sense. it's much better fictional-story lore for the bible to have.
5532. God could make storks bring babies / If God created the world, He could make storks bring babies -> every so often I think about how if you take Genesis literally then everything about biology and ecology would be half arbitrary. Adam has to pick a helper, so logically speaking, if he picked a different one then we would be living in an entirely different world where all family units consist of one man and one horse, or one man and one rhino, or one man and one flamingo, and somehow that would make perfect logical sense, that wouldn't hurt anybody and wouldn't be an abomination because God would have the power to make it make perfect sense. God would have created all the animals so he could just have created animal bodies that did make sense for this different scenario, or more likely, ways of creating more human individuals which don't bring up disturbing questions. here's the thing about Christian lore. nothing starts actually having to make sense until The Fall. so if you set everything up perfectly in place before The Fall, you logically get to keep at least some of it before the "reality" of it sets in, and you'd get the "realistic" version of whatever God declared was true, not the single way things are today. Pitch Haven was really wired because quite honestly, I'm pretty sure that the bible is set up almost exactly such that if God created a world of intelligent vertebrates who are accidentally able to do flesh magic, that is exactly what you'd get and where The Fall would proceed from. of course, none of this applies if you don't take Genesis literally. but where's the fun in that?
      this is also my general theory on how Pokémon works. it's a very sophisticated form of creationism where all the gaps have to be filled in. Pokémon species are created by Arceus and individuals are magically created by their parents, not physically born.
5533. ??
5540. ??
5550. ??
5560. ??
5570. ??
5580. ??
5584. "dumbacabra" (Aster/Aubepine)
5585. Preventing revolution is similar to friendships / Stopping Maoism is similar to friendships
5590. ??
5600. ??
5601. The Owl House -> a lot of people liked this show and I'm just like... hmm no. it looks like it's a good show? but. gosh, why does it prompt so many video essays about Existentialism that even reference early-existentialism by name. I don't think this show was aimed at me.
5650. ??
5655. ??
5660. ??
5661. ??
5662. ??
5663. The King -> the motif of a great worldwide emperor in religion or fiction. equally applies to Aslan or an actual scriptural god
5664. ??
5665. The Opposers, plural -> the motif of an Opposer which simply consists of a group of opposing individuals without any particular god-level leader. the Dark Forest in Warriors is an example
5666. The Opposer / The Satan (archetype or motif) -> the motif of a great worldwide enemy in religion or fiction. "satan" originally simply meant "the opposer". Manichaeism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity all have some counterpart to this. The Opposer + ??? = Mx. Satan.
5684. Starlight Glimmer
5685. City governments are similar to friendships / Village governments resemble friendships
5686. Freedom to be yourself is similar to friendships / Authenticity is similar to friendships -> Authenticity (Existentialism)
5699. ??
5700. My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic
5701. My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic episode 1
5921. My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic episode 221
5922. "Tempest Shadow"
5923. ??
5924. ??
5925. ??
5926. Pi can't beat a Pokémon game
5927. ??
5928. ??
5929. ??
5930. My Little Pony: Make Your Mark
5931. My Little Pony: Make Your Mark episode 1
5957. My Little Pony: Make Your Mark episode 27
5958. My Little Pony: Tell Your Tale
5959. ??
5960. The Tea Dragon Society (all media)
5961. The Tea Dragon Society
5962. The Tea Dragon Festival
5963. The Tea Dragon Tapestry
5964. The Tea Dragon Society Card Game
5965. Autumn Harvest: A Tea Dragon Society Card Game
5966. Town market (The Tea Dragon Society) / town bazaar
5967. Comic quick-start / Mentor rules sheet
5968. Tea Dragon Society Card Game Rulebook / Glossary rules sheet -> are these different for the two games? if so, consider them editions of the same work
5969. True dragon (The Tea Dragon Society)
5970. Tea Dragon (The Tea Dragon Society)
5971. Jasmine tea dragon
5972. Rooibos tea dragon
5973. Chamomile tea dragon
5974. Ginseng tea dragon
5975. Earl Grey tea dragon
5976. Hibiscus tea dragon
5977. Ginger tea dragon
5978. Peppermint tea dragon
5979. Tea Dragon society (group)
5980. Mentors token
5981. Growth token
5982. Victory point token
5983. Tea Dragon card
5984. ??
5985. Entertaining (9 in box) - st / 🌼 / use 1 / cost 0
5986. Feeding (9 in box)
5987. Grooming (9 in box)
5988. Twilight Snow - ❄️ / 🍂 0 / ☕ 9 / 🫖 3+?
5989. Sleeping (9 in box)
5990. Tea Dragon deck / character draw-deck area
5991. Nice walnuts not getting imminently broken is paradise / Countries are like walnuts: they only taste good when you crack them open -> came up in multiple MDem scraps. the concept is that within Existentialism, national autonomy is never truly taken seriously for any country [...] the sheer population of living people constituting the country is not respected until it's cracked open by force [... full rant left on entry]
5992. Even if Liberalism is perfect taxes buy war / Even if Liberalism worked perfectly taxes would only buy war / If Liberal-republicanism worked perfectly it would still result in millions of tax dollars going to the military and very little going to social programs / Arceus really did a number on Ultra Space, huh? (in reference to Liberal-republican processses coming from one big country of the petty bourgeoisie that is obligated to crush other countries to "free" the rest of the world's petty bourgeoisie) -> imagine, for a moment, that we live in a perfect world — a world, or at the very least a United States and cluster of First World countries, which is perfect for Liberal democracy. everyone understands voting. everyone votes for progressives. the US Republican Party ceases to exist. there are two new center-Liberal parties which are not a proto-fascist hellscape, and they only keep getting better, even if they only keep getting better very, very slowly; they keep getting better but they don't keep getting worse. the next thing that happens is all the biggest capitalists drain out of the United States and go live in Third World countries so they can experience as few regulations as possible. if anyone calls foul they'll say "well if I don't like the United States isn't it my freedom to move somewhere else? what is this, North Korea?". at a certain point, absolutely nothing will be able to keep billionaires from enslaving all the people of Nigeria, and the only thing that will be possible for stopping them is to occupy the Third World countries with soldiers and basically kill the capitalists if they don't stop. at that point you're just doing Existentialist class war, and the only difference is that the class operating it is Artisan and Careerist types against "the big guy", not the proletariat. this is the problem. Liberal "democracy" almost obligates countries to invade other countries and overthrow their governments. and the reason it does that is people are committed to Existentialist class war of the bourgeois Filaments in their country against class enemies of Existentialism, including feudal orders, alternate historical periods, and in general any material object which doesn't obey them, up to and including other countable cultures themselves. the real problem is that workers are in class war only sometimes but Existentialists are in class war always, for decades and decades. Existentialists are in infinite revolution or forever cold war against the whole world, and they always have been. the only bright side here is this pattern rather hilariously explains Trotskyism. if you're a part of the big worldwide machine of Existentialist class war, of course you'll let the United States and every area of Existentialism crush workers' states. I'd only just barely stop short of calling Trotskyism an Existentialism. I think there's a decent case to be made that Zinovievism is an Existentialism though.
5993. A workers' state will surely fail if it doesn't buy specific inventions from other countries / Avoid the forbidden fruit and you will surely die -> found this one implied in a history of late Soviet corn production. literally untrue, because China got around this one through bootlegs and its own eventual inventions. but this statement is truly interesting because of the dumb assumptions buried deep inside it. this actually goes deeply against Deleuze and Guattari's Existentialist model of freedom. it says there are some people you have no choice but to form relationships with no matter how evil they are, because the individuals or groups of people who are most effective at materially generating civilizations have the right to be your friend. you have to love racists, you have to love transphobes, you have to put up with everybody's bullshit as individuals if they sell a lot of things. business territories aren't valuable because they're pieces of society that exist and have value regardless of who founded them, there are just mandatory individuals. this is one of the most toxic forms of Existentialism because it posits chunk competition as building societies rather than even Filamentism. that's medieval. that's manor lord thinking. that's literally, the duke is more important than the rest of the population if each member of the nobility does their best to exist without caring about anyone else.
5994. Walnut core inside shell against other shell equals shell plundering shell / Walnut core inside walnut shell against walnut shell equals whole walnut smashing whole walnut / Anti-marginalization efforts from the United States' margins to "help" minorities in China turn into US majority and US minority against absolutely everybody in China / Trotsky and Trotskyites without their own workers' state fight for either the Soviet Union's government or the United States and Mexican governments -> this one takes so many words to say. it's not a difficult concept but it is really difficult for anyone to actually see when they'll call you out on the question-begging test for not describing the whole world in terms of races and Cultures. I find that framing disgusting when it's a fact human individuals and populations compete for mere existence, and I'd rather not discuss social-democratic reforms in terms of slowly allowing some 20% of people not surviving who probably happen to belong to particular races to survive better but not the rest of them just yet. so, you get walnuts. you get really stupid walnut metaphors where the goal is not to let the walnut shells arbitrarily go around cracking all the other walnuts except them. I swear people are not smart enough to grasp the concepts of either "the proletariat" or "plural proletariats in one country". so we tell them about walnuts.
5995. ??
5996. ??
5997. ??
5998. walnut shell (analogy) -> approximately represents a national border, populational border, or party-nation
5999. walnut core (analogy) -> approximately represents a large subpopulation, either the proletariat or The Multitude, but is intended to exclude capitalists

6000 - 8000

Publishing entities, "Journey to the West" related Signifiers.
Entries for miscellaneous fictional works allowed. To be included, a work should have interesting literary motifs seen in multiple other works, include references to some kind of philosophical statement within some real-world philosophy, or include consistent fictional ontologies of imagined physics or processes. Fictional physics or processes also allowed.

6000. fictional character
6001. first-person narrator
6002. second-person narrator -> see: Homestuck, narrator Chara
6003. third-person narrator
6004. narrator
6005. point-of-view character
6006. player character
6007. non-player character (NPC)
6008. hero
6009. villain
6010. antihero
6011. antivillain
6012. Good-aligned character
6013. Neutral-aligned character
6014. Evil-aligned character
6015. Lawful-aligned character
6016. Chaotic-aligned character
6017. True-Neutral-aligned character
6018. character alignment / moral alignment
6019. I contain multitudes / I am all of me -> I suppose the closest tradition tag is Jungian psychoanalysis, given how it speaks about all the different "sides" of a single personality.
6020. alignment axis
6021. Law-Chaos axis -> in the first edition of Dungeons & Dragons alignment had nothing to do with Good and Evil and this was actually bordering on historical materialism; it was a mechanism for studying how fantasy history progresses. a Lawful/Chaotic distinction is outright originally intended to set up situations like an empire versus unruly peasants, or "built on the ashes of fae bones". a video creator tried to explain this by saying "in World War II, Britain won't ally with the Nazis", specifically meaning in this case that regardless of who is Evil particular nationalities or populations join up to defend some particular order or against a particular structure or ideology. Lawful/Chaotic is a lot like the Cold War: if capitalists are on the side of Law then unions are on the side of Chaos, although if a workers' state is created Bolshevism is the side of Law in its own region and the 1930s Trotskyite conspiracy is the side of Chaos. to be Lawful is simply to be on the side of a particular civilization or in modern terms an assembled Bauplan, while to be on the side of Chaos is to be against some highly specific order. the major "mistake" made with alignment across various fantasy media as time went on is to not realize that civilizations can be plural and to universalize Law as belonging to the whole universe rather than there being several different centers of Law such that in something like the Wings of Fire setting with different coalitions of warring dragons, you would have to be aligned to Lawful-A or Lawful-B, a single universal "Lawful" doesn't actually exist. why people make this "mistake" is complicated, but it seems connected to the choice to treat Law/Chaos as a strict cosmically-metaphysical slider where Chaos tears open all the rules of reality similar to an SCP anomaly. although fantasy can be anything, this seems like a bad choice if you want people to understand fantasy populations simply as periods of history where populations are in conflict and not as inherently Good or Evil. this mere transformation of Chaos into an alchemical quality of the universe inherently spawns implications that certain groups of people are the universe's favorites and certain groups are not, and like, trying to fix that by saying "they need to be balanced, we need both of them" is just both-sidesing medieval politics. if we literally thought that way about medieval England there would have been an ongoing controversy up to today about whether creating Liberalism and getting rid of monarchy was actually a good idea. as well, we'd be both-sidesing global empire and whether it's okay to keep people marginalized into tiny areas of l—... oh wait, we already do that every day. tabletop RPGs reveal a whole lot about Europeans, don't they?
6022. Good-Evil axis
6023. foreshadowing
6024. grayble -> a specific kind of short story which has a theme in the sense of a writing prompt but is mistaken for having symbolism or lessons when it may not really have those. graybles sound infuriating but in my mind are actually pretty respectable. you'd think, when I get mad at Existentialism so often, that I'd hate the idea. but I don't. the notion of graybles expresses itself as Adventure Time goes on through the art of making a stupid meaningless story and then explicitly being aware of that and pointing it out with unnecessarily thoughtful philosophy. and I actually like that, even as some people seem to have not understood it and hated it. it cements that the "stupid" nature of Adventure Time plots is a stylization and not something the authors do because they're bad at writing actually-good narratives, or because they're useful idiots to Liberalism/capitalism/Existentialism (although there could be a bit to unpack with that last one of the three) and make misinforming narratives because it socially supports them and pays them to.
6025. grayble foreshadowing -> when a lot of people in the audience mistake simple foreshadowing of a fictional historical event for meaningful symbolism, either unintentionally or as the author intends. I didn't really get the joke behind the graybles until seasons 8-10 when I fully identified grayble foreshadowing that was very confusable for a message about character development and was like. ah. I see it now. I think there is also a lot of grayble foreshadowing in FNaF. people genuinely take some of the clues as symbolic when they truly only refer to characters or processes or things in a superficial visual kind of way. one thing I think isn't true is that grayble foreshadowing is exactly the same as Chekov's gun, because grayble foreshadowing seems to be a statement about history in the sense of the history of fictional worlds or the history of fictional characters' lives. grayble foreshadowing is a statement that somewhat-arbitrary things drive history within fiction, but it's still history.
6026. A plan the story gives away will fail / Scooby-Doo rule -> if the story details the plan, it will fail, if it doesn't detail the plan it will probably succeed
6027. bookman's bluff / scottcon -> when a story hints something so vaguely you can't solve it and then it solves the same clues in a different way than expected later; when the story is unsolvable because it spontaneously makes up its own solutions rather than having clear processes or events-happening inside it.
6028. "Calvinball"
6029. Calvinball -> like bookman's bluff / scottcon, only it actually succeeds.
6030. All arrangements of things begin as fictions / All arrangements of people begins as ontologies (socially-constructed or imagined orders which might vaguely be possible in reality; chaos magic, Existentialist cybernetics) -> kind of. sort of. if you took this and restricted it a whole lot it would somewhat be true. like, don't connect this to Free Will, don't you dare do that, but if you managed to not go there, then yes, many things about society and even causality inside society are "put together" as a designed or undesigned construct before they are actually realized. I call them Philosophical Systems of ontologies embedded inside groups of people to produce Social-Philosophical Systems. but I am reasonably sure they're real. this + (something bad which is charcoal?) = Culture is just the series of signs people make up
6031. Kirby Does His Taxes / Mario Stands Still -> I forgot about this until somebody brought up "Mario Stands Still" to explain Deltarune. Kirby Does His Taxes will always be the better form though
6032. Science fiction is just nonsensical physics -> not very controversial. science fiction begins with physics discoveries, hypotheses in various fields of science, and the application of physics or general mathematics to create hypothetical technologies or worlds. warp drives. four-dimensional worlds. it's kind of all just applying advanced mathematics to storytelling.
6033. Fantasy is the best history test / Fantasy is just nonsensical history -> the more fantasy books I read the more I see this particular hypothesis building up that the impulse behind writing fantasy is to play with the causal mechanisms of history and try to slowly figure out what they are. science fiction can sidestep the actual way anyone gets to the future to focus on hypothetical technologies or forms of physics, but in a weird way, fantasy is almost inherently more progressive than sci-fi if you aren't too stupid to see it. although science fiction often does focus on analyzing civilizations in series such as Star Trek, fantasy is inherently more barebones in its palette of concepts in a way that often immediately forces it to reckon with the workings of societies. fantasy grounds itself in things like social structures, wars, nationalities and identities, whether particular civilizations are good or bad, who should be in power, and how imagined historical periods give way to other periods containing different civilizations. sometimes it seems like there is no difference between the categories of fantasy and politics, because a great heap of the things that happen in fantasy books are just medieval politics, and existing notions like Law/Chaos axes naturally lend themselves to fantasy stories about such things as characters slipping out of existing structures or patterns to discover LGBT identities. fantasy stories have all the puzzle pieces to turn into a believable imagined account of history where the material processes inside particular kingdoms, populations, or worlds actually unfold in understandable ways into new historical periods for centuries and centuries and you can actually trace through a fictional world's past and possible future(s) without any of it being arbitrary. if you actually understand history, fantasy is wired. I'm convinced that fantasy stories could teach the crustiest White people to actually understand historical materialism, maybe even more effectively than actual history could. in real-life history if somebody asks you to guess what happens next you always have "the answers at the back of the book", while fantasy is genuinely a blank history test you have to fill in. the act of creating fantasy is an act of showing that there really is such a thing as historical materialism and "history in general" without the content of a specific country. if that's not the case, how do people evaluate whether a fantastical history is convincing? why would there be a discussion about that where people have different opinions? I believe it all traces back to fantasy largely being simple representational art with regard to the processes that create real-world history. when people call for Media Representation in fantasy what they mean to say is that, because reality is stranger than fiction, in their attempt to represent the general concept of history current fantasy stories are overlooking a whole bunch of real-world historical events. it's one thing to say a story is technically unrealistic, and another to say it's literally missing information about reality that's making the representational art worse, which in this case is the complaint.
6034. text claims to be bunch of senseless events, becomes discussion on history / work claims to be a bunch of senseless events, ends up a discussion on history -> happened in both Adventure Time and Dragon Ball. it's funny how works that intend to show that history is senseless actually just end up discussing the proposition it can be understood. no matter how much they try to turn around and say the characters' efforts to understand it are in vain. the point of the work is still to say that not being able to understand and steer history is a problem.
6035. Unless society is magic, there will be Communism / If society does not run on magic, Marxism-Leninism is not ruled out -> follows from: The heart of Marxism is historical materialism / Proposition zero of Marxism is historical materialism
6036. ??
6037. Materialist analyses cannot truly be owned / Materialist analyses of fiction are the only ones which cannot be attacked by capitalists -> a little subjective, but a very interesting argument to step through. information which is empirically observable can never be copyrighted, no matter how bad copyright policies get. you can never truly copyright an observation such as that hydrogen and hydroxide make water, or the earth is round, or religion exists, or countries exist, or science fiction books in general exist. but how far does this go? given a complete enough ontology of every generic thing that exists, could you build a literary analysis of a work of fiction which is totally uncopyrightable to the point it can never be taken down by a copyright claim, as long as it is very clearly an analysis and not a copy of the work? I think there's reason to believe the answer is "yes". and if that's the case. every analysis of art which is based on somebody's academic theory of social construction and utopianism and ideals is vulnerable to being taken away from people when a group of bourgeoisie bands together and decides to make life difficult for people, but comparatively, Materialist analyses are impervious to this. a Third World country or cluster of workers can have all the Materialist analyses it wants to and they can never be taken away. it can build them all from the ground up at any time without needing to access anything or anyone in particular. Materialist analyses are the only thing that perfectly suits this disgusting world of copyright and spatial slot hierarchies and defining people as isolated pockets of wealth with legs and trying to divide concepts up into people and make them totally synonymous with toxic gatekeepers and claiming that China building civilization again in parallel to the United States is "stealing" the inherent containment of concepts and culture-simply-existing into toxic individuals; if that's going to continue this is the one thing that can exist alongside all that and survive all that. Materialist analyses are even resilient to Marxisms fracturing into different blocs and denying things from each other. basically, if you want knowledge and palettes of artistic concepts to survive nearly anything, create a Materialist analysis and stay far, far away from artisanal conceptions of anything which even open the door for it to have an official shop or an official inventor. no library of Alexandria can be burned which was never inherently Greek.
6038. Fiction doesn't teach us anything -> Aron Ra's proposition. I don't think it's true, on a subtle level of failing the question-begging test. it's technically accurate to say fiction doesn't contain any educational information. but that's not what people usually mean by the statement "fiction teaches us". they are referring to a more abstract notion of learning by picking up general patterns and comparing analogies to the real world — a process of building ontological models through true or untrue scenarios using every scenario as a thought experiment. if you do that systematically enough it's essentially similar to applying a scientific method in different environments, although it entails you'll probably stop believing in Christianity after reading a few secular books and the bible and trying to compare all of them to each other and real life.
6039. Fiction is educational -> for a very long time I had a hard time believing this, although I never would have said that fiction doesn't teach people about creating art or about using language — only that there is an open question on whether it teaches people about ""life"". typically when people say this they mean that it teaches about "experiences", and gives people a model of a demographic of people without exclusively boxing them into a stereotype.
6040. Narratives exist to portray possible societies or situations -> this answer is fully compatible with historical materialism, or at least existential materialism. it allows weaving ties between the individual and historical period.
6041. Narratives exist to depict each possible kind of individual / Narratives exist to tell us about individuals -> this is the answer I do not like. it's drenched in intentional or unintentional psychoanalysis. and I'd argue it ultimately encourages racism, simply because it encourages treating past hardships as irrelevant to current individual lives while treating the successes of current individuals as un-repeatable flukes. without a causal analysis of history and historical patterns you lose the ability to argue for consistent and cumulative social progress really quickly.
6042. Why do narratives exist?
6043. Non-fiction doesn't teach us anything -> counter to Aron Ra's proposition. if you actually understand the way people learn, though ontological models and metaphors, it's easy to see how a factual book could fail to teach people anything because they can't understand it through their current models and fail to believe that it looks plausible. in some cases people don't learn well through facts and learn better through questions. but I think the "street epistemology" concept is shortsighted too, because you have to ask what it is about questions that actually makes them work.
6044. fake historical period / fake, bad history -> the motif of bad events in history being treated as a detour from "real" history. this motif is orange because, quite honestly, this is exactly what the Trotskyite conspiracy was alleging against Stalin's government, whether you commandeer Zinovievism as supposedly being Liberalism or whether you interpret it as saying Trotskyism is the real history. (my response, always: then why hasn't it happened yet??) famously this motif also comes up in the Christian bible, with the hypothetical reign of the antichrist being a kind of fake historical period, or the reign of the Roman emperors being suggested as one.
6045. The only explanation of history is the defiance of history / The only explanation of historical patterns is the defiance of historical patterns -> this claim is inherently contradictory because it proposes an explanation of history, which is forbidden by the claim; the claim forbids itself. there is one way to fix it: cross out the word "defiance" and propose that Free Will and The Subject are material phenomena which can themselves be studied by historical materialism and reduced down to a number of partly-predictable patterns. this produces existential materialism.
6046. The only explanation of defying history is history / The only explanation of the defiance of historical patterns is historical patterns -> fixed it. funny how if you say almost the exact opposite of what Existentialists say it actually begins to make sense again.
6047. History is the progression of family units / History is the progression of lines of Lived Experiences -> psychohistory proposition, often casually put forward by many people who have no idea what Lacanianism or psychohistory is, simply because Existentialism Is The Simplest Philosophy Which Everybody Already Believes. recently tossed out as an explanation for how war veterans coming back causes damage to family unit psychology, and presumably to national culture. [195] something is wrong with this logic: okay, but what causes countries to go to war and rack up trauma in the first place?
      tangent: this came up in My Pride, the questionably-written show about the lions. and it caught me off guard because I immediately noticed that choosing to interpret tribal culture as a progression of family units instead of as history is an active choice you make that can editorialize and ideologically frame the events of the story if you're not careful.
6048. History is the progression of groups operating -> this claim entails that even if the study of historical materialism up to now is wrong or lacking, Bolshevism could still be correct for reasons other than the reasons it believed to be its explanation. namely, Bolshevism could be correct because it is a sensible method of ordering people into a nation-state and functional nation-states are nearly fundamental.
6049. History is the progression of class struggles / All history ... is the history of class struggles -> have to get the classic one in there. not really exclusive with "history is the progression of groups operating", as these two things simply happen on different scales. group operating (countable area of capitalism), class struggle, rupture, group operating (named Marxism). the only serious difference is that "groups operating" allows modeling Trotskyism as its own phenomenon in parallel to mainstream Marxism-Leninism, or different anarchisms, an instance of Deng Xiaoping Thought, etc.
6050. Biographies only have one ending -> this is one of the falsest things I have ever heard that people still keep saying. literally using biographies as the example the whole point of reading them is that different things happen in them, meaning they have different endings. this is a very important distinction because this difference in "endings" provides a material difference which can become a pattern that can be studied and in some cases broadly repeated.
6051. Because all biographies have one ending, we can only reinterpret them -> no. is that how people created the underground railroad and slipped out of slavery? reinterpreting how bad they think their situation is and how bad it is or isn't to inevitably die? this is one of the only things worse than saying Free Will explains all history.
6052. Biographies have many different endings -> I don't have an example text right now but I swear the Bolshevik party knew this. look at what happened afterward. before 1900 people in Russia and China had one kind of ending. after 1930 their stories had new kinds of endings. this is almost the definition of what history is. if people didn't have different endings, we'd all live in an episodic sitcom and nothing would build on anything else.
6053. The life of a bisexual has at least two endings / The biography of a bisexual has at least two possible endings -> this seems pretty self-evident, yet somehow nobody thinks of it. bisexuals break psychoanalysis. and they break Existentialism because there isn't necessarily an inherently better individual choice, but there are still multiple outcomes.
6054. Boring relationships in Warriors happen due to psychohistorical biases -> if you think the story of an individual life has only one ending, it's awfully tempting to slot every single individual into the same trite, boring heterosexual romance. diversity of gender and sexuality alone leads to multiple endings.
6055. ??
6060. ??
6065. ??
6066. ??
6067. Some of Western Marxism isn't Marxism / Most of Western Marxism isn't Marxism -> the claim that adding early-existentialism to Marxism may turn it into not being Marxism because it encourages replacing historical materialism with historical existentialism. or similar rather-specific claims involving particular parts of Western "Marxism".
6068. Lacanianism aims to replace historical materialism with psychohistory / Freudians are trying to create a non-Marxist replacement for historical materialism, and that alternative is psychohistory -> I could really tell something was up with Lacanianism shortly after I heard of it but had so much trouble fully explaining exactly what they were trying to replace Marxism with. I'm more confident now that I found the actual name of the thing. Rothenberg and Žižek's whole weird bridge about Heidegger is this: Marx bad because the development of populations is the physical and intellectual development of a cloud of brains. what they don't realize is that this is equating history with culture. practically speaking, the total or average behavior of a cloud of individuals is that group's culture. so if you think history is most explainable through psychology, you're pretty much necessarily asking how the culture of a group of people develops and why people are Spanish or German — as well as how they could stop being Spanish when they happen to have a definition of what their country means to them which is bad. this is so much more offensive than Marxism, because if Marxism says bad things about "the bourgeoisie" or what should happen to them, it also makes no serious effort to mess with what anybody believes to be Chinese or North Korean, and limits itself to the practical study of how an existing group of people can build a republic, industrial structures, and various possible stages of development. the premise of psychohistory implies there are superior and inferior Cultures and societal transition means transitioning Cultures into a different Culture. the implication of Deleuze & Guattari's concept of "plateaus" next to psychohistory existing unchallenged (though that relationship is only "as far as I can tell") is that separating Germany off into East Germany and West Germany is bad but staying "in-between" by making people not be Germans and making them all be Better Germans is okay. what makes people go for this? what makes us think this kind of framework is acceptable?
6069. Deltarune is an example of historical existentialism [196] -> the claim that Deltarune broadly (not necessarily super literally) embodies the concept of treating history as something that can always be defied; this claim is blue because an Existentialist also could and would make this claim. to be precise, Deltarune only talks about prophecies and narratives, but whether in reality or fiction history is a narrative, so the claim would be that Deltarune throwing around tropes about prophecies and narratives is significant because these tropes resonate with the way players intuitively want to understand history. you can see a similar thing going on in Wings of Fire: wars in a Europe-like "fantasy World War I" setting should be a matter of history, but again history is being spun solely as a matter of Free Will, especially in the Pantala arc which is literally covering the history of where the earliest wars came from. back to Deltarune: there is a really really common motif people have when talking about it: the only kind of story there can ever possibly be is the story of an individual life, therefore, all discussions about prophecy tropes are appropriate to relate back to a single human life cycle and the fact they all end in death, the "one ending" to life. only.... that is not true. that is not even true. you'd know this if you live in the United States, where some people died slaves and some people died free. that's not the same ending! people genuinely have different endings to their lives because of the fact history exists. it's flat out beneficial to racists to pretend that everyone has the same life cycle and the same ending, because if everybody's life begins and ends the same way they can then act like the era of slavery is totally irrelevant and can be left out of history books just because it's not happening any more. the really sad thing is that progressive Existentialism will put this lesson into the meat grinder too, by claiming that slavery is a deviation from history rather than being part of history, because the only real history is the history created by Free Will, and everything else is fake history, essentially. fake history that bad people concocted the contents of and then enacted but which overall taught people nothing and got in the way of real correct history unfolding that would actually teach people something. but, again, if bad history isn't real history there's a terrifyingly good argument to leave it out of textbooks, because if only Free Will matters in writing the future, wouldn't it be better to leave out everything White supremacists ever did and fill textbooks only with progressive incidents that taught people how to build the future? I hate that idea but I'm just a dumb Communist, I'm not an expert, intelligent postcolonial anarchist Lacanian. so you know, I've gotta stop being such a freedom-hating dictator for just a moment and give the actual "good" ideas a try.
6070. player as relative to game
6080. anachronistic technology / technological anachronism
6081. Technology shows what year a story takes place in / Technology can be used to tell what historical period of the world a story takes place in -> that would be true if you knew exactly what country was the most accurate to compare it to and mapped out all the historical periods of that country.
      as for the whole world... wouldn't you have to factor in global empire, and separate the local creation (enforcement) of colonial periods from before that? technology doesn't seem like as big a change as a whole colonial period falling down on India or Africa. is this why people are so obsessed with the word "colonialism"? because they can't conceptualize history as not being the history of the whole world and are trying to map out the whole world's colonial period? the problem is that's still stupid. Spain can't stop France's colonial period if it wanted to; they're going to be separate colonial periods. there's not really any such thing as a single world colonial period as far as the question of preventing it.
6082. ??
6083. 80 years before 2003, there were fast cars / 80 years before 2003, there were 60-mile-per-hour cars (96 kilometers per hour; anachronistic device) / 80 years before 2003, there were wrecking balls [197] -> a funny little reasoning error that can be found in books taking place in a particular time period which aren't primarily meant as historical fiction but end up reaching decades into the past. pointed out by many people analyzing Warriors.
6084. ??
6085. ??
6086. ??
6087. ??
6088. The history of slavery doesn't belong in textbooks -> no need to spend much time on the actual reactionary arguments, none of which are worth anything. I'm much more interested in the potential arguments that teaching about the history of racism is theoretically unnecessary for anti-racists just because most of them reject historical materialism, and if historical materialism is truly unnecessary and you really can fix everything with Free Will and protests and inclusion and Community, the hardships of the past should in theory be less relevant than the study of actively constructing the future. I feel like what I've really uncovered is the potential racism of anarchism, how utopian thinking could potentially crush people of various demographics under the material hardships they currently face which stand in the way of simply moving on.
6089. An ending amid slavery is a different outcome / An ending amid slavery is different from an ending amid none / A book that ends within a time of slavery is a different ending than a book which ends in a time of no slavery -> apparently ordinary people are too stupid for this proposition to be blue, and that's a shame.
6090. An ending amid monarchy is a different outcome -> the charcoal swatch manages this one because Wings of Fire was able to figure out this much, although the ultimate implications of the books are... odd. it's left, like Warriors, implying that monarchy is bad but endless brutality and death between nationalities is almost better and needs no real apologies.
6098. speedrun
6099. challenge run
6100. seemingly-impossible challenge run
6101. but first we need to talk about parallel universes
6105. ??
6109. ??
6110. An RPG world is a cultural fabrication / An RPG world is a social construct or magic circle, or "game" in the Idealist linguistics sense / Given a particular console RPG world such as Moon or Undertale, an RPG world is a cultural fabrication (idea-based fabrication; Idealism) / An RPG world is a magic circle, and this means all of it is at least somewhat arbitrary
6111. fantasy war as cultural fabrication / fantasy war as social construct (idea-based fabrication; Idealism) -> this is Q61,10 in reference to books, or anything.
6112. RPG war as cultural fabrication / RPG war as social construct (idea-based fabrication; Idealism) -> this is Q61,10 in reference to tabletop or video games but not books.
6113. RPG world as cultural fabrication / RPG universe or cosmos as cultural fabrication -> Q61,10 as a basic assumption of a work.
6114. shutting down story as horror / shutting down fictional narrative as destroying story characters -> although it's difficult to fully guess where Deltarune is going, this seems to be the major twist versus Undertale, which Ralsei unsubtly hints toward in Chapters 3-4. Undertale presents you with the thesis that the monsters can be freed if you just choose to; Deltarune poses a more difficult question of whether you can ever free the characters the way it appears they are in Undertale if they stop existing when the game shuts off.
6115. ??
6116. RPG progression as horror / game progression as horror -> Undertale; Deltarune chapter 3; FNaF Security Breach & Gregory destroying not-so-scary artificial beings.
6117. Game worlds are not cultural fabrications -> a little controversial. this claim is not an absolute one about all situations, and it rests on the concept that recognizing game or book worlds as imagined material systems of parts is actually one of the major things that helps connect them to history and become aware of how they have been influenced by empire, country-internal racism, and populational prejudices that have followed historical events. said another way: coding is to individuals as fictional material-history is to real history. some people still won't like this claim. and to them what I will say is: if Idealism fully explains fiction, then Stalin's government commissioning books full of proletarian values can convince everyone to abandon capitalism. do you think such an initiative would work on you? if not, reconsider Idealism.
6118. Novels about Communism can change everyone's minds / If fictional narratives are truly social constructs, and writing a book that rewrites all the social constructs can truly change people's way of thinking about how to regenerate society when it comes to things like empire or prejudices or the environment, then handing everyone a book that accurately represents Bolshevism will make everyone stop regenerating Liberalism and turn people into Communists -> I really don't believe this is true by itself but it's definitely funny.
6119. ??
6120. ??
6130. ??
6135. ??
6140. ??
6143. SCP-6302 (pronounced 6302) -> SCP where you start seeing Warriors in real life. I hope this one doesn't get removed because it would be useful for the Trotsky's letters scenario. I mean, what if the books are just fracturing reality and both realities exist. what if this SCP is part of the Pitch Haven continuity and the staff didn't interpret it right? what would that do for the "narratives" narrative — is the past just whatever people think it is?
      I do know that even if this SCP does get removed I'll keep this Item here either way just for reference.
6144. Trotsky wrote in a parallel reality / Trotsky's letters describe an alternate reality / Trotsky's writings describe a parallel universe / Trotsky's writings describe a parallel reality where different things happened (counterfactual statement or thought experiment) -> this was the concept of an SCP report I was trying to create semi-recently. I don't know if I'll finish it. either way, the basic idea is now here in case it proves useful for illustrating something else.
6145. ??
6149. ??
6150. ??
6160. ??
6173. SCP Foundation Wikis
6174. SCP foundation database -> runs narratively parallel to: Pokédex. it killed me when a commenter on an audiobook said "the SCP Foundation is just playing Pokémon on impossible difficulty". yeah, sure, I mean, they both have a serialized index of things
6180. elemental card color (Arcmage)
6181. ??
6182. ??
6183. Gaian card / earth color card (darkmage)
6184. Red Banner card / sun color card (darkmage)
6185. ??
6186. House of Nobles card / sea color card (darkmage)
6187. Empire card / steel color card (darkmage)
6188. Shadow Legion card / death color card (darkmage) -> I arranged these in rough order of good to evil because I wasn't sure there was a particular established faction ring for this game. this is/was the order used by darkmage prototypes. but you've gotta put Red Banner at 84, come on.
6189. ??
6190. elemental card color (Magic)
6191. Pokémon Go teams are evil organizations / Pokémon Go teams represent evil organizations -> the devs kind of invited this theory by improperly using the word "Team" when it already had a use in Pokémon referring to fantasy mafias. never a substantial theory but definitely a funny writers' error to point out.
6192. Pokémon Go teams represent sectarian Marxisms -> cracktheory / joke interpretation. it's very funny to imagine a world where that was actually the case though. imagine three legendary Pokémon but one is Trotskyism (valor), one is Gramscianism (instinct), and one is... uh. um. MDem? it's purple. it's purple and it's sharp and cutting. I hate that but I almost like that.
6193. Pokémon Go teams resemble world wars / Pokémon Go teams represent warring kingdoms -> this is what I've thought there's always been an argument for. graph struggle itself makes its way into games accidentally when they copy earlier games more closely based on history. earlier games are war games with world maps or board game battles; fantasy games mindlessly copy patterns of empire. with Pokémon Go... let's think about it. we begin with Ingress. Ingress is kind of an alien invasion plot. but practically it's a war game, it has a world war structure. so yeah. Pokémon Go copied world wars but with three factions when for various reasons there's usually two.
6194. white card (Magic)
6195. blue card (Magic)
6196. black card (Magic)
6197. red card (Magic)
6198. green card (Magic) -> WUBRG; W(bU)(Bl)RG
6199. ??
6200. Magic: the Gathering (1993 - present)
6300. (62-6300: Magic: the Gathering sets, not totally exhaustive. list of sets being compiled here)
6312. Twelve things form a Chinese zodiac / Twelve things means Chinese astrology
6313. ??
6314. ??
6315. Dark Fountain
6316. Yume Nikki
6317. ??
6318. Super Sentai (metaseries) / Super Squad (unofficial name)
6319. Uchū Sentai Kyuranger [vol. 41] / Space Squad Kyuranger
6320. Power Rangers (abridged-series)
6321. Himitsu Sentai Gorenger [vol. 1] (1975) / Secret Squad Gorenger
6322. J.A.K.Q. Dengekitai [vol. 2] (1977) / JAKQ Blitz Squad
6323. Battle Fever J [vol. 3] (1979)
6324. Denshi Sentai Denziman [vol. 4] (1980) / Electric Squad Denziman / Electronic Squad Denziman
6325. Taiyo Sentai Sun Vulcan [vol. 5] (1981) / Solar Squad Sun Vulcan
6326. Dai Sentai Goggle-V [vol. 6] (1982)
6327. Kagaku Sentai Dynaman [vol. 7] (1983) / Science Squad Dynaman
6328. Chodenshi Bioman [vol. 8] (1984) / Super Electronic Squad Bioman
6329. Dengeki Sentai Changeman [vol. 9] (1985) / Blitz Squad Changeman
6330. Choshinsei Flashman [vol. 10] (1986)
6331. Hikari Sentai Maskman [vol. 11] (1987)
6332. Choju Sentai Liveman [vol. 12] (1988) / Super Beast Squad Liveman
6333. Kousoku Sentai Turboranger [vol. 13] (1989) / Lightspeed Squad Turboranger
6334. Chikyu Sentai Fiveman [vol. 14] (1990)
6335. Chojin Sentai Jetman [vol. 15] (1991) / Aviator Squad Jetman
6336. Kyoryu Sentai Zyuranger [vol. 16] (1992) / Dino Squad Zyuranger
6337. Gosei Sentai Dairanger [vol. 17] (1993)
6338. Ninja Sentai Kakuranger [vol. 18] (1994)
6339. Choriki Sentai Ohranger [vol. 19] (1995)
6340. ??
6350. ??
6360. ??
6370. ??
6380. ??
6390. ??
6400. ??
6410. twelve or more -> precise order of magnitude
6411. exactly twelve -> precise order of magnitude
6412. Twelve things form a European zodiac / Twelve things means European astrology
6413. Homestuck - included almost just as a joke, but the number is nice
6420. ??
6433. beam balance of justice
6440. ??
6450. A correct religion explains all cultures / The correct religion will explain all countries / The correct religion will be a universal morality / The correct religion will unite everyone onto the same morality consisting of the same universal human values of what is right and wrong -> although many religions superficially claim this, this proposition has to be violet because practically no real religion ever actually creates an account of history and everyone's actions which is meta-ontologically sound across different groups of people. honorable mention goes to theosophy though, for at least trying to squash together all the religions.
6451. Christianity is not the correct religion / Assuming that there is a religion which is most consistent with reality, it is not Christianity -> well, it doesn't endorse realizing Trotskyism just to not extinguish Trotsky, so. can it really have the only correct morality for the world?
6452. Islam is not the correct religion / Assuming that there is a religion which is most consistent with reality, it is not Islam -> it typically says you go to heaven only when you believe so it doesn't say Trotsky can be in not separation from God.
6453. Buddhism is not the correct religion / Assuming that there is a religion which is most consistent with reality, it is not Buddhism -> I don't have an interesting argument for this one but it's here for completeness.
6454. Schizoanalysis is not the correct religion / Schizoanalysis is not the one true morality of the universe -> if schizoanalysis were a religion it would say that the majority of people who form into Rhizome are not against heaven. but in practice, the majority of people are often against Bolshevism, which means they are against Trotskyism, which means they erase Trotsky's Lived Experience, which means schizoanalysis cannot be the correct morality.
      no, I don't take religion very seriously. I think religion is one of the craziest concepts and it opens up some really fun thought experiments. but I absolutely do not take it seriously, because if religion has any chance of being real then something happened to Trotsky in particular when he died, and isn't that an absolutely absurd statement already? we can have stacks of biographies about one person, Trotsky or Martin Luther King Jr. or Albert Einstein or Kent Hovind or whoever you like, and have no idea what would have supposedly happened to that person after death. even psychoanalysis and psychohistory can try to spitball about what consequences happen to a person later based on previous choices and near-future predicted choices, as incorrect as the guesses could potentially be. but if you try to do the same with life versus afterlife you can't even get to the modest level of accuracy or certainty about reality that psychoanalysis can.
6455. The correct religion is not existentialism / Early-existentialism is not the correct universal morality / Assuming that there is a religion which is most consistent with reality, it is not early-existentialism -> if everyone makes their own meaning, then there won't be a single moral position on Stalin, or a single moral position on Trotskyism, which violates Q64,50.
6460. ??
6469. "cancer" refers to crabs
6484. end-of-the-world scenario -> referencing SCP-ES-084, one of them where people think the world is going to end. but highly appropriate to put next to Homestuck, I mean that's exactly how it begins
6500. ??
6505. ??
6510. God wants us to love our neighbor regardless of ideology / God wants us to love our neighbor regardless of nationality, political party, or other distinction -> now that is a whopper if I ever saw one. you put together "nationality, political party, or other distinction" and the first thing I think of is a fucking (pronounced fucking) Trotskyist party. I think there is a really good case to be made that when you've said those three categories it totally counts. but I am pretty sure that most people wouldn't turn around and say "oh, if the United States is slated to be taken over by some kind of Leninist movement they're my neighbors so all of that is totally okay". nobody turns around and says "hey, wait, I don't think the Cold War is very Christian, I think we have to stop it".
6511. God wants us to love social-democrats / God wants us to love Mensheviks
6512. God wants us to love anarchists
6513. God wants us to welcome gay people / God wants us to welcome gay men / God wants us to welcome lesbians
6514. God wants us to welcome trans people / God wants us to welcome gender identity
6515. God wants us to welcome Black people even if they are poor
6516. God wants us to love Trotskyists
6517. God wants us to love Leninists / God wants us to love Marxists / God wants us to love Stalin-followers
6518. ??
6519. ??
6520. If all countries will be one in the end times, the world is our neighbor / If everyone will be one population in the end times, other countries are our neighbor / If everyone will be one population of Christians in the end times, but people everywhere are divided into many levels of plural populations now, then the Soviet Union was our neighbor, and we did not love our neighbor / Vietnam is our neighbor / China is our neighbor
6521. ??
6522. ??
6523. ??
6524. ??
6525. The wolf shall dwell with the lamb / The wolf and the lamb shall graze together / lion laying down with the lamb -> seen in many different bible verses, several in the book of Isaiah. perhaps one of the single most interesting things said in the Christian bible because A) it creates logically coherent narratives, even if ecologically inaccurate in the real world and B) it acts as one of the central themes driving many of the books. Q3009 "lion of kindness" should be considered a component of this proposition
6530. ??
6535. ??
6539. ??
6540. Trotsky's actions were ungodly or weren't / Trotsky's actions were ungodly or not / What Trotsky did was either against heaven or not against heaven (Trotsky's actions, Trotskyite conspiracy, Trotskyism; thought experiment around religion) / Trotsky either entered separation from God or did not separate from God / Imagining that there is a Bad Place, Trotsky either went to the Bad Place or did not go to the Bad Place
6541. The correct religion is not anti-Trotsky / The correct religion will not be anti-Trotsky / Any religion which is the correct religion must entertain that Trotsky is a part of its group of approved people -> I don't see why this wouldn't be correct from the perspective of everyone who lives in the United States and has practically canonized him in the list of required philosophers next to all the presidents.
6542. Backing Trotsky against Stalin is godly / Siding with Trotsky against Stalin is godly / When the United States sides with Trotsky against Stalin, this is because Trotsky is not against God / Any correct religion or interpretation of Abrahamic religions would send Trotsky to the Good Place for resisting Stalin -> I would not think this is logically true, but statistically speaking, the vast number of people who are Christians probably do. this would be an artifact of being Christian and being Liberal-republican being separate things, of course.
6543. Backing Stalin against Trotsky is godly / Siding with Stalin against Trotsky is godly -> I feel like from maybe five different angles this is logically true.
6544. If Trotsky is Good, become a Trotskyist / If Trotsky goes to heaven, Trotskyism is okay / In order to back Trotsky against Stalin you also must realize Trotskyism, or you are lying to your supposed allies and everybody / If oppressing Trotsky is morally wrong then not aiding Trotsky in realizing Trotskyism is morally wrong, because practically speaking, not oppressing Trotsky requires realizing Trotskyism -> the whole reason Trotsky made noise and kicked up a movement, historically, was that he wanted to realize Trotskyism, and he was specifically determined to be upset when people stopped him from realizing Trotskyism. nobody actually thinks about this.
6545. God can fight against Iraq / God participates in the Iraq war / If the United States prays to God and God helps the United States against Iraq, then the United States is not in separation from God (not against God; thought experiment)
6546. God helped the United States beat Iraq / God helps the United States beat Iraq / If the United States prays to God for help against Iraq and the United States doesn't lose, then the United States is not in separation from God (not against God; thought experiment) -> this is marked false on the technicality that it is a logical fallacy and beginning from standard Christian theology — "God doesn't prevent Evil so we can have Free Will" — you can't actually know that something winning a conflict isn't the Evil side rather than the Good side. it'd be perfectly consistent with a lot of what Christianity says for empire to win at beating up the Third World and also be utterly Evil and against God.
      really, the easiest way to know this proposition is wrong? it doesn't apply to Dragon Ball. if Freeza wins it doesn't mean he's Good. if Vegeta is full of hope and confidence about the future that is best for him, we'll say that stands in for prayer here, he can win at beating up all the people of earth and it doesn't mean he's Good.
6547. The Soviet Union functioned as a political faction / During the Cold War the Soviet Union functioned as a political faction / During the Cold War the Soviet Union served as one of the world's capable proletarian subpopulations, and thus Soviet politicians in general had a partisan alignment with the proletariat even if not every one of them was perfect
6548. Universal morality means one position on Stalin / A universal morality will have just one position on Stalin / If everyone is to have the same morality, then they must have the same moral opinions about Bolshevism, and the same moral opinions about Stalin
      Applying any philosophy to Trotsky eventually gets you to the correct answers + Historical figures can separate from God = this.
6549. The Cold War was a social construct / The opposition of Liberal-republican countries against the Soviet Union was nothing more than a social construct in which Liberal-republican countries made up reasons to hate the 14 nationalities of the Soviet Union for reasons largely unrelated to the class composition of the two countries, and related more to the affinity between the 14 major Soviet ethnic groups and the anomalous, hateful non-affinity between the United States and those ethnic groups -> persuade me of this using specifically the Russian Revolution, the Soviet Union, and the Cold War, and I might genuinely consider postcolonial anarchisms. I feel like the difficulty of arguing that verges on impossible, but maybe that's just me. I've made it a little easier by leaving out the requirement that anarchism explains how to defeat the Russian empire or win the Cold War, and only handing you the impossible task of arguing Soviet people and United States racists who to this day can hardly stand the idea of somebody living in another country and being Russian are obligated to be friends. that's what I don't understand. how, when United States people are constantly dismissing the existence of reactionaries in their own country as a totally ignorable non- part of their lives, that anarchisms or postcolonial theories that say every opposition between groups of people is an arbitrary decision each group made are supposed to fix anything.
6550. The Cold War could be won by anarchism
6551. The Russian Revolution could be won by anarchism
6552. The United States and Soviet Union could abolish their borders to join into a single entity -> if this were true the previous three propositions would become easier to argue.
6553. The Soviet Union's border was protective / The way populations associated together into the Soviet Union and formed a border around themselves was materially necessary to protecting the populations -> this explains, so very unfortunately, why it would be so important to create a new Russian Empire. no Soviet Union, everyone who hasn't been forced to another country is going to get assimilated into a single gigantic kingdom for the pure purposes of protecting national autonomy. the step of "democracy" can't happen until national autonomy exists.
6554. ??
6555. The best ending is between the normal and weird routes (Deltarune)
6559. ??
6560. ??
6565. ??
6569. progressive theorists as aliens / progressive theorists are practically aliens (Homestuck) / social justice theorists speak another language -> Kankri Vantas. it's important to note that Homestuck's overall framing of this is a little more neutral than negative. Homestuck can be simultaneously both really negative about its characters at some times and positive about them at other times, in this weird attitude of "they're complete freaks but they're my freaks". so ultimately this motif is treating progressive theorists as weird, bizarre, and alien, but alien in the sense of a sci-fi story where even if people will never understand aliens they still exist out in space doing their own thing and have lives of their own. it's kind of like Undertale/Deltarune, where we accept that queer people are monsters and then we instead reclaim "monster".
6570. ??
6575. ??
6577. You can be against Goku or not / You have to be either against Goku or not / You have to be against Harry Potter or not against Harry Potter / For any figure held up as the model of morality, whether god or hero, somebody must be either not against that figure or against that figure -> this is a far cleaner division than "for versus against", because it allows for the existence of multiple "gods", moralities, or cultures.
6578. Attacking anyone pro-Goku is anti-Goku / Attacking any group which is completely for Goku is against Goku / Attacking any group which is directly allied with Harry Potter means you are against Harry Potter / Attacking anyone directly allied with Arceus means you are against Arceus -> this is pretty easy to demonstrate with fiction. when allies of Good characters are attacked whoever does it is usually treated as Evil. if Ron is allied with Harry and the Death Eaters attack Ron, the Death Eaters are Evil, or at the very least anti-Harry. that's the obvious part. what isn't obvious to people is it's very easy to conceptualize religion in these terms. the way Arceus will be treated in a wholly imaginary Pokémon movie is fairly similar to the way people behave in real religions — the reality of the god is not important to people's behavior as much as what faction is seen attacking what faction or figurehead that is considered Good.
6579. Actions must be either ungodly or not / Actions must either be ungodly, not ungodly (neutral), or godly -> this seems like a necessary axiom if there is to be a concept of separation from God at all. like, imagine Goku gets to determine everything that's good. you have to at least be either not against Goku or against Goku, even though nobody really has to be directly allied with Goku.
6580. Historical figures can separate from God / Historical figures can enter separation from God, mostly in respect to the material world and the presence of a god in the material world
6581. It's ungodly to be Hitler / Hitler went to Hell or entered separation from God in the material world (Christianity) -> fair enough, if religion made any sense whatsoever this would be true.
6582. It's ungodly to be Mussolini
6583. It's ungodly to be Tōjō -> logically true if it's ungodly to be Hitler, because they share the political positions of active imperialism and violence against people inside the country.
6584. It's ungodly to imperialize Ukraine -> logically true if it's ungodly to be Hitler, Mussolini, or Tojo.
6585. It's godly to defend Ukraine -> arguably true if it's ungodly to invade Ukraine. I think the leap comes here, because something being not ungodly doesn't fully equal it being godly. which is... really stupid when Christianity often positions itself like there are only things condoned by God and things that are ungodly. in reality it always comes down to Christianity being separate moral systems that effectively serve multiple separate gods.
6586. Defending Ukraine from the Tsar was godly -> logically true if defending Ukraine from the new Russian empire is godly.
6587. Incorporating the Soviet Union was godly / Joining the 14 nationalities of the Soviet Union into a supranational federation was godly -> this logically follows if defending Ukraine from the Tsar was godly, because this achieved defending Ukraine from the Tsar.
6588. Attacking the Soviet Union was ungodly -> logically true if defending Ukraine from empire is godly and defending Ukraine from the Tsar was godly.
6589. Only a surrounding federation can save Ukraine / Without the Soviet Union nobody can stop Russia from invading Ukraine / Without a larger supranational federation around Ukraine nobody can stop Russians from invading Ukraine -> this is at least arguable. some people will definitely try to argue that having another giant empire squabble with Russia over Ukraine as a buffer state somehow better respects everybody's freedom than having Ukraine be part of something bigger. I feel like the story of Poland and how much everybody hated buffer state wars in Poland counts against that. if you live in Poland it is definitely not a simple matter of having a little war over Poland and then it's over; that shitty (pronounced shitty) buffer state war becomes your whole life. it doesn't make things better that Poland isn't part of the two empires fighting over it, it just takes all of Poland's local control and populational agency away. that said it would still be sensible under this framework for Ukraine to join Europe or all the Eastern European states to join into one supranational federation that fights against Russia. it's not that the Soviet Union owns Ukraine as much as Ukraine is obligated to be part of some particular bigger thing at its choice. Trotsky supporting an independent Ukraine is such a backhandedly correct thing, isn't it? the two of them both have the same problem of not wanting to be part of a bigger thing that at the moment is plural when they really ought to.
6590. Last Dragon Chronicles [198] -> an interpretation of magic ritual in a somewhat modern setting but in a world where there are a small number of fantasy creatures.
      do not read this series for Media Representation of Inuit. it's not necessarily offensive but it isn't stellar either, they're just kind of thrown into the narrative haphazardly as okay set dressing. my rule of thumb has become this: if twenty pages of a biography is blatantly more informative than a particular novel it's not good Representation. many stories I see about Native Americans / indigenous people of North America fail this test. but, for instance, some stories with Black protagonists have succeeded to where a biography and the story are about equally informative or interesting.
6591. The Fire Within (D'Lacey ??)
6592. Icefire (D'Lacey ??)
6593. Fire Star (D'Lacey ??) -> not to be confused with Warriors: Into the Wild.
6594. The Fire Eternal
6595. Dark Fire
6596. Fire World
6597. The Fire Ascending
6598. Rain and Fire
6599. conscious objects / sentient objects -> super-case of: conscious toys. technically many superstructural fantasy worlds are made of these. narnia is a notable exception
6600. alternate world / isekai -> super-case of: superstructural fantasy world.
6601. Frisk
6602. Flowey the Flower / Asriel (Undertale)
6603. Asriel (Undertale)
6604. ??
6605. ??
6610. ??
6611. conscious toys / sentient toys -> — (pronounced —) + "modest" proposal = Poppy Playtime. — (pronounced —) + television = Deltarune. — (pronounced —) + playing card / trump deck = Alice in Wonderland.
6612. Homestuck act 5 / Hivebent
6613. The Underground
6614. Light World
6615. Dark World
6616. The Core
6617. W.D. Gaster
6618. Man behind the tree (Deltarune) / egg man (Deltarune)
6619. eggs of unclear importance
6620. The Angel (Deltarune)
6621. Kris
6622. Susie
6623. Noelle
6624. Ralsei
6625. Shadow Crystals
6626. Seam
6627. Jevil
6628. Spamton
6629. Berdly
6630. Kris was The Knight in Chapter 2 / Kris is The Knight
6631. Multiple characters are The Knight
6632. The player plays as The Angel -> what I thought to be true
6633. Noelle is The Angel -> I think this is only true in the sense of her being the "other" Angel, but might as well record it
6634. December Holiday is The Knight -> one line of reasoning is Mother 3 [199]
6635. The Knight is a knife which became a Darkner -> supposedly, knives have a "long hand"
6636. Kris gained the Red Soul after dying / Kris is dead / Kris drowned in a lake (generic)
6637. Kris fails to play the piano because they're too nervous -> the theory that the player would be able to prompt Kris to play the piano but Kris simply doesn't want to because they can't get into the right mood. [200] very good explanation in my opinion given that Kris always does the things the player selects in some particular way, like a particular tone, not provided by the player. Kris can take out the soul and pick up their knife as a passive-aggressive gesture at The Player. do you think they couldn't play a piano?
6638. ??
6639. ??
6640. ??
6641. Deltarune is a horror scenario about a world without creativity [201] / Deltarune is a horror story about networkism -> the claim is that Darkners not being able to create fiction is a relatable narrative for art creators. interesting theory, even if I don't see much evidence right now
6642. magic as bending the world to one's individual will / magic as the ability to inflict one's Free Will on the world regardless of the consequences -> Wings of Fire series, Darkstalker, Deltarune chapter 2 weird route. note very closely that Noelle is called a spellcaster, and her attacks to turn Darkners back into unmoving objects (!) are referred to as magic.
6643. Dark Fountains are created when a Lightner opens a wound in the earth
6644. Dark Fountains are created when a Lightner cracks open the limited box of reality -> combines claims: blank void outside of reality is fountain of imagination
6645. ??
6646. ??
6647. ??
6648. ??
6649. ??
6650. Ralsei's chapter 3 speech
6651. "it might be your imagination" -> several lines implying that Berdly has passed from "reality" into imagination, or rather, from the world into Kris' mind.
6659. living block tree / Darkerner puzzle [202] -> found in Chapter 1
6660. gray characters / Goners
6661. "Goners" have been deleted from Undertale's world / Goners are something more than dead
6664. The next level below Dark Worlds is the game code -> this doesn't make any sense to me because it breaks the basic/superstructural pattern, especially when Darker-ners have been found
6665. The level below Dark Worlds is the inanimate objects inside Dark Worlds coming to life -> evidence: tree object coming to life
6666. Image_Friend is the darkness outside the game universe come to life -> haven't heard this from anybody but me but it seems quite possible visually. sure looks like nothingness with a face
6670. The level above the Light World is earth / The level above the Light World is Toby Fox's world / The level above the Light World is the real world
6671. The level above the Light World is The Angel's Heaven / The level above the Light World is technically fictional -> narratively parallel to: when you open up a Digimon show or game, the Real World and the Digital World are both technically fictional but the Real World is material and the Digital World is intangible relative to it
6680. ??
6681. ??
6682. SCP-682 "Hard-to-destroy reptile"
6683. The final tragedy is something that would prompt Ralsei to be kind to someone in order to prevent it
6684. the final tragedy / last prophecy panel
6685. ??
6686. ??
6687. Dark Shard -> an item dropped by the Roaring Knight that exists in the Dark World and is not the same entity as the Shadow Crystal, at least at the level of the TV and Tenna not being the same entity.
6688. Black Knife / Black Blade
6689. Shadow Mantle
6690. The Roaring Knight / The Knight (Deltarune)
6691. Roaring Knight sphere -> The Knight reverts into a little rotating sphere when defeated. is that just a cool move, or is that actually the thing that created it in some sense, like the Pippins showing up as dice in the monochrome pictures?
6692. TV screen glitches (Chapter 3)
6693. say it didn't snow -> appears to be tying snow to the notion of the barrier between mind and reality breaking? shows up in room of TVs in Chapter 3, Noelle says the words in weird route.
6694. "your heartbeat becomes twisted" -> quote that appears in Roaring Knight battle.
6695. guitar phone call -> seems to literally tell us what is happening and what will happen, only very cryptically.
6696. ??
6697. getting instructions from a phone / "Mike!" (implied to be but not proved to be connected to phone)
6698. The Roaring Knight is Kris' repressed memory come to life -> Deltarune chapter 3. we've gotten occasional hints there is psychoanalysis in Deltarune. A) Deltarune has several surface similarities to OMORI, which was about repressed memories; toby even acknowledged this. B) Tenna's Dark World was full of memories. C) the code 1225 is included in the Dark World presumably as a memory. D) Kris opened the fountain, but the Roaring Knight was inside the fountain as what would appear to be a Darkner, and Tenna thinks "she" opened the fountain. E) Darkners are described as a very serious absence of real-world data, like a hallucination. if this is true, you'd expect that painful thoughts that torment you when you're up at night could bleed into the Dark World or even become entire Darkners.
6699. Red Soul (Deltarune)
6700. Dragon Ball pre-reboot era
6701. Dragon Ball Kai episode 1
6867. (... Dragon Ball Kai)
6868. Madotsuki's shirt symbol shows she is empty -> pattern said to be PNG transparency or censored out shape from Madotsuki's appearance, like a missing piece; evidence through same "missing piece" showing up in Poniko's room
6869. Dragon Blazers -> note the dimension. fictional works of fiction may be marked S, though real works of fiction are marked Z.
6870. ??
6875. ??
6880. Wackytown, or, every kids' movie ever (2017 tumblr video) [203]
6881. The Angry Birds Movie
6882. ??
6883. ??
6884. ??
6885. ??
6886. ??
6887. ??
6888. Columbus Industries conjecture / Spain and Columbus can conquer any nation or land if they spend enough money and try enough times / if Spain and Columbus were a startup, their success is proportional to how much money or how great of assets they start with and how many things they try -> Wackytown fallacy + possible mathematical equation = Columbus Industries conjecture. the sinister framing of this is on purpose. all too many people regard businesses as inherently good as long as they don't contain "bad people", and simply ask, well how do I succeed? and here's your answer. you can succeed at anything if you burn enough money, time, linked social graphs of people, useful political connections, goodwill, and collateral damage. all you have to do is have enough money or people to try the thing enough times.
      what really gets me about Existentialism is this. for normal people it's overwhelmingly intuitive to believe that Nothing should be done unless everybody considers it wonderful. they even apply this to science, arguing to varying degrees of success that animal testing is unnecessary, or more dubiously that there are some things it is inherently unethical to probe and understand with science because science is a tool of domination, and liberation can only be unscientific. but like, once everyone has been arguing this all the time. then Artists show up and are like I surely deserve to succeed just because I'm an Artist, what are ends and means, surely any means can justify my wonderful ends. welcome to Columbus Industries. if you would only burn enough money you can make the world do whatever you want it to.
6889. Trying hard enough enough times always makes money / Individuals having skills or good ideas always leads to making money with enough time and attempts / Wackytown fallacy (specifically in reference to jobs or investments and money) -> the more people are born and compete for jobs as more unique products exist the less true this gets. MDem entry 4.4/2050 baxter
6890. Many attempts equal success / Wackytown fallacy (children's stories) -> the more general version of the Wacktown fallacy as it actually appears in kids' movies, rather than as it appears among the directors and writers who create them. "Rudolph was useful" is the Wackytown fallacy applied to specific individuals in a "biographical" way. this is the more general notion of it applying widely across a fictional society or multiple works of fiction.
6891. Diversity should be accepted because it's useful / Being different is okay only when you're useful / Red (Angry Birds) is useful to society because he's different in the perfect way -> the proposition people pick out and regard with much confusion when they're actually looking at the Wackytown fallacy. this is more a subjective thing than an error because you probably find this proposition some places too.
6892. Rudolph was useful -> plot motif in Christmas movies or similar fictional works when a character supposedly finds acceptance for being different but it falls flat. "Rudolph was useful" is a local joke in the United States about misunderstandings that happened somewhere between Japanese speakers attempting to translate the Rudolph song and Japanese students trying to make sense of the translation. we think the bigger part of the misunderstanding occurred the second time around, as "役に立つ" can be a perfectly positive and complimentary thing to say in the moment, similar to "a towel comes in handy wherever you go", and not very similar to the flat and uncaring connotation of "was useful".
6899. Uniting against the Wackytown fallacy is progress / It is progressive to unite people against the Wackytown fallacy (Liberal-republican framing) / It is the correct direction of history to unite people against the Wackytown fallacy (meta-Marxist framing) -> this is one of the very few things where I genuinely feel like Communists and anarchists can safely come together behind it even if they have totally different justifications for why it's bad. it's just so obvious this thing is bad that there's nearly no way anarchists can complicate it and screw things up.
6900. ??
6910. ??
6911. ??
6912. December Holiday / Dess Holiday
6913. ??
6914. SCP-914
6920. ??
6930. ??
6940. ??
6950. ??
6960. ??
6969. unsuitable Item label -> an Item for softly enforcing the policy that there are certain things that cannot be in outward-facing Item labels. whenever somebody might make a badly-worded Item label like "Lynching is a form of direct action", you redirect it to this so it can't practically be used to share or link Items.
6970. Garfield
6971. John Arbuckle (character)
6972. Garfield (character)
6973. Garfield minus Garfield -> Garfield + absence.
6974. ??
6975. The Secret of Platform 13 (Ibbotson 1994) -> somebody pointed out that this one came before Harry Potter and I laughed. good catch.
6976. ??
6977. ??
6978. ??
6979. Flip-flopped (Shorty McShort Shorts) -> the precursor to Growing Around. not a lot of thought was put into it, it was primarily a visual gag. really, MrEnter did a decent job taking this short specifically and making there actually be a qualitative differerence between children in charge and adults in charge. whether the difference he chose to portray actually makes any sense or not is another question.
6980. Growing Around (unreleased series with ~1 published book)
6981. Growing Around: Party Panic
6982. Growing Around: The Official Comic [204] -> team member accuses Tory boss obsessed with 9/11 of catering to "audience of progressives"? what. remove this entry if the comic isn't finished on par with the book. can't check right now
6983. In Soviet Russia, adults rule you (Growing Around) -> the claim that in the Growing Around universe, adults invented Communism and had to be defeated specifically on the logic that kids being in charge is Freedom. kids assert that them being in charge of the world is just the "tent of freedom poles" principle and adults wanting to take down their system of creativity and ideals are just tyrannical dictators. adults believe in Materialism, kids believe in Idealism, kids somehow suppress the adults with the power they mysteriously had from the beginning and gloat about how only when people believe in everyone having freedom and having freedom separately in parallel all as individuals can the world function properly, complete with a bunch of dubious or made-up information about their version of the French Revolution. it sounds like one of those very simple nonfiction picture books you find at a library, but maybe phrased a little sillier.
6984. Growing Around is a dystopia
6985. Growing Around will end with a defector / Growing Around will end with a single pair of adults running away and raising a kid normally -> the one really really good thing about Growing Around is that it comes across as so horrifying to adults that it prompts reviewers to imagine societal transitions. I love that. the theories of transition usually aren't high quality, but you know, in a time where Marxism has still never successfully become un-forbidden and nobody ever thinks about transitions in real-world society it still is actually making people think.
      thought 2: this theory sounds almost identical to the ending of The Giver. I suppose I will label this anarchism because of that association.
6986. ??
6987. ??
6988. ??
6989. ??
6990. ??
7000. mythical ball of crowning / mythical object representing power / Dragon Balls (generic) / big Dragon Ball (generic) / chamber of sealed wishes (Wish) -> this is the use of either a particular artifact or the concept of wishes to represent abstract political power in the form of one particular person getting to specifically be the person who exerts Free Will. it's arguable Disney's Wish used this same motif in a very slightly different form.
7001. ??
7002. ??
7003. ??
7004. ??
7005. ??
7006. ??
7007. ??
7008. ??
7009. ??
7010. ??
7011. ??
7012. ??
7013. ??
7014. ??
7015. ??
7016. Marxists Internet Archive
7017. Moscow: Progress Publishers
7018. Beijing: Foreign Languages Press
7019. ??
7020. ??
7021. Kersplebedeb
7030. ??
7040. ??
7050. ??
7060. ??
7070. ??
7080. Trotsky deserting progressive cause / Trotskyist accidentally abandoning progressive cause (forsaking, deserting; motif) -> the thought experiment motif, or maybe in some texts the non-fictional motif, of Trotsky unintentionally turning his back on movements he logically should be in favor of, especially in reference to anything other than Stalin's government, although "Trotsky abandoning Soviet workers" would technically count too.
      is this violet? I kind of feel like it's crimson just because there were at least one or two entire books in the Soviet Union about this. I'll let it be orange but put in the tradition as ML or MX.
7081. If Panthers succeed Trotsky abandons them / If the Black Panthers succeeded Trotsky wouldn't like them and would insist on a different Marxist movement -> Ironblood setting related question; in this hypothetical scenario the Black Panthers do succeed, but Trotskyism is the most popular ideology in the United States, not anarchism. I am imagining this terrible anecdote where Trotsky thoughtlessly looks at the Black Panthers and is like, this is all wrong, they can't just fence off a socialism-in-one-country of Black people, we won't get to world revolution this way! and then somebody has to inform him he is basically being racist and he is like... oh. um. can there be multiple Trotskyist parties inside a world workers' state. I didn't think that far, I never thought of inventing meta-Marxism if I had any idea what that was. and the other Trotskyists make him agree to creating a better system where the United States will be divided up into five party-nations where people can join the one they wish and the states re-color themselves like in Liberalism. it's like, despite Trotsky moving to North America (and in this scenario eventually moving to New York, which only makes it funnier) he is so behind on United States issues it's always the US-born Trotskyists fixing things he probably would have screwed up.
7082. If LGBT+ support Stalin, Trotsky abandons them / If gay people support Stalin Trotsky abandons them -> Ironblood setting related question. the first "terrible anecdote" I imagined where basically as it says on the tin, a gay man sides with the Soviet Union, he has to put up with all the backward behavior there and hardly feeling like part of society, then Trotsky outright says in his face, well if you didn't support Stalin you wouldn't have to worry about this. in my imagination Luxemburg just kind of looks at him and is like Trotsky what the fuck (pronounced fuck) you can't just do that. some of these dumb ideas in my notes are early things I haven't "corrected" to be realistic, other things are intentional deviations from the timeline which would only make sense in context; Luxemburg being alive longer is one of the latter but also an artifact of me not having figured out who and where all the characters are so I toss in other characters as placeholders
7083. ??
7084. ??
7085. ??
7086. ??
7087. ??
7088. Trotsky deserting East Germany / Trotskyist deserting East Germany -> many of these refer to Trotskyists in general, only a few like the very specific Black Panther Party scenario are truly aimed at Trotsky. I have a habit of humorously calling all Trotskyists "Trotsky" but it most of the time meaning any Trotskyist theorist such as Ted Grant, James P. Cannon, etc. I hope that's clear.
7089. ??
7090. world where the International (pronounced International) is finished / timeline where the International (pronounced International) is finished -> the motif of a hypothetical or fictional scenario where the goal of the First or Third International is actually achieved and every country transitions out of capitalism into something else which is at least not worse. field: meta-transitional realism
7091. ??
7092. Ironblood series -> basically just a reserved item
      motifs: Q70,90 timeline where the International is finished, etc.
7093. Aurora system / IronShard -> reserved, but closer to being real
7094. ??
7095. ??
7096. ??
7097. ??
7098. ??
7099. ??
7100. ??
7138. Helix Chamber
7200. ??
7250. ??
7270. ??
7271. Vegeta IV is worse than Vegeta III
7272. Vegeta III is worse than Vegeta IV -> this is the one I think was true, although both become irrelevant when the series reboots into Super
7300. ??
7301. [S] Android 1
7302. [S] Android 2
7303. [S] Android 3
7304. [S] Android 4
7305. [S] Android 5
7306. [S] Android 6
7307. [S] Android 7
7308. [S] Android 8
7309. [S] Android 9
7310. [S] Android 10
7311. [S] Android 11
7312. [S] Android 12
7313. [S] Android 13
7314. [S] Android 14
7315. [S] Android 15
7316. [S] Android 16
7317. [S] Android 17
7318. [S] Android 18
7319. [S] Android 19
7320. [S] Android 20
7321. [S] Android 21
7322. ??
7323. ??
7324. ??
7325. [S] Android 25
7326. [S] Android 26
7327. ??
7328. ??
7329. ??
7330. ??
7331. ??
7332. ??
7333. Android 33
7334. ??
7335. That time I got reincarnated as Yamcha
7336. Future Trunks timeline
7337. Trunks (Dragon Ball)
7338. Trunks' sword -> is it different from Z sword?
7339. ??
7340. ??
7341. ??
7342. ??
7343. ??
7344. Trotskyism is possible in Dragon Ball -> MDem 5.1. still amusing, still very thought-provoking.
7345. ??
7346. ??
7347. 15-generations-prior god-of-worlds
7348. Z sword (Dragon Ball)
7349. ??
7350. ??
7400. ??
7401. ??
7402. ??
7403. ??
7404. Super Saiyan 4 (GT)
7410. ??
7411. ??
7412. ??
7413. ??
7414. ??
7415. ??
7416. ??
7417. Android 17 (GT)
7450. ??
7500. Wings of Fire prequels
7501. empire plant -> I forget its name but that's what it is
7502. the king I can't remember
7503. Freedom
7504. castle lord guy
7505. Sky the SkyWing
7506. Wren -> until I looked it up I really couldn't remember her name and thought she was named after a plant like several other characters in that book
7507. Darkstalker -> there's a lot to say about Darkstalker and narrative parallels. the funniest one is his parallel to Death Note. the most unexpected one is his parallel to the description of LV in Undertale.
7508. Clearsight
7509. Book of Clearsight
7510. Dragonslayer
7511. Darkstalker
7512. Wings of Fire series
7513. Warriors series
7514. Guardians of Ga'Hoole series
7515. One for Sorrow, Two for Joy
7516. Kimba the White Lion / Jungle Emperor Leo -> move? not sure how many chapters there are
7520. ??
7532. there is only power and those who seek it -> appears in: Harry Potter
7533. ??
7599. the Raskolnikov -> I've seen three books with a Raskolnikov in them. Crime and Punishment itself. Death Note. The 13th Tribe, which is supposedly about a whole tiny group of Raskolnikovs.
7600. Epic of Gilgamesh
7601. Crime and Punishment -> the most notable thing about this book to me is that it was loosely adapted to create Death Note.
7602. Death Note
7603. Death Note (artifact)
7603. animus scroll (Wings of Fire)
7605. ??
7610. mistaken quest to steal immortality from the gods
7611. ??
7612. ??
7613. ??
7614. ??
7615. ??
7616. Undertale
7617. Deltarune
7618. ??
7619. ??
7620. ??
7625. ??
7630. ??
7635. ??
7640. ??
7645. ??
7650. ??
7651. ??
7652. ??
7653. Kolchak and Fennekin -> one of those motifs I didn't actually know the definition of at the moment I thought of the phrase and just put down because it was funny. um. this is the motif of Pokémon stories referencing the history of workers' states. something that I would never expect to happen in official Pokémon media but you know, motifs can be whatever even if they're entirely hypothetical. as long as in reference to works and motifs that already exist you can fully imagine what they'd look like if they did exist.
7654. ??
7662. SCP-6662 [205] -> lost cereal mascot seeking "own destination"
7663. ??
7665. Mx. Satan / Mr. Satan (motif) / White Witch (motif) -> when a character in a story is asserted to be a regular character within a world and not necessarily supernatural in the sense of having anything to do with gods, even the fictional gods of that secular fantasy narrative etc, but is really really clearly paralleling a Satan/antichrist narrative as you would see in the Christian bible. Mr. Satan - trope namer; ice queen (Narnia). really can be any gender.
7666. The enemy of one entity is the enemy of all humankind / The world only has one opposer / Satan fallacy -> fallacy best known in the Christian Bible, but repeated in many fantasy books. this statement fails the Trotsky model hard. if you think this statement could ever be true, then it could hypothetically be true that the enemy of Stalin's government is the enemy of all humankind. you've gotta put Trotsky to death to save Soviet civilization. and that's a pretty big contradiction to have in your philosophy for all First World countries. Trotsky is sacred. but if there's any such thing as Bible-style Good and Evil, he's done. which thing is correct? you can't change the Soviet Union to Liberalism to make the problem easier, you have to answer the moral conundrum exactly as it is.
7667. ??
7683. Would a Russia made of reactionaries deserve sovereignty? (composed of reactionaries; consisting only or solely of conservative bigots) / If every Russian is reactionary, do they deserve a government? / If every Russian was a reactionary, would it be acceptable for people in another country to assist in a plan to gut Russia of its government, install leaders chosen to interface well with the United States or Europe, and turn it into a client state? (Russia, China, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Iraq, Iran, etc; insert Third World nationality which has been "assigned conservative at birth"; insert country which has literally undergone this) -> this is a question to catch anarchist and center-Liberal Idealists that think they're "postcolonial" but by any reasonable Materialist definition are passively committing exocolonialism and are actually colonial. only if you say "no" can you genuinely have a postcolonial theory. if you say "yes", you can be an anarchist, Trotskyist, or Existentialist, but you are an imperialist. it is true that anyone who answers "no" to this question has a new contradiction to answer in what it's acceptable to do to a misbehaving country other than war or client state, but this is still a critical question that separates Marxism from Liberal-republicanism.
      Nazi Germany is a very special edge case which I will arbitrarily say is not part of this question because it's so difficult; it's a little hard to say what other than war is even possible there. I think it's important to have an answer so people don't get cornered back into this Item, but I think it belongs in its own question or proposition.
7684. Would you kill a Russian in order to vote? / Would you kill a Russian to receive your voter card? -> you live in an alternate world where every individual in the United States is entitled to a voting license the day they kill a Russian. policies are mostly the same. voting brings anti-discrimination laws, healthcare programs, whatever. but you have to kill someone in Eurasia to get to vote, or to get to tell anyone else to vote. want people to vote for gun control? every one of them has to fly over and shoot a Russian, and then you can have it. the central question of this thought experiment is this: how much is voting worth? what lengths is it worth going to just to preserve voting and the "normal" process of getting people to vote? would people chant "vote Democrat" as loudly if every one of them was required to kill a Russian? what about if voting Democrat really does take a little power away from Tories to create more structural racism and kill Black people? should everyone go kill a Russian just to save Black people from fascism? or is preserving the life of Russians more important than that aim? the only thing about this metaphor that's incoherent to me is how you prove anyone actually killed anyone. uh. maybe there are a limited number of voter licenses, and you'd just take one from Russia and hold it up. or maybe everyone has an ID card which clearly has a flag on it and you'd take that. there may or may not be a system where any country can kill people to issue voter licenses but just as in real life most countries are too afraid to attack the United States. also you equally get a point if you kill a United States Communist and it can be proven in court, even though they deliberately don't have different id card flags. in this world people go to court to prove they have done approved heinous things as well as to prove they're innocent.
7685. ??
7686. ??
7687. PragerU / Prager University
7688. Fox News
7689. ??
7690. ??
7691. A bunch of people passing a law can stop all bad guys from ever being bad guys -> from a video that will not be named to preserve the integrity of the YouTube community guidelines reporting system. I can't believe people actually think this way about AI in an age of federal war against immigrants. this kind of thinking didn't even successfully knock Trump out of office for committing crimes, he just got impeached and nothing happened. I have started reporting videos like this for White supremacy. they refuse to acknowledge the possibility that billionaires will openly attack the population as material people just because the population tries to pass a law against them they sufficiently don't like or will dismantle components of government anti-Third-World style, they get reported. I don't know if my reports will do anything, but I can try.
7692. ??
7693. portraying negative phenomenon without recommending it / ironic phenomenon
7694. unironic misogyny
7695. ironic misogyny -> see: Dragon Ball
7696. heteronormativity
7697. ironic heteronormativity -> see: Amy Rose, DHMIS "Malcom"
7698. normalcy of relationships proved by Lived Experiences / gay relationships are normal
7699. normalcy of gender proved by Lived Experiences / transgender identity is normal
7700. ??
7700. Journey to the West
7701. golden light
7702. fictional religious cosmology -> Girl from the other side; Warriors / StarClan
7703. evil god takes form as the earth -> Tiamat; hinduism?
7704. cosmic graph struggle
7735. Yamcha (Dragon Ball)
7742. understanding the universe
7743. karma (spatial rank)
7744. bailing someone out of system
7745. bailing someone out of supernatural system
7746. bailing someone out of karma
7747. Saiyans losing tails -> lore significance specifically
7747. ??
7748. ??
7771. Sonic the Hedgehog
7772. Tails
7773. Knuckles
7774. Amy Rose -> what is misogyny?
7775. (sonic character)
7776. (sonic character)
7777. Shadow the Hedgehog
7778. [S] MarioCube / MarioCube theory
7779. Black Arms
7780. GUN -> planetary police, planetary army
7781. ??
7782. Sonic × Shadow / Sonadow -> Group Subject containing: Sonic, Shadow
7783. ??
7783. VIZ media
7784. Bird Studio
7785. Sega
7786. ??
7787. Funtime Shenron -> "eternal dragon" or other character/device that claims to grant you a wish but actually just eats you or takes your dead body. perfectly okay to give this a different primary label, I just think "Funtime Shenlong" is a really funny image
7788. ??
7793. Steel Wool games
7794. ??
7795. ??
7796. ??
7797. ??
7798. Children are composed almost entirely of memories / Children are a shard off their parents' memories / Children are a fork off their parents' inner timeline of Lived Experiences -> Lacanianism; Charlie (Fourth Closet); Girl from the other side
7799. Girl From the Other Side (all media) / Other Side / Girl from the Outside (typo) / The Outsiders (typo)
7870. (... Girl From the Other Side)
7900. ??
7965. Ultra Q (1966)
7966. Ultraman (1966)
7967. Ultraseven (1967)
7968. The Return of Ultraman (1971) / Ultraman Jack (show)
7969. Ultraman Ace (1972)
7970. Ultraman Taro (1973)
7971. The☆Ultraman (1979) / Ultraman Joneus (show)
7972. Ultraman 80 (1980)
7973. Ultraman Zearth (1996)
7974. Ultraman Leo (1973) -> features signifier: Leon Trotsky counterpart
7975. ??
7976. ??
7977. ??
7978. ??
7979. ??
7980. ??
7981. ??
7982. ??
7983. ??
7984. ??
7985. ??
7986. ??
7987. ??
7988. ??
7989. ??
7990. Ultraman Geed (2017) -> this one was so questionable, it was like, nazi-framed Ultraman show
7991. ??
7992. ??
7993. ??
7994. ??
7995. ??
7996. ??
7997. ??
7998. ??
7999. Slay the Princess
8000. ??
8151. Pokémon (metaseries)
8190. virtual pet form / virtual pet stage / evolution stage / Pokémon kind / Pokédex kind
8191. virtual pet form tier / evolution stage
8192. virtual pet species / virtual pet strain / virtual pet form chart (internal mechanic)
8193. reused virtual pet form / virtual pet form switching from one series of forms to another / track switch / trackswitch
8194. ??
8195. ??
8196. ??
8197. Digimon (metaseries)
8198. ??
8199. ??
8200. ??
8326. neopets
8327. neopet -> toon-style being, LCD-style being, Subject-style being; medium: virtual pet; only really here to demonstrate categories
8328. ??
8329. The Mimic was hiding in every game as Jackie
8330. The Mimic was hiding inside Shadow Freddy
8331. MCI victim names / Gabriel (??) / Jeremy (??) / Fritz (??) / Susie (??) / Susie (Return to the Pit)
8332. Golden Freddy contains "The one you should not have killed"
8333. Golden Freddy DOES NOT contain "The one you should not have killed"
8334. Michael became Old Man Consequences
8335. Henry became Old Man Consequences
8336. Ralph became Old Man Consequences -> reliving old traumas in cyclic timeline (FNaF)
8337. Andrew, Jake, and Stitchwraith are in games / StitchlineGames
8338. Tales from the Pizzaplex takes place in games setting / TalesGames
8339. Michael Afton was protagonist of FNaF 1-4 / The Box contains Foxy mask
8340. Chica was created during Fredbear era
8341. Toy animatronics originated from Fall Fest / Toy animatronic characters first shown at carnival
8342. Mangle came from carnival ride / Mangle is not Funtime Foxy / Mangle first shown at Fall Fest
8343. The Mimic copied William Afton to create Glitchtrap
8344. Every instance of The Mimic is networked together
8345. Carnie was built out of LEFTE (pronounced LEFTE)
8346. Cassidy died in springlock incident -> red lakes and drowning imagery
8347. Fazbear Enterprises is responsible for bringing back Fall Fest
8348. Tiger Rock plush is a counterpart to the books
8349. Desk guy counts as Henry because he is based on Scott / Scott is desk guy is Henry -> FNaF World
8350. LEFTE (pronounced LEFTE) contains five dead kids / LefteDCI / LeftyDCI -> 1 2
8351. Circus Baby is not William's creation but Henry's revenge on William -> Circus Baby - based on - Charlie; "the baby is not mine"
8352. There are actually multiple William Aftons from different timelines
8353. Candy Cadet is contrasting Circus Baby's plan with Henry's plan / Candy Cadet is contrasting Sister Location's worst ending with Pizza Simulator's best ending
8354. Helpy is a Funtime because the Pizza Place is Henry's version of the Funtimes intended to catch Funtimes
8355. William based the Funtime animatronics on LEFTE (pronounced LEFTE) -> I think this is slightly "anachronistic" because Baby existed at the time of the fire, but it's definitely fun, and it creates a nice transition between FNaF 6 and The Fourth Closet
8356. Henry and William are in an arms race / Whenever Henry builds something William appropriates it for evil / When William builds something Henry appropriates it for good
8357. Michael is "The one you should not have killed" and UCN was Michael's revenge -> this implies that "The vengeful spirit" is not "The one you should not have killed" because the ghost voice and Michael would be two different characters - both tormenting William.
8358. William Afton deliberately made the Funtimes able to feel pain in order to harvest Agony -> strangely enough, actually becomes more plausible on Jackie's timeline where the Mimics seem to have pre-dated Freddy Fazbear
8359. Dave Afton longed for Fredbear to protect him and possession granted him his wish -> [206]
8360. Fazbear Frights is an in-universe series created by Fazbear Entertainment -> different from the concept of Security Breach timeline vs classic timeline; some argue Frights is too insulting to Fazbear Entertainment - [207]
8361. The mound in Midnight Motorist contains a hidden Twisted One waiting to strike -> man I love the creativity. I don't think there is any serious Silver Eyes in the games before Security Breach but the image is hilarious
8362. ??
8400. forest beings turning into trees -> QID references: SCP.
8401. ??
8443. Lenin counterpart -> also in: Ultraman Leo
8444. Leon Trotsky counterpart / Emmanuel Goldstein / Snowball -> also in: Ultraman Leo
8445. Rosa Luxemburg counterpart
8453. Joseph Stalin counterpart / Napoleon (pig)
8454. Pigs (Animal Farm)
8500. ??
8501. Pyrrhia
8509. dragon tribe
8510. dragon (Wings of Fire)
8511. MudWing
8512. SeaWing
8513. RainWing
8514. NightWing
8515. SandWing
8516. moon-touched dragon
8517. Icewing
8518. SkyWing
8519. animus magic
8520. dragon created through animus magic -> there are about three in the series: Boa, fake Clearsight, Peacemaker. notably, Darkstalker is responsible for two of them.
8521. SilkWing
8522. Hivewing
8523. LeafWing
8524. flamesilk dragon
8525. Boa / Jerboa (construct)
8526. hybrid dragon
8527. animus dragon
8528. firescales
8550. ??
8600. ??
8650. ??
8700. Dragon Ball (metaseries)
8701. Dragon Ball (first era)
8702. Dragon Ball (Z era)
8703. Dragon Ball Super (era)
8704. ??
8705. Dragon Ball prequels (era)
8706. Sonic the Hedgehog (2006)
8707. ??
8708. ??
8709. ??
8710. ??
8711. ??
8712. ??
8771. Sonic the Hedgehog (metaseries)
8772. ??
8773. ??
8774. ??
8775. "I am all of me" (song)
8776. "This is who I am" (song)
8777. Shadow the Hedgehog (2005)
8778. "Live and Learn" (song)

8779 - 8999 [full]

Five Nights at Freddy's imagery, and so forth.

8779. Jackie (FNaF)
8780. The Silver Eyes
8781. The Twisted Ones
8782. The Fourth Closet
8783. great bite was unexpected until fatal bite II
8784. Missing Child Incident (FNaF)
8785. Dead Child Incident (FNaF)
8786. Remnant (FNaF)
8787. Agony (FNaF)
8788. Return to the Pit (FNaF)
8789. The Week Before (FNaF)
8790. Five Nights at Freddy's (metaseries)
8791. FNaF 1
8792. FNaF 2
8793. FNaF 3
8794. FNaF 4
8795. FNaF: Sister Location
8796. FNaF 6: Freddy Fazbear’s Pizzeria Simulator
8797. FNaF World
8798. FNaF: Ultimate Custom Night
8799. FNaF AR
8800. FNaF: Help Wanted
8801. FNaF: Help Wanted 2
8802. FNaF: Security Breach
8803. FNaF: Ruin
8804. Chipper & Sons Lumber Co.
8805. tainted object (FNaF) / haunted object / corrupted object
8806. corrupted mascot / corrupted animatronic / monster toy / polymer monster
8807. corrupted mascot (FNaF) / animatronic (FNaF)
8808. William Afton / Purple Guy / Dave Miller (Silver Eyes)
8809. Michael Afton
8810. Dave Afton (Survival Logbook) / Crying Child / Bite Victim / CC / BV / Evan (typo)
8811. Charlie / Charlotte Emily
8812. Charlie (Silver Eyes trilogy)
8813. Charlie bots / Ella (Silver Eyes trilogy)
8814. Illusion disk
8815. Elizabeth Afton (Silver Eyes) / Circus Baby (Silver Eyes)
8816. single characters splitting into unities of opposites / single characters splitting into foils or rivals to tell a lesson / Sun Wukong becomes Goku and Vegeta / Charlie bots become Charlie and Elizabeth / Fazbear Entertainment becomes William and Henry
8817. Henry
8818. Edwin (Tales?)
8819. Nightmarionne / Nightmare puppet
8820. [S] Fredbear-era animatronic
8821. [S] Fredbear / Golden Freddy suit
8822. [S] Golden Freddy (apparition)
8823. [S] Spring Bonnie
8824. [S] Springtrap
8825. [S] Scraptrap
8826. [S] Burntrap
8827. [S] Afton amalgamation (Frights / Tales?)
8828. [S] Glitchtrap / Malhare
8829. [S] The Yellow Rabbit (Return to the Pit) / Pittrap
8830. [S] Toy animatronic
8831. [S] Shadow animatronic / Agony animatronic (theories)
8832. [S] Toy Freddy
8833. [S] Toy Bonnie
8834. [S] Toy Chica
8835. [S] The Mangle / Mangle / Toy Foxy with hook (Help Wanted 2) / Funtime Foxy with hook (Help Wanted 2)
8836. [S] Balloon Boy
8837. [S] The Puppet / The Marionette
8838. [S] Shadow Freddy
8839. [S] RWQFSFASXC / RWQ / Shadow Bonnie
8840. [S] Classic animatronic
8841. [S] Freddy Fazbear
8842. [S] Bonnie
8843. [S] Chica
8844. [S] Foxy
8845. [S] ominious minigames / minigame ARG clue / 8-bit minigames
8846. [S] Mediocre Melodies
8847. [S] Mr. Hippo
8848. [S] Classic wolf character / Twisted Wolf (Silver Eyes trilogy)
8849. [S] Classic alligator character
8850. [S] Funtime animatronic
8851. [S] Circus Baby / Bidybabs' boss -> because I didn't want to make another entry for Bidybabs and Minireenas yet
8852. [S] Funtime Freddy
8853. [S] Bon-Bon
8854. [S] Funtime Chica (FNaF 6 / UCN)
8855. [S] Funtime Foxy
8856. [S] Lolbit
8857. [S] Balora / Minireenas' boss
8858. [S] Ennard
8859. [S] Molten Freddy
8860. [S] Nightmare animatronic
8861. [S] Nightmare Fredbear / Nightmare in proper colors
8862. [S] Nightmare (FNAF 4 / Ultimate Custom Night)
8863. [S] Eleanor (Fazbear Frights) -> favorite or desired thing: Agony
8864. [S] The Stitchwraith (Fazbear Frights) -> I put these guys here just because there was space, but also because I saw a stretched connection between 4 & UCN of traumas coming back to repeat
8865. [S] Jake (Fazbear Frights)
8866. [S] Andrew (Fazbear Frights)
8867. [S] Cassidy (Survival Logbook)
8868. [S] The one you should not have killed / TOYSNHK / vengeful spirit -> UCN
8869. [S] Old Man Consequences (FNAF World / Ultimate Custom Night)
8870. [S] Rockstar animatronic
8871. [S] LEFTE / Lefty
8872. [S] Helpy
8873. [S] Candy Cadet parables
8874. [S] fabricated memories / fake memories
8875. [S] overwriting bad memories with good memories
8876. [S] each story ending experienced by a different character / different story endings belonging to different focal characters -> FNaF World protagonist vs desk guy; Elizabeth vs Charlie (Silver Eyes)
8877. [S] reliving old traumas in cyclic timeline (FNaF)
8878. [S] a labyrinth with no exit, a maze with no prize / maze with no exit and no reward -> FNaF 6, FNaF World
8879. [S] ending the story by killing the storyteller -> FNaF World, Tales books - I freaked out when I realized "The Storyteller" might be referencing this line
8880. [S] person overwritten by virus (FNaF)
8881. [S] Vanessa A. / Vanny's original form
8882. [S] Vanessa (movie)
8883. [S] Vanny (mascot suit)
8884. [S] Fall Fest animatronic / Fall Fest toon character / Fall Fest mascot suit
8885. [S] Virtual animatronic character
8886. [S] Billy (Fazbear Frights) / B-7's victim
8887. [S] B-7 (Fazbear Frights)
8888. [S] Chipper's other son
8889. [S] Mimic-based animatronic
8890. [S] Glamrock animatronic
8891. [S] Glamrock Freddy
8892. [S] Glamrock Bonnie
8893. [S] Glamrock Chica
8894. [S] Roxanne Wolf / Roxy
8895. [S] Montgomery Gator / Monty
8896. [S] Glamrock Mr. Hippo
8897. [S] The Mimic / THE MIMIC!!
8898. [S] M.X.E.S. / MXES / The Entity
8899. [S] Tiger Rock (Tales from the Pizzaplex)
8900. [S0] FNaF ontology / FNaF fan theory / FNaF book series continuity model / FNaF games continuity model
8901. [S2] William Afton stuffed MCI victims into FNaF 1 suits / WillStuff
8902. [S2] The Puppet stuffed MCI victims into FNaF 1 suits / PuppetStuff
8903. [S2] Security guard killed the kids / Phone guy is purple guy
8904. [S2] First four FNaF games are Dave having a bad dream / Dream Theory -> unsubstantiated / discarded
8905. [S2] Dave Afton became Golden Freddy / Golden Freddy is Bite Victim / GoldenVictim / Dave Afton is 5th MCI victim is Golden Freddy
8906. [S2] Cassidy became Golden Freddy / Golden Freddy is "The one you should not have killed" / GoldenCassidy / GoldenTOYSNHK
8907. [S2] William Afton pulverized his own son in a springlock suit / Cassidy is the Crying Child / CassidyVictim
8908. [S2] Dave and Cassidy both became Golden Freddy / Jake and Andrew resemble Dave and Cassidy / GoldenDuo / GoldenBoth / Andrew is "The one you should not have killed"
8909. [S2] Molten Freddy contains MCI victims / MoltenMCI
8910. [S] "Some things should be left forgotten..." / The Box
8911. [S] The One Retcon (FNaF)
8912. [S2] The Box contains some kind of memories -> quite evidenced by The Fourth Closet, reasonably evidenced by FNaF World
8913. [S2] The Box contains Dave Afton's dissolved memories / True interpretation died with Dave Afton
8914. [S2] (The Box theory)
8915. [S2] The Box contains every retcon
8916. [S2] Happiest day didn't release the trapped children / Happiest day didn't work / Unhappiest day
8917. animatronics as proletarian allies / Sunny Rooster -> "William Afton is real"
8918. Ralph the security guard (The Week Before) -> favorite: Foxy
8919. This job is not prestigious enough to allow me to survive / I better rank up in order to afford rent / Careerism in fiction -> a motif that surprisingly keeps recurring specifically in FNaF books and storylines; "Help Wanted" (books)
8920. Fancy artifacts don't fix your body or make it better -> Eleanor's trash necklace, Jessica's hospital necklace ("Frailty"), The Fourth Closet
8921. Modern FNaF draws from "Coppelia" and "The Sandman" -> think I also have to link this one to Klara and the Sun (2021)
8922. bogus game character / video game legend / pokégod / Nazo the Hedgehog
8923. Pokémon scrapped for game balance reasons -> subset of: named missingno
8924. scrapped Pokémon / named Missingno
8925. Pokémon (being)
8926. That's too complicated to be a Pokémon / Braviary is practically a Digimon / Digimon have too many guns to be Pokémon / A Digimon is a dog with five guns / Pikachu should not have an evolution -> Pokémon evolutions being cut for game balance reasons doesn't count
8927. incompatible FNaF communities -> nickel score slowly increasing. two nickels on "incompatible FNaF communities slowly becoming object of legitimate sociological study"
8928. in-game speeches or visual sequences (FNaF) / straightforward cutscenes
8929. environmental storytelling (FNaF classic era)
8930. Fazbear Frights
8966. (... Frights books)
8967. environmental storytelling (FNaF Steel Wool era) / Security Breach environmental storytelling / Ruin environmental storytelling
8968. V.I.P.
8969. Escape the Pizzaplex
8970. Tales from the Pizzaplex
8994. (... Tales books)
8995. Don't feed the muse
8996. Digimon (being) -> tokusatsu-style being, LCD-style being, Subject-style being; medium: virtual pet
8997. Digital Monster keychain (1997)
8998. Digimon Adventure (1999)
8999. Digimon World (1999)

9000 - 10249 [full]

Dragon Ball episodes and Signifiers, etc.

9000. Dragon Ball cosmos
9001. (... Dragon Ball works)
9968. [S] Remember who you are / reminder in the clouds / remember Maria -> Kimba, Simba, Shadow the Hedgehog
9969. [S] turning on evil emperor -> Bardock, Vegeta, Shadow
9970. [S] Saiyan empire / Saiyan kingdom
9971. vision of the future -> A Christmas Carol, "Bardock"
9972. (... Dragon Ball works)
9976. Goku
9977. Vegeta / Vegeta IV / Prince Vegeta
9978. Freeza Force
9979. Freeza
9980. Cell
9981. Majin Boo (ancient)
9982. Majin Boo / Kid Boo
9983. [S] Zamasu
9984. bad future / alternate dystopian timeline
9985. using timelines to break karma
9986. Goku Black timeline -> the one where Zamasu doesn't die apparently
9987. [S] Goku Black
9988. King Vegeta III
9989. Bardock
9990. Sea Turtle -> did you know he's in Journey to the West
9991. Muten Rōshi / Turtle Sage
9992. God-of-earth
9993. Karin
9994. Lord-of-worlds
9995. Grand Elder Guru
9996. Whis
9997. Dragon Balls
9998. eternal dragon
9999. unknown Item
10000. plurality / free-floating groups / open plurality / plural factions / plural subpopulations / "ours groups" -> consists of components: social graph - replicated at order of magnitude - two or more; social graph - taking the form of - discontinuous object
10001. Dragon Ball Super chapter 1
10131. (... Dragon Ball Super)
10132. Dragon Ball (books) / Dragon Ball Z (books)
10133. Dragon Ball (show)
10134. Dragon Ball Z (show)
10135. Dragon Ball Daima
10136. Dragon Ball Super films
10137. Dragon Ball Z films / Dragon Ball films
10138. Dragon Ball GT
10139. Dragon Ball Super (books)
10140. Dragon Ball Super (show)
10182. (... Dragon Ball Super)
10183. Dragon Ball GT episode 1
10246. Dragon Ball GT episode 64
10247. Dragon Ball Kai (first edition)
10248. Dragon Ball Kai (international edition)
10249. Dragon Ball Z Abridged -> feels beyond satisfying to drop this right next to Kai and let people come to their particular conclusions on which is better. I will not make Items for the episodes of this for now, but, past the myriad mark anything can happen, so maybe eventually. we're all about parallel episode guides here.
99999. Beerus

10249 - 13200

National Pokédex, and various items that simply didn't fit earlier.

10250. hypothetical battle
10251. power scaling / power level calculations
10252. one billion lions
10253. black hole (opponent)
10254. ??
10255. ??
10256. ??
10257. Super Dragon Balls
10258. Super Shenron
10300. (... literal Missingno. entries)
10302. Pokémon form / Pokémon visual form / Pokémon variant within single stage
10303. Spiral Shellder / Turbann (theories)
10304. Crystal Onix
10309. (... beta Pokémon)
10310. [S] split Mega evolution
10311. [S] Mega Venusaur
10312. [S] Mega Charizard X
10313. [S] Mega Charizard Y
10314. [S] Mega Blastoise
10315. [S] Mega Beedrill
10316. [S] Mega Pidgeot
10317. [S] Mega Gyarados
10318. [S] Mega Mewtwo X
10319. [S] Mega Mewtwo Y
10320. [S] Mega Alakazam
10321. [S] Mega Slowbro
10322. [S] Mega Gengar
10323. [S] Mega Kangaskhan
10324. [S] Mega Pinsir
10325. [S] Mega Aerodactyl
10326. [S] Mega Scizor
10327. [S] Mega Heracross
10328. [S] Mega Steelix
10329. [S] Mega Ampharos
10330. [S] Primal form
10331. [S] Castform (Normal form)
10332. [S] Castform (Sunny form)
10333. [S] Castform (Rainy form)
10334. [S] Castform (Snowy form)
10335. [S] Primal Kyogre
10336. [S] Primal Groudon
10337. [S] Deoxys Attack form
10338. [S] Deoxys Defense form
10339. [S] Deoxys Speed form
10340. [S] Origin form
10341. [S] Shellos West Sea
10342. [S] Gastrodon West Sea
10343. [S] Shellos East Sea
10344. [S] Gastrodon East Sea
10345. [S] Shadow Lugia
10346. [S] Dark Dialga (Explorers of Time/Darkness) / Primal Dialga
10347. [S] Origin Dialga
10348. [S] Origin Palkia
10349. [S] Origin Giratina
10350. [S] Mega-evolved form
10351. [S] Mega Houndoom
10352. [S] Mega Tyranitar
10353. [S] Mega Sceptile
10354. [S] Mega Blaziken
10355. [S] Mega Swampert
10356. [S] Mega Gardevoir
10357. [S] Mega Sableye
10358. [S] Mega Mawile
10359. [S] Mega Rayquaza
10360. [S] Mega Aggron
10361. [S] Mega Medicham
10362. [S] Mega Manetric
10363. [S] Mega Sharpedo
10364. [S] Mega Camerupt
10365. [S] Mega Altaria
10366. [S] Mega Banette
10367. [S] Mega Absol
10368. [S] Mega Glalie
10369. [S] Mega Salamence
10370. [S] Mega Gallade
10371. [S] Mega Metagross
10372. [S] Mega Latias
10373. [S] Mega Latios
10374. [S] Mega Lopunny
10375. [S] Mega Garchomp
10376. [S] Mega Lucario
10377. [S] Mega Abomasnow
10378. [S] Mega Audino
10379. [S] Mega Diancie
10380. [S] Pokémon regional form / Alolan form / Galar form
10381. [S] Alolan Rattata
10382. [S] Alolan Raticate
10383. [S] Alolan Raichu
10384. [S] Alolan Sandshrew
10385. [S] Alolan Sandslash
10386. [S] Alolan Vulpix
10387. [S] Alolan Ninetales
10388. [S] Alolan Diglett
10389. [S] Alolan Dugtrio
10390. [S] Alolan form
10391. [S] Alolan Meowth
10392. [S] Alolan Persian
10393. [S] Alolan Geodude
10394. [S] Alolan Graveler
10395. [S] Alolan Golem
10396. [S] Alolan Grimer
10397. [S] Alolan Muk
10398. [S] Alolan Exeggutor
10399. [S] Alolan Marowak
10400. [S] Galar Meowth
10401. [S] Galar Ponyta
10402. [S] Galar Rapidash
10403. [S] Galar Farfetch'd
10404. [S] Galar Weezing
10405. [S] Galar Zigzagoon
10406. [S] Galar Linoone
10407. [S] Galar Articuno
10408. [S] Galar Zapdos
10409. [S] Galar Moltres
10410. [S] Galar Mr. Mime
10411. [S] Galar Slowpoke
10412. [S] Galar Slowbro
10413. [S] Galar Slowking
10414. [S] Galar Corsola
10415. [S] Galar Darumaka
10416. [S] Galar Darmanitan Standard Mode
10417. [S] Galar Darmanitan Zen Mode
10418. [S] Galar Yamask
10419. [S] Galar Stunfisk
10420. [S] Hisui Growlithe
10421. [S] Hisui Arcanine
10422. [S] Hisui Voltorb
10423. [S] Hisui Electrode
10424. [S] Hisui Typhlosion
10425. [S] Hisui Qwilfish
10426. [S] Hisui Sneasel
10427. [S] Hisui Samurott
10428. [S] Hisui Lilligant
10429. [S] Hisui Braviary
10430. [S] Hisui Zorua
10431. [S] Hisui Zoroark
10432. [S] Hisui Sliggoo
10433. [S] Hisui Goodra
10434. [S] Hisui Avalugg
10435. [S] Hisui Decidueye
10436. [S] Bloodmoon Ursaluna
10437. [S] White-Stripe Basculin
10438. [S] Male Basculegion
10439. [S] Female Basculegion
10440. [S] Paradox Pokémon
10441. [S] Terastallized state
10442. [S] Paldean form
10443. [S] Paldean Tauros (Combat Breed)
10444. [S] Paldean Tauros (Blaze Breed)
10445. [S] Paldean Tauros (Aqua Breed)
10446. [S] Paldean Wooper
10447. [S] Normal Terapagos
10448. [S] Terastal Terapagos
10449. [S] Stellar Terapagos
10450. [S] Gigantamax form
10451. [S] Gigantamax Venusaur
10452. [S] Gigantamax Charizard
10453. [S] Gigantamax Blastoise
10454. [S] Gigantamax Pikachu
10455. [S] Gigantamax Meowth
10456. [S] Gigantamax Eevee
10457. [S] Gigantamax Rillaboom
10458. [S] Gigantamax Cinderace
10459. [S] Gigantamax Inteleon
10460. [S] Gigantamax Butterfree
10461. [S] Gigantamax Machamp
10462. [S] Gigantamax Gengar
10463. [S] Gigantamax Kingler
10464. [S] Gigantamax Lapras
10465. [S] Gigantamax Snorlax
10466. [S] Gigantamax Garbodor
10467. [S] Gigantamax Melmetal
10468. [S] Gigantamax Corviknight
10469. [S] Gigantamax Orbeetle
10470. [S] Gigantamax Drednaw
10471. [S] Gigantamax Coalossal
10472. [S] Gigantamax Applin / Gigantamax Flapple / Gigantamax Appletun
10473. [S] Gigantamax Sandaconda
10474. [S] Gigantamax Toxtricity
10475. [S] Gigantamax Centiscorch
10476. [S] Gigantamax Hatterene
10477. [S] Gigantamax Grimmsnarl
10478. [S] Gigantamax Urshifu (Single Strike)
10479. [S] Gigantamax Urshifu (Rapid Strike)
10480. [S] enigma-tier Pokémon / Ultra Beast tier / Paradox tier / Pokémon from another realm using Legendary Pokémon conventions
10481. [S] Gigantamax Alcremie
10482. [S] Gigantamax Copperajah
10483. [S] Gigantamax Duraludon
10484. [S] Basic form
10485. [S] Battle form
10486. [S] Ride form
10487. [S] Battle Cyclizar
10488. [S] Apex Koraidon
10489. [S] Ultimate Miraidon
10490. [S] method of obtaining Pokémon -> in cave and only one, etc.
10491. [S] available in wild
10492. [S] one encounter available in specific location
10493. [S] raid battle / raid battle (Pokémon Sword/Shield) / raid battle (Pokémon Go)
10494. [S] environmental trace / shaking grass (Pokémon) / rippling water (Pokémon) / dust clouds (Pokémon) / overhead shadow (Pokémon) / shaking trash can (Pokémon)
10495. [S] Pokémon feeder / joining (Pokémon gen 8) / honey tree (Pokémon gen 4)
10496. [S] Pokémon day care
10497. [S] gift Pokémon / in-game trade
10498. [S] scripted story event
10499. [S] event distribution
10500. (... generations)
10520. [S] Legendary Pokémon
10521. [S] Box Legendary
10522. [S] dungeon Legendary / cave Legendary / ARG Legendary
10523. [S] Roaming Legendary
10524. [S] cosmic Legendary / pantheon deity Legendary
10525. [S] doom Legendary -> Mewtwo, Deoxys, Necrozma, Eternatus
10526. [S] type drive Legendary -> Silvally, Arceus, Genesect
10527. [S] unique hero Pokémon / unique antagonist Pokémon -> Zoroark, Zeraora, Kubfu, Zarude
10528. [S] event Legendary / tie-in Legendary
10529. [S] Mythical Pokémon
10530. [S] movie-relevant Pokémon / movie figurehead Pokémon -> doesn't have to be Legendaries, if there's a movie totally centered on Eevee, or Zoroark
10531. [S] fusion Legendary
10532. [S] fusable Legendary
10533. [S] composite Legendary -> Melmetal, Zygarde
10534. [S] event-distributed form of regular Pokémon -> Zoroark, Own Tempo Rockruff, etc.
10535. [S] Pokémon with special-edition forms -> Pichu, Pikachu & Eevee, Greninja
10536. [S] Pokémon with natural variations -> Shellos, Basculin, Pumpkaboo, Sinistea, Sinistcha, Dudunsparce
10537. [S] Pokémon with branched evolutions
10538. [S] pseudo-legendary Pokémon
10539. [S] fossil Pokémon -> clearly not a type of Legendary, but put here to stop me wondering if Dracozolt is an enigma-tier. enigmas are Legendaries that seem like they should be regular, fossil Pokémon are fossil Pokémon
10540. ??
10541. ??
10542. ??
10543. ??
10544. ??
10545. ??
10546. ??
10547. ??
10548. ??
10549. ??
10600. ??
10700. Pokémon technique / Pokémon move
10719. (... Stellar-type move)
10720. ??
10730. ??
10740. ??
10750. ??
10760. ??
10770. ??
10780. ??
10799. ??
10819. (... Pokémon types)
10820. ??
10830. ??
10840. ??
10850. ??
10860. ??
10870. ??
10880. ??
10899. ??
10919. (... Pokémon of Types)
10920. ??
10929. Baby Pokémon
10930. Basic Pokémon (main series)
10931. Stage 1 Pokémon (main series)
10932. Stage 2 Pokémon (main series)
10903. ??
10904. ??
10905. ??
10906. Mega evolution stage / Primal reversion stage
10907. ??
10908. ??
10909. ??
11000. National Pokédex -> has serialized parts: every single Pokémon ever.
11001. Bulbasaur (Pokémon; gen 1 / Kanto)
11002. (... National Pokédex)
12025. Pecharunt (Pokémon; gen 10 / Paldea) -> last known Pokémon as of 2025. do not reserve the next hundred slots for Pokédex slots, just start over on a clean hundred when the next game comes out.
12026. ??
12030. ??
12040. ??
12050. ??
12060. ??
12070. ??
12080. ??
12090. ??
12100. nonsensical scam advertiser / spambot (automated nonsensical advertiser) -> I'm broadening the total definition of spambot to include Third-World scammers, because they have seriously interesting stories behind them that are worth talking about. Deltarune making the scammer character have a few real emotions was wired. although the one thing I slightly object to sometimes is how creating a softly-whitewashed "I could be anybody" character erases the great difference between First-World and Third-World countries that actually creates a lot of real-world scammers. it's like structural racism only it's very very big.
12101. Nigerian prince scam -> everyone who isn't old has heard of these. fewer people actually know about the living conditions of the people sending these emails.
12102. Taiwanese massage degrees going to Turkey [208] -> analyzing the motifs of spambots? of course. spambots tell some of the most interesting stories when you really, really look deep into them. look at how much history is behind Nigerian prince scams and "yahoos" alone. there's definitely something going on in either Taiwan or Turkey which is not good. are the people of Taiwan desperate? are they funneling people out of poorer countries to go to Taiwanese universities and go to Turkey? are they recruiting people out of Turkey to go to Taiwan and go back to Turkey? right now I don't quite get what's going on.
12103. ??
12110. cursed export / paying Third-World people for footage of things that would be crimes [209] -> what it says. in reference to the below Items.
12111. The Khmer Rouge left Cambodians with nothing but monkey abuse / The abuses of the Khmer Rouge left Cambodians with nothing but monkey abuse / The Khmer Rouge stopped Cambodia from having any doctors and left them with nothing but selling monkey torture -> I don't have a lot of information about the reality of what happened with the Khmer Rouge, but this is a pretty outrageous thing to claim with a straight face. looking at the most important part of the claim, that being in a poor country is bad, it would be just as accurate to say that people showing up from other countries with money is harmful and dangerous to a country because the people with money can pay money for this, or for people to sell the United States slaves, and only Mao or Kim Il-Sung putting up a barrier around the country and forcing it to develop inside itself can prevent slavery and monkey abuse. cursed exports are weirdly like a reverse Nigerian prince scam. both of them are a kind of toxic connection between a First-World country and a Third-World country which doesn't create anything productive and where everyone would have been better off if that one particular interaction between the two countries didn't happen.
12112. Only Kim Il-Sung can prevent monkey abuse / Protectionism prevents cursed exports such as animal abuse for money / If Indonesia transitioned to Deng Xiaoping Thought, there would be no monkey abuse -> a bit of a troll proposition, but it does make you ask what's wrong with it. if a country creates Juche-socialism and closes itself up, at whatever peril comes with that, it will almost certainly prevent US people showing up with a bizarre amount of money to pay the country for the world's weirdest export. everyone will be busy stumbling to create industries inside the country. so there are downsides but there are also clear upsides.
       (next proposition merged) I keep thinking about how one of the single most successful policies of workers' states has simply been refusing connections from the outside until they're ready. is this to say it's possible to go directly to Deng Xiaoping Thought before trying to create Bolshevism, and it isn't a form unique to a country sliding backward? have we been interpreting history wrong? and if so, what exactly is the logic for Deng Xiaoping Thought actually being a necessary step — what is achieved by gaining solid control over the internal borders of a country if the Archons of the population still drive it? what's the huge reward everybody gets from those Archons being free from the outside world? I feel like answering that could yield a significant breakthrough in understanding Liberalism as well as Third-World countries. this is clearly a hugely important step for some reason, so important that the United States is desperately trying to do it erratically across the inside of the United States.
12300. ??
12400. ??
12500. ??
12600. ??
12700. ??
13000. periodic table of elements
13001. Hydrogen (H)
13002. Helium (He)
13118. Oganesson (Og)
13200. (... reserved for future element discoveries, unless there is good evidence heavier elements stop being possible before 200)
13201. island of stability

MDem SSR: 19000 - 20000

An area for managing MDem draft entries. This is now being managed on its Category page.

19000. Molecular Democracy
19521. 5021 fountains / entry
19999. (... MDem SSR entries)

Property

These can now be found at Philosophical Research:Properties/Numeric.

Example item

S9003
Saiyan empire

characteristic	value
appears in work	Dragon Ball
refers to or visualizes model	planetary nation
	imperialism (Marxism-Leninism)
adapted from signifier	monkey kingdom (Journey to the West)
derived from model, phenomenon, or event	Imperial Japan
incidentally resembles model, phenomenon, or event	United States

First version

Although I tried not to change the formatting of this page much, it has gone through a few formatting versions.

• Late into the creation of this page, the text got too long to properly submit through the form. The pre-division version is here.

Lexeme

Lexemes tie together unique sets of inflections or conjugations, and sets of definitions. See here for a chart of inflected forms for each of these terms
In practice, many of these will end up comically resembling some sort of "Devil's dictionary" with shocking contrasts between everyday usages and specific usages.

L1 - L900

1. master signifier
2. Lacanian discipline -> symbolic castration (Lacanianism)
3. The Real -> Lacanianism
4. The Symbolic -> Lacanianism
5. The Imaginary -> Lacanianism
6. other / Other / The Other -> Lacanianism
7. object small-a / objet petit a
8. knowledge / know
   1. association through signifier equation
   2. factical observation
   3. Amalthean interpretation
9. philosophy / philosophical
10. facticity / factical
    1. (MDem) set of all entities in material reality
    2. (Existentialism) Lived Experience
11. category error
12. science / scientific
13. ascientific / non-science
14. scientism / scienticist
15. non-overlapping magisteria
16. rationalism
    1. internal definition
    2. (Existentialism) pejorative definition -> science imperializing philosophy
17. revolution
18. fallacy -> common definition; fallacy fallacy or double fallacy where somebody's error is incorrectly thinking something is an example of a fallacy; "fallacy" in loose usage as any kind of physically inaccurate axiom used as a pillar of thought as if it were fact (MDem scraps have used this a lot, as with "printing press fallacy" and "Twilight Sparkle fallacy")
19. history / historical / historicize / historiology (Heidegger) / material-history / historiography
    1. (center-Liberalism, Existentialism) -> series of unique events
    2. (Marxism) -> material-history
20. bias
    1. common definition
    2. (Existentialism) -> corrupted ideology held immorally
    3. (MDem) the presence of any preferences, worldviews, or codes of morality whatsoever - which is not inherently bad; see Amalthean interpretation
    4. (Toryism) -> anything from another ideology; heresy against Toryism
21. orthodoxy / orthodox
    1. (religion)
    2. (philosophy)
    3. (Marxism, meta-Marxism) -> formation of "orthodox Marxism"
    4. (Trotskyism) -> early Leninism, which is good
    5. (right-Liberalism) -> classical Liberalism, which is good
    6. (Toryism) -> "the establishment", which is Bad
22. heresy / heretical / heretic
    1. (religion)
    2. (center-Liberalism) see fascism
    3. (Toryism) see bias
    4. (Trotskyism) see anti-Stalinism
23. lived experience / Lived Experience
    1. common definition
    2. (Existentialism)
    3. (existential materialism, MDem)
24. schizophrenia / schizophrenic
    1. real-world condition
    2. schizoanalysis metaphor
25. escape / Escape / escapism -> schizoanalyst sense, escaping reality sense
26. subject / The Subject
    1. common definition
    2. (Existentialism)
    3. (existential materialism, MDem)
27. Being
28. Dasein
29. object
30. truth / true
    1. common definition
    2. (Existentialism) Lived Experience; see Idealism
    3. (religion) see Truth specifically excludes physics; see Māyā
31. norm / normalcy / normal / normative
32. real / reality / realism -> many fields have realisms speaking about the reality of that field, note for instance theoretical physics realism. as well any model at all can have a "realism", including so-called "race realism" (the realism of a conspiracy theory) or the assumption that particular art styles represent reality when they might not, etc.
33. theory -> there are many, many definitions for this, though almost every one of them subsets "an ontological model"
34. idealism / Idealism
35. materialism / Materialism
37. objectivity
38. neutrality
39. historical materialism
40. dialectical materialism
41. existential materialism / exmat
42. meaning
    1. common definition
    2. (structuralism) -> signifier meanings
    3. (existentialism, nihilism) -> the actually-okay definition that meaning is constructed
    4. (Existentialism) -> bullshit concepts that the shorter you live the more it means
    5. (postmodernism?) -> end of history confusion about what means anything
43. false / falsify
    1. common definition
    2. (science) to a show a testable theory to be inaccurate to reality based on observations; to show a testable theory to be badly matched to the Factical systems that constitute reality.
    3. to create forgeries or misleading versions of something; to create a false version of something which was not false
44. revisionism / revisionist
    1. common definition
    2. (historiography) field of history which seeks to re-examine and update historical facts; see "falsify"/science
    3. (Toryism) purported malicious attempt to erase accurate historical facts because they are inconvenient; see "falsify", item for "historical-revisionism/inclusive-history conspiracy theory"
    4. (Marxism) the act of promoting a political-economic model or model of history which has been shown to be inaccurate; see "falsify"/science
    5. (mainstream Marxism-Leninism) category of ostensibly Marxist models regarded with great doubt which may include plans to realize Marxism inside Liberal democracy, ultra-imperialist models of waiting for imperialism to slow down, labeling a free-floating sea of private business territories as "socialist transition", and so forth.
    6. (Trotskyism) category of Marxist models claimed to be incorrect or disproven which may include socialism in one country, strategies involving government ministries over workers' councils, and so forth.
    7. (Western Marxism) category of Marxist models claimed to be incorrect or disproven which may include models that treat the emergence of movements as in any way predictable, and so forth.
    8. (Existentialism) category of either all Marxist theories or some subset of Marxist models which is claimed to be incorrect or disproven, and may include the entire category of historical materialism, or models which do not make their most fundamental scale The Subject.
45. liberal / liberalism / Liberalism / liberalize / illiberal / illiberality -> oh boy one of my least favorite words in the English language
    1. common definition
    2. relaxed set of rules given to a particular set of rules
    3. Washingtonism. anti-monarchist republicanism. center-Liberalism
    4. capitalist anarchy; right-Liberalism
    5. (Toryism) actual anarchist ideologies presented as if they were the inevitable result of Menshevism or center-Liberalism. see PragerU videos
46. left / Left / The Left
    1. a direction
    2. (center-Liberalism) all compatible and utterly-incompatible progressive movements in unison
    3. (meta-Marxism) any plural progressive movement which is not directly affiliated with other progressive movements; should be pluralized as "The Lefts"
47. progress / progressive / progressivism / progressivist
48. take -> category: noun-based term. movie scene attempt; design attempt; interpretation, arts; fan theory; political proposition, often pejorative
49. indeterminism -> I have my suspicions there's not actually any such thing, and it's just the presence or absence of predictability or the ability to measure things in a sea of otherwise deterministic processes. it's relativity and physical-plurality that screws everything up, it's the fact that for most of its existence the universe has generally never been a single object and has always been a collection of separate objects. are these objects particles, or something else? that's the thing science genuinely doesn't know yet
50. determine / determined / determination / determinism -> category: action or process term (verb-based)
51. predetermine / predetermined / predetermination
52. random
53. vote -> don't forget the skewering sense of people being convinced voting will result in policies, where it really means nation membership
54. party -> Liberal party versus party-nation
55. party-nation
56. fair / fairness / unfair -> category: abstract condition term, adjective-based term, positive term having negation
    1. common definition
    2. fairness as in no unnecessary obstacles: unfair card game
    3. fairness as in objectivity: evaluating art etc on the standards it intends to deliver on and that are most applicable to it
    4. fairness as in the presence of morality or standards: the claim that nature or life is "unfair" when the intended meaning is that they have no standards and are neither fair nor unfair
57. just / justice / unjust -> category: abstract process term, adjective-based term, positive term having negation. seems to me that fairness is a state of things while justice is generally an active process
58. anomaly -> unrelated to "fairness" and "vote". normal definition; Star Trek; SCP definition with its full connotations
59. should / ought to / must -> words like this get me every time somebody says a moral statement and it's practically unenforceable. "should" sometimes means "absolutely will not, but I will be utterly furious at everyone else when my model doesn't work"
60. morality
61. ethics
62. good / Good
63. evil / Evil
64. right / Right
65. wrong / Wrong
66. enemy
    1. common definition
    2. (Toryism) -> evil and criminal nationality purportedly intending to destroy one's country - "the United States' enemies"
    3. (Christianity) -> people in separation from God
    4. (Buddhism) -> arbitrary separation between individuals which results in violence
    5. (Maoism) -> class subpopulations who actively oppose Communist revolution - see The Communist Necessity
67. opponent
    1. common definition
    2. (meta-Marxism, MDem) separate free-floating group or individual with which one exists in open plurality and for which re-unifying the plural groups is not trivial
    3. (center-Liberalism, right-Liberalism) -> prescriptive connotation that ideologies are not separate and they inherently want to respect each other and regard themselves as part of the same group
68. territory / territorial / territorialize / deterritorialize
    1. a bounded area associated with a particular use or occupant
    2. (ecology) the bounded area occupied by an individual animal or animal social unit
    3. a particular bounded domain recently added to the borders of a global empire: Northwest Territory, Oregon Territory
    4. a particular bounded area permanently occupied and administered by a global empire: United States territories
    5. (arts) the mutually-exclusive division between concepts believed to be separate and non-overlapping
    6. (schizoanalysis) whatever (de)territorialization means
69. irony / ironic / unironic
70. individual / individual / individuality / individuation
71. authenticity / authentic / inauthentic -> Existentialism, Zinovievism
72. will / individual will / free will
73. free will / Free Will / libertarian free will / compatibilist free will -> entry for "Free Will" specifically
74. volition / volitional
75. voluntary
    1. common definition
    2. (right-Liberalism) of an agreement or relationship, being determined purely by the two parties involved. despite the word voluntary generally having to do with concepts of will or freedom, a "voluntary" agreement is characterized not by whether somebody wants to agree to it but whether the agreement is currently active or not. an agreement two parties are currently in is voluntary, and it becomes involuntary specifically when one of the parties involved Escapes.
76. freedom / free -> almost as fraught as "economics", easily 15 definitions
    1. common definition
    2. ... various definitions
    3. Free Software definition
    4. Free Culture definition
    5. (physics, chemistry) available for the purposes of particular physical processes: free energy equation
    6. (physics) the ability to produce more outcomes in the sense of a Cartesian dimension of outcomes: degrees of freedom
    7. (early-existentialism) the prisoner parable or Jevil definition where supposedly nobody is not free if they merely will otherwise, the definition where physical freedom does not matter to the definition of freedom
    8. (pejorative) freedom units: tools used by an enclosed cultural region which does not want to change itself
77. power -> at least 3-4 specific usages
78. anarchy -> needs to link several Signifier items for different theories of what Archons are
79. anektiry / ektirion
80. anektirism / ektirionism
81. thoughtcrime
82. doublethink
83. newspeak
84. censorship
85. Objective / Objectivism -> separate from objectivity/objectivism because it has its own complex array of definitions
86. Tory / Tories / Toryism
87. stochastic terrorism
    1. (center-Liberalism) -> common definition
    2. (MDem) -> violent horizontal attack, has alternate mathematical definition
88. fascism / fascist
    1. (historians) a militant nationalist movement of the 1940s World War II period associated with re-making national culture and imperial conquest over other countries.
    2. internal definition
    3. those ~3 lists of characteristics
    4. (Trotskyism) a nationalist movement begun by the petty bourgeoisie -> retrieve work where Trotsky claimed this
    5. (Gramscianism) -> requires nationalists to fill up all available slots as a graph
    6. (center-Liberalism) literally any ideology which is not orthodox center-Liberalism; anti-center-Liberal heresy. -> "Radical intellectuals and the subversion of politics"
    7. (Toryism) -> absolutely not Toryism even when you can't tell their values apart
89. mathematical fascism
    1. (MDem) when millions of individuals who agree on nothing all agree to team up and commit imperialism for the separate benefit of each individual. logical result of: chunk competition; incidentally resembles: Saiyan kingdom
90. politics
    1. common definition
    2. (historians) the process of operating any government, state, regime, class society, or warring states periods; sometimes near-synonymous with material-history
    3. (center-Liberalism) the process of operating Liberalism
    4. (Toryism) bringing up opinions that are not consistent with Toryism; anti-Tory heresy; see: "politically correct" "artists with politics" "don't talk politics"
91. end of history -> has more precise meanings than you'd think
92. molecular democracy
    1. molecularized democratic regime / molecularized democratic theory
    2. Marxist Molecular Democracy / Molecular Marxism
    3. (unattested) Existentialism as purported molecularized democratic regime
93. signifier -> remember the ontological senses
94. ontology -> companion to signifier
95. excess
    1. common definition
    2. relativistic definition thanks to Heidegger where there can be excessive rainclouds
    3. (Lacanianism) unreachable information inside each Subject; alleged to be a good thing
    4. (existential materialism, MDem) unreachable information inside Subjects or objects which may or may not be a huge problem; see Vegeta effect
96. quantum -> literal, mathematical, figurative-math definitions
97. subjectivity / Subjectivity
98. culture / cultural / countable culture / Culture -> possibly 20 definitions
    1. ... various definitions
    2. (Toryism) the purported only correct way of doing things such that if somebody does not follow it, it will result in the ruin and destruction of the overall population - see "stupid idiot garbage trash"
99. hegemony -> man I hate this one. guess it's going in here
100. economics -> very controversial term with like 10-15 definitions. this wiki is about unraveling the word economics into every hyper-specific sense. screw economics
101. market
     1. common definition
     2. (right-Liberalism) -> the neoliberal nonsense definition
     3. (MDem) -> Market Society, Filamentism, primitive Existentialism
102. microeconomics
103. macroeconomics
104. empire / imperialism / anti-imperialism
105. hierarchy / anhierarchy
     1. common definition
     2. accurate medieval definition; spatial hierarchy
     3. anhierarchy: the crude absence of spatial hierarchy and "territorialization" for utterly any reason they are absent including the area being uninhabited or contested
106. feudalism / feudal / feudal order -> I temporarily deleted warring states period, reassign that later
107. capitalism / capitalist adj. / capitalist agent-noun
108. crime / criminal / criminal
     1. (center-Liberalism) requires definition in legal code
     2. can refer to any action that "should" be illegal: criminally underrated
     3. (Toryism) -> thug, gangster, mafioso, bandit, barbarian, Sea Peoples
109. terrorism / terrorist
     1. (center-Liberalism) -> common definition
     2. (Toryism) -> international mafioso who attacks countries out of malice
110. wrecker
111. counterrevolutionary
112. reactionary
113. deviant -> Lacanianism
114. perversion -> Lacanianism
115. body without organs / Body Without Organs / BWO
116. patchification / patchify -> when a country population is divided into tiny populations of "a million countries per 300 million people", either ideologically or more literally into tiny ethnic patches scattered wildly
117. choppification / choppify -> pejorative term for concepts of "decentralizing" or "de-monopolizing" societal structures over and over, sometimes to such extreme extents that structures don't even exist and society has truly been atomized into just a bunch of individuals. the word "competition" might be thrown around to justify how choppifying things and making them less coordinated will inherently improve them. the need to choppify things ultimately originates from Blobonomics and Escape models of society, which always slowly create large centralized blobs as smaller ones die or people simply begin to think large ones are better because they're more consistent.
118. anarculture -> the stance that culture should be smashed to take away its power over people. democulture is the notion that chunks of people exert the authority of the Spanishness Office to punish people for not performing their part in culture perfectly, and anarculture is the notion that everyone sort of just, attempts to not have culture. usually for really specific reasons that a specific empire has power over people by filling their minds with the wrong signs of "Whiteness" etc. to be clear the problem is not that the process of alterity isn't real, the problem is that people try to remove the notion of physical populations and historical events from the model and reduce it purely down to ideas as if ideas and signs mechanically, near-deterministically cause all human behavior. I had a hard time naming this thing because for the longest time it didn't even make sense. "so anarchism has been turning into... an-... a-culture-ism? what even is this?" I still don't know what the agent-noun form is. but to be fair, I don't know what that is for democulture either. democulturalist? not sure.
119. zeroth world problems -> problems so divorced from the basic layer of local individual survival in the First World that they are uniquely bourgeois problems. problems that employed Careerists complain about but which can feel completely irrelevant to the lives of unemployed people like they should not matter whatsoever. for some reason, zeroth world problems are the primary kind of problem complained about on most of YouTube, as people continuously do things like "review media" by discussing the best way for distant owners of specific business territories to order workers and subsidiaries inside corporations in order to generate products they would be satisfied with.
120. copyright
121. copyright violation / copyright infringement
122. copyleft
123. artist -> has a great many connotations nobody notices that require documenting
124. creator
125. indie / independent
126. centralize / centralized / centralization
127. decentralize / decentralized / decentralization
128. algorithm / The Algorithm -> method of calculation; machine learning algorithm; recommendations algorithm; reciprocal effect of a consumer base on creators which creators have difficulty distinguishing from the recommendations algorithm
129. democulture -> the hypothetical or theoretical concept that culture is a government in a similar sense to how a monarchy is, and a particular corrupt individual or locus of corrupt culture can be overrun by the masses and turned into a new form. I find the idea really stupid to be honest, but almost every single theory within "The US Left" since the 1990s seems to invent this concept as one of its core principles. Existentialism is in general a group of theories that ignores democracy per se and by going on and on about Free Will and The Subject tries to find the best way to invent democulture. queer theory is infamous in Tory settlements for constantly attributing the "institutional power" of homophobia and transphobia to the absence of democulture in "institutions".
130. Demos / Demotes / demo- -> a group of people which really does function as an unbroken "we" which can describe its shared process of government as "our". the whole United States is not one of these, and the United States consists of at least two Demotes.
131. democracy / our democracy -> tons of connotations. I am coming to really hate this one English word for how much hidden complexity it conceals that nobody notices. however... we can fix that
132. demofederation -> a structure composed of multiple linked Demotes. what the United States _actually_ is.
133. democompetition -> etym: Demos + competition; mutually-exclusive competition of populations over a demoinstitution, in place of "democracy". the process of two separate Social-Philosophical Systems or Demotes competing to exclusively control the process of demorevision.
134. demoinstitution -> etym: Demos + institution; the basic building block of republicanism, in which multiple people take the place of one person. a demoinstitution is almost or exactly the same thing as an ektirion depending on the context; the definition of demoinstitution subsets the definition of ektirion.
135. demorevision -> etym: Demos + revise; the process of changing the country's current layout of demoinstitutions.
136. demoadministration -> etym: Demos + administer; the process of running demoinstitutions in a particular consistent way with no current possibility of change.
137. constant -> has nothing to do with demoinstitutions but is a very important number
138. demosuccession -> the process by which one defined Demos overtakes another defined Demos and comes to decide but not fully control the process of demorevision. if there is not democolonialism there may be many demosuccessions. however, the outcome of a demosuccession is separate from and above the outcome of a demorevision, which is something that issues from inside each particular Demos, i.e., contains the things individuals actually vote on. democompetition is the larger account of a daily process of many smaller demosuccessions.
139. democolonialism -> the process by which one plural Demos completely secures control of the process of demorevision and effectively takes ownership of the territory and population within which another Demos lives, allowing it no part in determining demoinstitutions or culture. named by analogy to neocolonialism and the associated process of stripping autonomy from Third-World countries by overwriting everyone who manages their external relations with allies or puppets of a particular global empire
140. anarchism / Anarchism
141. archon / Archon -> not typically used, but very important to discuss as part of the definition of Anarchism; historical definition; definition in religion
142. RDem / relativistic democracy -> a category of molecularized theories of society which properly enter the era of unifying survival, economics, sociality, culture, politics, and government, but which choose to do this by reifying plurality and focusing on unbridgeable gaps between free-floating plural entities as making them fundamentally uncontrollable. "relativistic" in the sense of the universe having no center and all events having to travel at or below the speed of light in space and time to hit other objects; an object in motion not affected by another object keeps independently flying along "relativistically". RDem theories seem like trouble because they seem to bake in war and authoritarian attacks over the top of other populations after leaving no physical method to preemptively influence decisions and prevent bad decisions. Gramscianism, Existentialism, Liberalism, and some Anarchisms tend toward creating RDem. Deng Xiaoping Thought may tend toward RDem as well. Stalin Thought and Trotskyism each tend toward MDem whether they do it well or badly.
143. multitude / The Multitude -> an Anarchist concept that at first sounds like nonsense (see "spaghetti".) but then later you suddenly realize is in a bunch of other theories including alterity theories, Liberalism, and Trotskyism. the origin of the Multitude concept is in people thinking that material boundaries between populations aren't present when in reality they are - Trotskyism thinking the whole entire world is one big unbroken population of workers is the same error as Anarchists talking about The Multitude, it's just a matter of what scale the error is made at
145. multiculturalism -> one of those words which is no problem as far as its surface value but whose overall context for being and connotations baffle the hell out of me. who could be against multiculturalism? and yet, why do we need this word, and what's with everyone talking about it
146. language -> prescriptivist definition; descriptivist definition; plural languages versus post-language; language registers; etc
147. sign
149. significary -> the equivalent of a dictionary or thesaurus which covers all possible connotative definitions of a particular written sign, within reason, up through every meaning which is relatively common or notable though not necessarily the most obscure ones
150. prejudice
151. racism
152. sexism
153. homophobia / homomisia
154. transphobia / transmisia
160. microaggression
161. microinvalidation -> when these are real terms people use, you can see where exactly I got started on eventually creating new monstrosities like "demosuccession", "Everybodyism", and "PeopleWhoMadePeopleRunAwayism". the bright side is that I think that silly words are just as useful as words that aren't silly; my models have room for microaggressions if they have room for Everybodyism
162. microinsult
163. microassault
169. microdisaster / microDeoxysMeteor (obscure) -> an instance of an individual behaving in a problem manner according to a lack of information they could not possibly have known thanks to the limitations of communicating through material physics — a mindless meteor in motion tends to stay in motion.
170. -phobia / -misia
171. PeopleWhoMadePeopleRunAwayism -> a generic category of corrupt ideologies or philosophies that end up making people run away, such as fundamentalist religious sects (the primary thing the term was created to explore). theoretically includes "Stalinism" if such a thing were to actually exist, given the fact some number of people and Trotsky fled the Soviet Union. does not refer to a narrow prejudice such as "homophobia", but specifically to a larger ideology which generates a narrow prejudice such as homophobia. perhaps we are talking about a "metaprejudice"? I don't quite like that term yet but maybe I'll find reasonable justification for it and realize it does have to be added.
172. PeopleWhoMadePeopleRunAwayphobia / PeopleWhoMadePeopleRunAwaymisia
173. PeopleWhoRanAwayphobia / PeopleWhoRanAwaymisia -> a generic category of processes of demographic identities being pushed away from the area of some particular PeopleWhoMadePeopleRunAwayism. coined to explore the difference between targeting particular PeopleWhoMadePeopleRunAwayisms and particular PeopleWhoRanAwayphobias as well as whether either effort is physically possible in a universe full of Vegeta effects.
174. TheseAreTheDefinitionsEveryoneHasToUseionary -> a dictionary that operates according to linguistic prescriptivism or one that only accommodates definitions of words within a single ontology or narrow range of ontologies instead of the full range of possible ontological assignments used in practice
180. system / systemic / structural -> almost every time I read a work by "The US Left" I have no idea what this is actually supposed to refer to. it sounds like it makes sense at first, and you think you understand it, but what really is a system? could anybody explain it materially in terms of what parts or ongoing processes distinguish a "system" of oppression from something that is not a system?
181. monosexism -> the counterpart to biphobia. I do prefer these to the individual-action terms on the level that they are attempting to describe the actions of groups of people, although I honestly really doubt that the actions of groups of people can be neatly described as ideas versus literal material objects. my beef with "colonialism" is that colonialism is not an idea, an oppressive colony is a material object
182. cissexism -> the naturalization of cisgender behavior and "biology"
183. heterosexism -> similar
181. unique -> specific identifiable entity within a sea of free-floating entities; Heidegger had a sillier term for this I do not remember
182. non-unique -> the policy is becoming that grammatical negations use the same Lexeme, but given the unique/non-unique distinction is so absolutely central to Materialist ontology, this will be one exception
190. speciation
191. evolution
     1. common definition
     2. (sciences) progression of any particular physical process through different points in time: stellar evolution (stellar life cycle), evolution of quantum-mechanical systems (development of wave functions and entanglement over time)
     3. (sciences) speciation by way of natural selection; progression of speciation across geologic eons, eras, or periods
     4. (sciences, obscure) emission
     5. (fiction) progression from one growth stage of a virtual pet or fictional Subject-style being to another; similar usage to "stellar evolution", see sense S2
192. 進化（しんか） -> evolution as it is used in the Japanese language
193. species / sp. / spec. / spp. (plural)
194. subspecies / ssp. / subsp. / sspp. (plural) / subspp. (plural)
195. variety / var.
196. forma / form / f.
197. kind -> has been used to describe Pokémon stages; has also been used to confusedly describe creationism
198. clade
200. class -> so many right and wrong definitions
201. worker -> cover different definitions of "working class" in mainstream Marxism-Leninism vs Maoism, etc
202. proletariat / proletarian -> cover "big proletariat" model versus smaller-proletariat models
203. entrepreneur / undertaker -> super often misused to mean investor/capitalist, when it best means director/founder
204. bourgeoisie / bourgeois
205. petty bourgeoisie / petty-bourgeois -> in my opinion a confused and outdated term that has conflated two different classes: Artisans and Careerists
206. Artisan / Artisan type / Artisanal / Artisanize -> a tiny business so small it has absolutely no room for employees
207. Careerist / Careerist / Careerism -> the class of people who survive by seeking out higher-quality Job Slots and insisting "social mobility" is normal
208. Refuse / Refuse class / refusariat (obsolete form) -> the class of people who are persistently never integrated into capitalism/Careerism because there aren't enough Job Slots or aren't the correct ones. becoming less relevant in recent MDem drafts as Careerism has been turning into the main focus
209. Filament / Filamentism -> micro-sized local subpopulation / nameless tiny subpopulation; process of large-scale populational Bauplan stochastically forming through Filaments swapping in and out on an open graph connection
210. structural racism / systemic racism -> specific Sense-term combining L180 systemic + L151 racism. I had this in the S Items but I now think it's better to just when reasonable have Items reference Lexeme Entities
211. chunk competition / chunk-compete
212. spatial slot hierarchy -> very specific mathematically-defined process of individuals claiming slotted resources or spatial positions; can occur in simpler forms with animals in nature
213. Blobonomics
214. Everybodyism -> nameless prejudice against all other individuals as all individuals participate in Careerist competition to shove others out of social slots
215. Populationism -> nameless prejudice against all other populations
217. construct / constructive -> this had a very specific use in earlier MDem versions, where it was used to describe social graphs combining together instead of shoving each other out of things. "molecular" was also sometimes used for this, until I decided that was more obvious to use to refer to everything that happens at small scales instead of specifically things fitting together. as time went on I realized that even if it wasn't wrong that description was a bit too simplistic, and Particle Theory analysis was more critical
219. rank / ranking / pecking order -> common definition; numerical list position; spatial position in spatial slot hierarchy; taxonomic level; military title; others. some people confuse "class" for "rank", such as in terms like "middle class" (middle rank). it is still possible to do Marxism about rank, but the key is you can't confuse the two things. Saiyans have ranks. they have no real social structure except number 1, 2, 3, 100. earth people in Dragon Ball have classes, like capitalists and peasants. rank is all about plurality and relativity, and to overcome rank you have to actually build structure where there wasn't structure.
220. networkism / networkist / networkize -> the notion of modeling capitalism as a stability process of capitalist owners having to solve the physical stability of industrial structures, and stock markets being a process of groups of investors attempting to predict and make money on social stability — unless they are day traders trying to make money on social breakages.
     1. networkism: the system of workers ultimately gaining their pay from the presence of a surrounding Audience, Careerists striving to manufacture more Audience as Directors, and capitalists owning the activity of congregating people into an arbitrarily-created culture-group they will exploit the existence of to earn money
     2. networkize: to tightly connect into the Audience of a particular Director
     3. microcolonialism: old synonym for networkism, used to emphasize the framing of profiting off people being a certain culture that also must be the culture of the old established population that first solidly conquered that slot a while ago. "networkism" and "Careerism" can still have this connotation; those terms are just favored over "microcolonialism".
221. Audience / Audiencize -> because this isn't the standard use of the word, don't put the regular word "audience" here. link to regular word in first definition only
222. Director / Director type / Directorize / Directorization
     1. link to regular word
     2. Director: a skilled expert with the unique ability to create assets that might successfully become capital or attract a large Audience of customers
     3. Directorization: conversion of an owner, Artisan type, or Careerist into a permanent resident expert without the right to pack up the company or take the capital elsewhere
223. Serializer
224. Metaserializer / Franchiser
225. Metafranchiser
230. identity -> process of Being; mathematical graph definition of things being linked together into the same object; mathematical equality comparison between different data objects; operation that does not change a data object (identity transformation); arbitrary list of characteristics that an individual Being has picked up; synonym for demographic; identity politics - "identity and hypocrisy!"
231. graph
     1. common definition
     2. (graph theory) an arrangement of connected points
     3. (graphemics) smallest functional piece of a given writing system, or one of the variations of such units; informal variant for grapheme, glyph
231. relative / relativism -> common definition; family relation; cultural relativism as the study of free floating populational Beings that develop over time - "Sonic is not Shadow", potential building block of historical materialism; pejorative misunderstandings of cultural relativism; various uses of things being relative; definition of words being relative to other words; "Marxism is spatially relative" (relativity); link to relativity
241. ecological fascism -> ecofascism definitions; purported encroachment of "Green Faceism" (gotta retrieve what that even was again)
242. nature / natural
250. empiricism -> it is such a pain point for me that like, philosophy terms will name things like the world is made of alchemy, and as if everything is made of Fire or Water or Light or Darkness, act like it's possible for ways of doing things to be entirely made of "rationalism" or "empiricism" just so they can act powerful over people by pulling this fake gotcha of "wow I told you everything had to be separated into abstract Platonic categories and then I caught you red-handed using a fake category that can't be universally applied Way Too Much in violation of The Alchemical Principle of Moderation!!" and it's so stupid
251. verificationism -> god why are there so many terms... I hate most of what people call traditional philosophy, I really do. on a different note: I am not a logical positivist because verificationism doesn't have room for predictive theoretical models, and in my mind that makes it not science. if you believe this thing you'll get dreadfully stumped by black holes, yet unfortunately black holes are real.
252. logical positivism -> I hear this thrown around so much and each time I increasingly feel like logical positivism and verificationism are fake categories that nobody truly practices and the terms are only tossed out as strawmen when people are confronted with hypotheses or possibilities they don't want to hear. I will get opinionated on this one initial prototype page, yes I will.
270. ego / egoism -> individualist concept of a self; id, ego, and superego; a few definitions
271. individualism -> people say this like it means something but it's like six different philosophies. I accidentally pissed someone off when I was a young adult by not knowing there were six different things called individualism and guessing they were talking about a different one than they were. I thought "individualism" referred to the Existentialist celebration of individuals in things like identity politics movements, efforts against prejudice toward things like the arts and humanities, and "Wackytown" style be-yourself fables. years later after reading a whole bunch of things about different demographics and philosophies I still don't really know what "Western individualism" actually meant or what its opposite might be.
281. dieconomics -> hypothetical study of managing the links between pairs of things (two "houses") as opposed to one thing at a time. di- as in two things, but also by analogy to "dialectic", "dialectical materialism"
282. dipsychology -> hypothetical study of human psychology as primarily driven by relationships between two or more people rather than the development of either of the individual Subjects. this is one of the major reasons Lacanianism believes it has become profound. in reality, the goal is good but the methods are bad. saying Lacanianism is good because it attempts dipsychology is like saying Trotskyism is the correct Leninism because it attempts dieconomics by merely proposing the possibility of a global civilization instead of workers' states fighting each other.
283. diphilosophy -> hypothetical study of doing philosophy in a world where people have multiple philosophies they will always misconstrue any philosophical statement through. approximately the same thing as meta-philosophy, but since being obsessed with "meta-" versions of fields is meta-Marxism's thing, a decent way to hide that you are actually talking about meta-Marxism.
300. Existentialism / Existentialist-Structuralist tradition -> put all of like 20 senses of Existentialism on here because why not
301. existentialism / early existentialism
302. phenomenology -> Husserl's definition (which is the bane of me); scientific definition of reality that rarely uses the word but is the same thing (which I'm fine with)
303. psychoanalysis / psychoanalyst / psychoanalyze / Freudian psychology / Freudian / Jungian / Lacanian -> I think Jung is weirdly discarded these days, which is fair enough but odd when the stuff Lacan says is still so strange
309. schizoanalysis / schizoanalyst
310. primitive Existentialism -> see "ES-strands"
311. entropy Existentialism -> see "ES-strands"
313. morality Existentialism -> see "ES-strands". seems like it's been shown to be synonymous with democulture.
314. free-choice Existentialism -> see "ES-strands"
315. hyper-Liberalism / fractal Liberalism -> see "ES-strands"
316. Difference Existentialism -> see "ES-strands". near-synonymous with intersubjectivity. the more accurate name for this might be "intersubjectivity theories".
318. Prejudice Existentialism -> a seemingly distinct category from Difference Existentialism. Prejudice Existentialism is purely focused on the act of constantly smashing signs in the hope that depriving people of any notion of facts or truth will lead to everyone perceiving reality correctly, although paradoxically Prejudice Existentialists typically claim that it is impossible to see reality through anything but signs and ontological models, which should make their task literally impossible to achieve for even a second. a rather intellectually dishonest field of philosophy in my opinion. if it were true that it is potentially a prejudice to call basically anything a fact, it would also be true that reality is nothing more than a bloody chunk war where whoever wins is automatically correct for the rest of history. Prejudice Existentialists have no way to actually disprove that claim, so they just resort to saying that acknowledging it to be true is Evil and equivocating everything else to be equally true is Good. I really hate the notion that morality is the only thing that's true. because first of all, how do you even know if morality is correct or real if nothing else is, how can you use it as your grounding? the problem they always run into in real life is that people all over the real world reject morality, and then when they point out prejudice as the fundamental sin that is the most obvious thing that makes any statement wrong nobody actually listens or cares. how do they know that thinking anybody cares about the concept of "prejudice" isn't a prejudice that makes their own theory obsolete?
319. right-Existentialism -> the manifestation of various common themes of Existentialism within Toryism, right-Liberalism, and other such ideologies, seemingly forming the scaffolding of "conservative" ideologies the same way regular center-Existentialism forms the inner structure of center-Liberalism and progressive ideologies. it's really all the same Existentialism, but this is the same thing being used to serve questionable ends.
320. filter / filtrate / filtration -> literal grating; censorship process in linguistic communication; meta-Marxism definition of process that orders people into movement Bauplan
321. Washington's filter -> the process by which a Liberal republic builds up certain consensuses and various layers of experts or constitution-partisans who are allowed to administer the consensuses, supposedly all in order to determine what's true with regard to living in a republic, but filters out people who don't understand how the Liberal republic works
322. Lenin's filter -> as soon as I noticed this thing in one of Lenin's writings I immediately had to throw a name onto it just because it was so unusual compared to any non-Marxist writing about movements. Lenin's filter is the process of taking a coarse movement of people and building up correct answers, procedures, strategies, and movement shapes such that the movement improves itself and becomes a party-nation. according to some Maoists, the process of operating Lenin's filter is synonymous with the party itself, and I'd say that is broadly correct but I still prefer to label a filter as the process that creates the party and the Bauplan as the shape of the party-nation
323. rhizome / the rhizome / Rhizome -> I've taken to always calling this thing like a proper name just because schizoanalysts insist it's totally uncountable — okay then, people don't form "a" rhizome, people form Rhizome. this thing may technically be schizoanalysis' filter, as well as the filter of a number of other Existentialist periods. as a filter, Rhizome is the process that magnetically pulls together anybody who is suffering into one big slime mold that then crushes everything in its path. I find this harder to dispute than some other models but I don't quite like it because of how mystical it is.
324. Trotsky's filter -> theoretically exists inasmuch as Trotsky has a different movement-building strategy from Stalin. at one time I heard a Trotskyist group very much try to explain it, so I presume that it exists
327. Village filter -> this is approximately the same thing as networkism, but not exactly the same, because its context is meant to be social instead of economic. it's when people sort away from each other into separate non-interacting groups or "villages" of people.
328. Goku's filter / Potter's filter -> one of the most crude filters there is. this is the filter where Good people are defined as humans who are part of the population and Bad people are punished, and all the Good people come together to punish all the Bad people. I don't like this filter. it makes it very hard to distinguish the mathematical shape of progressive movements from the shape of racism, xenophobia, Colonial Exploitation, bigoted monotheisms, or the anti-mental-illness processes described by Deleuze and Guattari or Foucault. this filter is the thing that makes me outright dislike the concept of morality and feel like we need to use other methods to avoid morality ever turning into a justification for atrocities
329. Lattice model / The Lattice -> this is either MDem's filter or at least another mathematical transform very adjacent to filters. it's the process of taking isolated islands and linking them, going through a "search for quantum lions and avoid quantum leopards" process until people aren't isolated and are safe from being surrounded by threats. this concept can apply to many different scales from very small ones to very large ones, such it could be used to diagram going from isolated individuals all the way up to a Communist International. why is it a lattice? because it's a graph of nodes, and before meta-Marxism the idea of using graph theory to describe movements wasn't heard of as far as I know. final note: the Lattice model is different from Rhizome in that it explicitly acknowledges the possibility of many tiny plural "rhizomes" and that as separate objects they may not inherently want to come together. it's also different in that it recognizes that every tiny "rhizome" can be a different Social-Philosophical System, only deciding where to go based on what it actually believes and in no way magnetically pulled toward anything without deliberately following the Lattice model as a guide.
330. Bauplan -> building structural plan; animal body shape; in meta-Marxist usage, the physical shape of a movement or society
331. Particle Theory / particle theory (old) / molecular theory (old) -> Lexeme for meta-Marxist usage, in case this is also a "normal" phrase. a mathematically-describable arrangement of people arranged into a graph, as it applies to society models or movements. sometimes a synonym for Bauplan when it describes the whole picture of something. in a few cases, Particle Theory connotatively suggests the local graph structures inside a larger Bauplan.
360. degree -> mathematical measurement; extent or extreme; certificate of academic expertise
361. moderation / moderate (v.) / moderate (adj.)
     1. common definition
     2. the process of regulating the position of something after it has been ranked on an artificial abstract-quality based scale
     3. forum oversight or censorship -> isn't it telling that people would use "moderate" for this? it really does show how Existentialism is Liberalism is Platonism is alchemy
368. absolute / Absolute / absolutism / absolutist
369. extreme / extremist -> absolute weasel word. the strangest thing is I can't think of the exact antonym: it isn't center, moderate, middle-ground, normal, reasonable, equatorial. I think in an Existentialist perspective the antonym may actually be "tolerant". "extreme" conceals the concept of totalization and the contrast to a morality-based view of individual tolerance of absolutely anything and everything from other individuals or groups unless it is absolutely hazardous. (previously I had this at L58, but it belongs much more nicely next to degree)
370. alchemy
371. quality / qualify / qualifier -> it's remarkable how Platonism is not necessarily distinguishable from alchemy. or how the way normal people talk about ideologies and philosophies seems indistinguishable from this Platonism-alchemy.
372. idea / Idea
373. 'pataphysics -> I'm pretty sure the SCP wiki uses it slightly wrong. pataphysics seems to be the use of creativity and nonsense-jamming to uncover problems in ontologies including things easily recognized as metaphysics. [210] it also seems like certain chapters of MDem are basically doing the same thing as pataphysics in the way they start with strange associations and throw in total curve balls to get everyone off their established scripts and get them to actually think. Alfred Jarry called it 'pataphysics, I just call it "meta-ontology". in a sense, it's like the SCP wiki has to use a wrong definition because the Foundation is all about containing things and keeping things normal, but 'pataphysics is actually about using such insane strategies to solve things it would go against the Foundation's typical protocols. "Admonition" was a missed opportunity to define 'pataphysics utterly correctly yet make it this bizarre anomalous almost-scary thing that's not just philosophy and is nearly forbidden most of the time
374. metaphysics
380. chemistry
     1. common definition
     2. chemistry of relationships
     3. metaphor for history and movements being material objects with structure
381. threshold
     1. sill-sized doorstep
     2. mathematical / ecological definitions
390. religion -> favor every serious definition before getting into joke definitions — although if they are popular or firmly historically-established for even a small group of people, joke definitions become okay. joke definition example: religion - a system of rituals designed to prevent people from investigating and thinking about material reality and all its deeper horrors beyond their current comprehension - see "opium of the masses", The German Ideology
391. cult -> a localized religion for a specific local god or religious ontology; corrupt local religion - see "body without organs" / "Escape"
392. sect / sectarian / sectarianism -> category: concrete association process, noun-based
393. sacred -> religious status; figurative sense of something which is taken for granted as a core assumption grounding people to their current ontology of reality. ("my god!" implies God is the standard for what is unsurprising to be real; Wings of Fire's "by the trees!" is one of the few things that genuinely captures the same purpose)
394. worship / idol worship / idolatry -> religious ritual; figurative sense of "idolatry" toward some particular cause
395. eschatology -> I am so damn tired of Lacanians and Western-Marxists and shit trying to say Marxism fills the role of eschatology. if you understand the fundamental role of religion and most theories of morality as justifying why one group is better than another you would know that if Marxism really were eschatology it would be doomed.
396. invisible pink unicorn
397. garage dragon / dragon in my garage / invisible garage dragon
398. flying spaghetti monster / FSM
399. god / God -> I hated allocating Items for religion until I thought of instead making them Lexemes. now I am laughing about the probably 200 Senses God is going to have. most likely more than any other single Lexeme. unless "we/our" ended up containing a definition of "we" for every single Social-Philosophical System of people believing a philosophy and assuming everyone else has the capacity to believe it.
400. Leninism / Marxism-Leninism
     1. any and all sects of Leninism
     2. (Trotskyism) Trotskyism; see "Trotskyism" for further claimed definitions of Leninism
     3. (mainstream Marxism-Leninism) Stalin Thought to the exclusion of Trotskyism - as used in the form "Marxism-Leninism"
401. Bolshevism
402. Marxism
404. Trotskyism -> every variation of Trotskyism, so I don't have to put it on Leninism
405. communism / Communism / Communist
406. socialism / Socialism / socialist
500. tag -> common definition; HTML tag; xml tag; mediawiki pseudo HTML tag; mediawiki edit label; etc
599. (... HTML tags)
600. relativity / relativistic -> special relativity; general relativity; earlier relativity models; separate term from "relative/relativism", but ok to link the two
601. predict / prediction / predictive
602. stochastic / stochastic process
603. unistochastic
604. orthostochastic -> I have no idea what this even is yet
605. observable -> noun
606. beable -> yeah, I started out using Lexemes to try to group equivocated concepts but there's a point where I just started recording fine-grained slang/jargon forms the way Lexemes are "supposed" to work
607. emergeable
608. indivisible -> has a special definition regarding non-Markovian stochastic processes
609. unitary
610. field -> data parameter; area of study; mathematical object in physics. on most but not all pages on this wiki it's the second
611. symmetry
612. invariance
613. gauge -> gauge transformation; gauge boson; gauge potential
614. quaternion
615. vector -> mathematical object; disease carrier
616. tensor
617. placeholder -> to be used for testing Lexemes, but also literally the concept of placeholders
618. matrix / matrices / The Matrix -> mathematical object; false reality
620. emergence / weak emergence / strong emergence
621. ergodicity -> I may or may not have used this slightly wrong in various v4 MDem scraps, saying ergodicity when I meant emergence. in my defense, when you see the world really literally and tend to conceptualize everything through a kind of non-well-founded set theory where a group of things that quacks like a duck is a duck, it can be hard to understand how things arranging into a particular consistent shape doesn't also "inevitably" lead to emergence. it does lead to emergence sometimes, just not in every single case.
622. pattern / repeated pattern -> I say "repeated pattern" a ton, and I always mean it relatively literally. normal people might call the same notion of repeated patterns ten different things. they would look at mathematical objects consistently forming the same data structure and say "proper class". etc
623. superposition -> general mathematical object of multiple possibilities considered at once; quantum superposition
660. metagame / The Meta / metagame (V) / metagaming -> real-world surrounding staging-ground of how different people play a competitive game; figurative use of finding the best ways to play a game, similar to minmaxing but arguably includes the broader concepts of creativity and finding ways to solve many different goals - like if we have a Dragon Ball simulation you could find the most optimized way to play Gogeta, or you could find the best possible way to succeed with Tarble. in my mind both of those are "metagaming".
661. role-playing (N,A) / roleplay (V) / roleplaying / experience taking ([211] [212]) / live-action roleplaying / LARPing -> several connotations. dungeons & dragons as terrible gnostic alternate reality leading people away from the one true God; reasonable thought experiment activity of understanding different possiblities; what you arguably do when you read any book, by reconstructing the characters' inner experiences; thinking that putting on an identity equals action when it doesn't
662. Gnosticism / Gnostic / gnosticism -> make this a different term from "agnostic"/"gnostic", because this has its own conflicting connotations. to some people it's just a rival religion, to others it's basically the devil
663. ??
664. speedrun / speedrunning
665. lateral thinking / thinking with portals -> I think it's so stupid how every guide to jobs and business is like, lateral thinking! lateral thinking! but if you really truly have lateral thinking you turn the entire thing sideways and realize the inherent contradictions and paradoxes of capitalism that make it eat itself, and once you've thought so laterally you turn against capitalism they really don't like that. then they're like, no, don't you go thinking laterally, there's only one way to do things. this seems to be the heart of that one reactionary video I saw where the guy I can't remember was really mad about the concept of speedrunning. he was like, I hate that people are spending their time speedrunning, it's definitely a synonym of a crumbling civilization when people are going around the real way to do things and looking for shortcuts. and I thought it was unbelievably stupid, because the point of speedruns is basically to learn about the physics of the particular game engine and do science experiments to see if there are different ways those artificial physics could be applied technologically. speedrunning is basically a fictional process of research and development. you're shooting your civilization in the foot by getting rid of all the scientists and inventors. and why would you do it? because you think pure numerical ranking and graph placement produces stuff rather than labor and creativity. you're King Vegeta. but he can't build a fucking scouter and has to buy it from another country. all because he doesn't like speedrunning, but speedrunning is lateral thinking.
666. Satan / Satanism / Lucifer
     1. bible definition - literally described as the opposer of God
     2. (Toryism) Satanic: anybody or any thing theorized to secretly be plotting Evil conspiracies to prevent everybody from joining the one correct human social circle and knowing the narrow set of behaviors and cultural associations which are Good. a wrecker who prevents realizing the Material System of world Christianity.
     3. Satanism: a code of morality and moral Right designed around social connection to Satan, taken as entirely figurative and poetic
     4. (Dragon Ball usage) Satan: someone who tells a lot of lies and is very popular - see book of Revelation
696. post-language -> don't know if other theories have other definitions of this word. in MDem entries post-language refers to a kind of communication which eradicates all mental associations and has a hard requirement to be equally understandable to any individual who reads it anywhere regardless of what that particular individual believes words to mean. in some cases this can lead to wordy, absurdly-precise descriptions which put readers to sleep and are equally unintelligible to everybody. art is almost always written in language and hardly ever in post-language. any nonfiction statement posted to the internet almost invariably ends up having to be expressed in post-language. "logical fallacy" and "cognitive bias" guidelines very frequently force perfectly understandable language into stilted and unnatural post-language: somebody says "there are two options" not intending to rule out others, and a pedant comes along forcing a correction to "there are at least two options", "there are two major options", or "there are two options but I was not saying those were the only ones" (these explicit disclaimer clauses seem to be one of the most common forms of post-language). the "ours groups" chapter is very deliberately and satirically written in post-language.
697. nonsense -> oddly enough, has several jargon definitions. nonsense mutation; non-sense (Lacanianism); others?
698. bull -> I'm hesitant to quite put "bullshit" in the first 2000 Lexemes, although I don't see any reason it shouldn't be added after that; we've gotta contain our swearwords somewhere before we ban them, and what better place than here? oh well, now this term can also contain senses of "bullcrap".
699. spaghetti / spaghetti code / ontological spaghetti -> literal food; difficult to understand code; completely meaningless-sounding plate of unfamiliar philosophy words that never seems to get easier to understand (meta-Marxist term first used to mock Lacanianism). similar to "word salad", but with the difference that it strongly appears to actually mean something due to its proper lexical structure of signs and statements until the points at which all the self-referentiality and insular forms of meaning render it impossible to actually comprehend or explain to anybody. ontological spaghetti is twisted and woven into a neat yet unexplainable structure just like spaghetti noodles.
700. narrative -> history; legend; fantasy book; of or relating to dramatization techniques; slanted sociophilosophy; fascist rhetoric; single official record of history everybody is fighting over; etc. this word is an adventure in itself
701. alien -> how many different rhetorical meanings are there in science fiction, there are a lot. also: foreigner
702. unicorn -> first I think of the usage of something that nearly never appears, then of the notion that unicorns are 'wonderful', then the notion that they are overrated
703. dragon -> like lions these creatures have multiple readings as monsters or as strong beings of courage. monster; courage; Satanic anathema; word reused for arbitrary new creatures; plurality, diversity, outright used in scheme of Media Representation (Dragon Masters)
704. greed
705. corporate greed -> I hate this phrase because it is in nearly every critique of capitalism indicating in the space of one two-word phrase that the critique is bullshit
706. hero -> has fairly common pejorative usage dismissing its possibility; also, the concept that reactionaries can have heroes and they certainly aren't other people's heroes
707. villain -> driving arts experts crazy by including descriptivist accounts of fans downgrading villains to antagonists and explaining the hell out of them. I love it because as much as some people are total beginners at writing, it does show they're thinking about things and questioning the assumptions of real or fictional societies
708. immortality -> why is this word 2/3 of the time a backdoor to sneak Buddhism and its model of the individual into Christian or progressive-philosophical discourse. the moment before we discuss fiction people have ordinary comprehensible definitions of what life and death are. the moment we start talking about "immortality" suddenly everyone on earth believes in Buddhism and thinks life and death are each totally different things from what they usually are.
709. immortal -> separate Lexeme which contains the concept in Buddhism sloppily called this when it's something different
710. verisimilitude / verisimilitudinous / verisimilar -> very relevant when analyzing fiction. why are Marxist analyses of fiction possible when in theory it should be that fiction can be anything at all and a great number of authors do not know anything about Marxism? because of verisimilitude. people create fictional ontologies by superficially copying real-life ontologies, which can amusingly result in fiction containing ontologies that are specifically realistic enough they provide for the possibility of Bolshevism.
717. diegetic
718. metanarrative -> in my scrap about Vegeta and Asriel I realized there were multiple possible definitions of metanarrative. so here we go.
776. bookman's bluff -> when an author tries to claim that the story goes together and makes sense on some level even though it doesn't. [213] can turn into Calvinball if done really well to continuously expand mistakes into believable lore; can turn into a scottcon if done badly.
777. signifier mad libs -> when an audience fails to ask what a fiction or non-fiction work is actually trying to communicate and begins carelessly filling in all the nouns, verbs, and adjectives with their own meanings
778. Calvinball -> game created by Calvin & Hobbes; metaphor for serialized writing
779. retcon
780. lore
781. continuity
782. canon / canonical
783. scottcon -> when Scott Cawthon writes a story beginning with one underlying narrative or none and leaves a bunch of unclear clues as to what it is but then comes back and "solves the mystery" by assigning all the surface manifestations of things to new meanings. basically a form of bookman's bluff that occurs specifically in the case of serialized or ongoing stories. the only reason this isn't the same thing as Calvinball is Calvinball implies the author is carefully following rules and creating consistency rather than strictly making rules up as they go along.
784. Wings of Fire book 1 - qww
785. Wings of Fire book 2 - qww
786. Wings of Fire book 3 - qww
787. Wings of Fire book 4 - qww
788. Wings of Fire book 6 - qww
789. Wings of Fire book 5 - qww
790. Wings of Fire book 6 - qww
791. Wings of Fire book 7 - qww
792. Wings of Fire book 8 - qww
793. Wings of Fire book 9 - qww
794. Wings of Fire book 10 - qww
795. Wings of Fire book 11 - qww
796. Wings of Fire book 12 - qww
797. Wings of Fire book 13 - qww
798. Wings of Fire book 14 - qww
799. wild west -> it is so bizarrely common to use this phrase to specifically describe a time before things were well ordered and when they flowed around chaotically without thinking about the fact this ends with the creation of territories and the crystallization of particular internal ontologies that begin to function like laws of physics. Sonic the Hedgehog adaptatons were the wild west! but that was because the arrangement of characters, objects, and processes in the Sonic universe had not become consistent, or simply because the arrangement of real-life corporations producing the Sonic series and arrangement of people and teams inside them had not become consistent.
800. timeline
     1. common definition
     2. different scifi definitions
     3. many-worlds model
     4. material-history
     5. colloquial usage: observed series of real-life events on the news, which is usually stated to be "the worst timeline", or occasionally "the best timeline"
801. past -> recorded material-history; hypothesized origins, as with folk etymology; memories of a different social structure taken as a time period, as with nostalgia; partisan outright-fabricated version of reality said to exist a while ago - this ties into inflammatory definitions of "revisionist history"
802. present
803. future -> in fictional models where the future literally exists, it is effectively just a kind of (material-)history no different from the past; there are also reasonable hypotheses that the future might not exist except in the relativistic sense of areas of the universe going along faster or slower
810. ??
811. Amalthean interpretation / Amalthean
812. Beagelian interpretation / Beagelian / Beagelize

L900 - L999 meaningful names

900. we / our -> the real version of we/our, with every possible significance
     1. most basic and common definition
     2. (Existentialism, center-Liberalism) every individual human being on earth in unison
     3. each of every local set of connected members of particular separate groups in unison
     4. every individual human being on earth in parallel but separately
     5. each of every local set of connected members of particular separate groups in parallel but separately
     6. the followers of any particular ideology to the exclusion of anybody outside that ideology, possibly presented as the only human beings who exist; may be synonymous with a particular localized Left's definition of "The Left" / "progressivism" as a national-scale phenomenon
     7. (mainstream Marxism-Leninism) members of the proletariat and the greater subpopulation of Communist allies
     8. (right-Liberalism, Toryism) used ironically to mock Bolshevism by suggesting all "I" statements have morphed into "we" statements said by the nation as a unified whole. see Anthem (if I remember right); see "socialicizing the people"; see r/AccidentalCommunism
     9. (MDem) used ironically to mock Liberalism by suggesting that an accurate "we" statement within the conditions of Liberalism should be hyper-pluralized to reflect the real-world situation of "we" never belonging to a single unified group of humans and always belonging to separate localized groups. see "ours groups" entry
901. we / ours -> the nightmare hyper-pluralized version of we/our depicted in "ours groups", used to show "how" to inflect it in different situations if the Lexeme template can accommodate this. look over and adequately finish the inflections for all 900 previous Lexemes before attempting this one. that will probably provide clues of how to do this
902. they (impersonal pronoun)
903. they (personal pronoun) -> to be used for character Signifiers
904. he (personal pronoun) -> to be used for character Signifiers
905. she (personal pronoun) -> to be used for character Signifiers
906. pronoun
     1. common definition - a part of speech which is substituted for another noun
     2. any descriptive noun which takes the place of another common noun or name - impersonal pronoun
     3. preferred pronoun
     4. (Toryism) supposedly improper or unexpected attempt to prescribe language usage; see "politics", "heresy", "freedom (Existentialism)"
907. it -> to be used for fictional object / character Signifiers
908. 私（わたし）（代名詞） -> to be used for character Signifiers
909. あたし（代名詞）
910. 俺（オレ）（代名詞） / オラ（代名詞）
911. 僕（ぼく）（代名詞） -> honestly I've always been confused why there are two male pronouns but not two female pronouns
912. 俺様（オレさま）（代名詞） / I think there are equivalents
913. わし（代名詞） -> this is the old people pronoun isn't it? that's what I half remember
917. comrade (impersonal pronoun) -> in practice, mainly used to refer to audiences of Marxist texts; still, this can technically go in the pronouns section for some Marxist theorists who fit the category or get addressed as "Comrade —"
926. Joseph / José
     1. a general-use name
     2. name used in the Christian bible
     3. Joseph as Stalin-follower name
927. Martin
     1. a general-use name
     2. (unattested) Martin as phenomenologist name
     3. Martin as schizophrenia-(schizoanalysis-term) -> Petscop, Tapers
928. Felix
     1. a general-use name
     2. Felix or Guattari as schizoanalyst name
929. ??
     1. a general-use name
     2. Deleuze as schizoanalyst name
930. Theodore / Theo
     1. a general-use name
     2. Theodore as center-Liberal name
931. Michael / Mike
     1. a general-use name
     2. name used in the Christian bible
     3. Mike as Bakuninist name
932. Peter / Pete
     1. a general-use name
     2. name used in the Christian bible
     3. Peter as Kropotkinist name
939. Karl / Carl as Marxist name
940. Leo / Lev as Trotskyist name
941. Rosa / Rose as Trotskyist name
942. Greg as Trotskyist name
949. Newton / Newtonian -> classical physics
950. Einstein / Einsteinian -> relativistic physics
952. Everett / Everettian -> please just say many-worlds. this isn't one of those terms that makes me angry but, the opacity
953. Lagrange / Lagrangian -> mathematical object or operation; aren't there also other Lagrange things named for the same guy. yes, there are Lagrangian multipliers, and Lagrangian several other things
954. Hamilton / Hamiltonian -> mathematical object or operation; equivocates with Alexander Hamilton depending on the context
960. Gramsci / Gramscian
961. Marcuse / Marcusean
965. maybe some theorist names which really need inflections? Gramsci/Gramscian/Gramscianism, Ted Grant/??/??, etc
966. 怪獣（かいじゅう） -> "monster" as defined in the Japanese language. continue SPoV, but only with faction-meanings that would conceivably be sensical and recognizable to a native Japanese speaker: faction-meanings might include big kaiju in rubber-suit shows versus small kaiju in animation, etc.
976. Vegeta (impersonal pronoun) -> half-jokingly, half-seriously, but rather extensively used in MDem 5.2 drafts
977. ドラゴンボール / Dragon Ball -> category: work citation phrase; work citations dictionary (qww). I considered having two separate Lexemes but for citation-phrase entries there is just no good reason for that when the lemma field and Senses can both be localized into multiple "real" languages
978. ドラゴンボール超 / ドラゴンボールスーパー / Dragon Ball Super -> work citations dictionary (qww)
983. Clara / Klara -> this name is in like, every story about robot kids
     1. a general-use name
     2. Clara as used in The Sandman
     3. Clara as used in Five Nights at Freddy's
     4. Klara as used in Klara and the Sun
983. Trotsky / Trotskyist / Trotskyite -> for covering the difference between "Trotskyite conspiracy" and "Trotskyism"
984. Stalin / Stalinist / Stalinism / Stalin follower / Stalin-follower -> for covering the difference between "Stalinism" and "Stalin Thought"
985. Zinoviev / Zinovievism / Zinovievist / Grigori Zinoviev levels of tired and done -> MDem term for Trotskyite-conspiracy ideologies; historically, also used to mean other things which would be worth recording here
989. Urvogel -> Archaeopteryx's common name. separate lexeme because it could refer to different objects than A. lithographica.
990. Archaeopteryx lithographica / A. lithographica / Archaeopteryx sp. / Archaeopteryx
991. Tyrannosaurus rex / T. rex / Tyrannosaurus sp. / Tyrannosaurus / T-Rex / T-rex
992. Lithographica -> link to Items for Sun Wukong, undirected graph, and A. lithographica. doesn't have contrasting definitions, but as it's a name for the project gets a special status that way
999. Linnaeus / L. -> Lexeme for "L." citation placed after binomial names, as in Pica pica (Linnaeus, 1758) or Hyacinthoides italica (L.)
1000. plurality / plural -> category: static process term (concrete-noun-based)

L1001 - L2000 meaningful numbers

1004. four as Trotskyist number / etc
1007. seven as number of power or chaos / etc
1017. 17 as secret debug mode number / etc
1027. 27 as designated number of the process of Being - see Being and Time (1927) / etc
1033. 33 as conspiracy-theory number / etc
1042. 42 as number of cosmic significance / etc
1088. 88 as Nazi symbolism / etc
1099. 99 as maximized number / etc
1101. 101 as number of crash course / etc
1137. 137 as particle physics number / etc -> nobody knows what it really is but we do know it's in many equations
1146. 146 as number of Lexeme: namespace / etc
1147. 147 as number of Lexeme talk: namespace / etc
1280. 1280 (symbolic number) -> hospital room in which William Afton undergoes very bad NDE
1326. 18326 as asparagus number / etc
1350. 1350 as racist conspiracy theory / etc
1413. 413 as coincidentally repeated birthday / etc
1488. 1488 as Nazi symbolism / etc
1532. 1532 as birth of Machiavellianism / etc
1616. 616 as number of Evil / etc
1666. 666 as number of "the opposer" / 666 as number of Evil / etc
1845. 1845 as number of base-to-superstructure relationships, approximate date of The German Ideology / etc
1882. 1882 as number of literary ambiguity / etc
1917. 1917 as year of Russian Revolution / etc
1940. 1940 as sad but expected defeat / etc
1941. 1941 as official beginning of World War II / etc
1953. 1953 as beginning of the end / etc
1977. 9000 as dub mandela effect / etc
1983. 1983 as year of deadly bite / etc
1984. 1984 as year of thought control / etc
1987. 1987 as year of disfiguring bite / etc
1991. 1991 as end of Soviet Union / etc
1992. 1992 (symbolic number) -> year after 1991 used in a symbolic sense of "life goes on"/"undefeatable"
1997. 1997 as game release date / etc

L2000 - L2200 "nimi toki pona"

The first two hundred or so Lexemes past L2000 are set aside for the full set of toki pona words in common use.
There is no particular plan to include toki ma, but if there is ever a day somebody is entering Item labels in toki ma there could be a range set aside for it then.

2003. 👍 / pona
2004. ♾️ / ale
2100. (... "nimi")

L2200 - L3000 works to be analyzed

2279. Losing Earth: A Recent History (Rich 2019; citation)

Unsorted Lexemes

• egoism
• individualism
• meta-ontologically sound / meta-ontological soundness -> a statement is meta-ontologically sound when it would be recognized as true by anyone in any ideological faction or interest-having population of people which has a high school education and does not believe blatantly false statements. those are a little hard to find for Toryism, of course, but educated Tories do exist; they're a bit scary because they see all the evidence that progressives point to without being able to deny it, and then spin that factual information as bad to protect some pre-defined set of interests like "my family" or "my socially-linked several-state-sized reactionary subpopulation of White people". the good news is that a lot of statements by Tories fail to be meta-ontologically sound even if they're based on lists of true facts because there are reasons they blatantly cannot be recognized as true by other ideologies.
• slider-speak -> this didn't have its own term in MDem drafts until very very recently. for a while I called it generalized alchemy, or metaphysics, or mistaking the ability to create adjectives for reality. I still think those all fit fine. but we need to really stop and characterize this thing at length so we genuinely see how weird it is.
• stealth activism -> this is a totally stupid term for a reasonable thing. the definition I heard almost reduced it down to taking over structures and Each Individual In Parallel Culturing Better. which is... very Gramscian. it may be necessary and even effective but my one issue is I wish nobody would use the word activism for it. it's like. sure, you can do that. but there eventually comes a point where you're preserving particular oppressive countable Cultures for the hell of it and committing to take the steering wheel of the oppression bus and run it a little less bad, while — here is the real problem that overshadows any other concern — you're part of an overall national population which by its own existence justifies torching other people-groups in an act of self-defense murder just because the national population exists. self-defense genocide exists now. (even though it did exist in 1800, I know.) do you know what kind of atom-thick hair edge Gramscianism is operating on? do people even know that. one day you can be doing ""stealth activism"" and the next day the people you barely shifted over to win one issue could be torching you too, because two different swaths of stealth-activists for different issues ended up on different sides of the Torching Unamericans divide where only so many people fit in the core group of people truly allowed to live. as time goes on I increasingly feel like Gramscianism is an elite ideology and it's not really for the people who actually get hurt by Toryism or "fascism". why do you need Gramscianism if you already fit into institutions well enough to infiltrate them?
• cultural context -> this phrase kills me because I feel like it is used for ten different things and every time people say it they're using it to get out of distinguishing those things from each other. Foucault used it to describe a stage of development of class society, with actual structures and territory-owners. a Deltarune video I listened to used it to describe people living in one US state instead of another, literally just the geographical region people live in and the weather and climate they had experiences about. see why it's not actually a very clear thing? people are conditioned to think populations are made out of culture and culture can easily be used to distinguish populations but then when they describe what culture is they're often describing things that come almost strictly before culture per-se.
• military-cultural complex -> this is what has existed since the Cold War. this is what I have been trying to get at with descriptions of all socially-linked groups of people generating The State to protect the sheer existence of their socially-linked group of friends.
• Herculean task
• Sisyphean task
• Minosian task -> a task so bad you lock it away
• Promethean task -> "something you know is the right thing to do but you still get punished for it"
• Odyssean task -> task that "should have been simple but everything goes wrong in the worst ways making it insanely long"
• Orphean task -> when you are doomed to fail for the same reasons you are desperate to succeed
• solidarity -> the more I read about this word the more it sounds to me like it's a question rather than an answer. it began around the time of the French Revolution but every single person trying to create a new theory of how to build society defined it a bit differently. I really think solidarity is just a word more than it's a concept. to actually achieve proletarian solidarity you need to define new much more specific concepts like filtration
• recursion -> fractal process of some kind; programming usage; specific cybernetics use
• world party -> pros of Bordigism: actually talks about patterns of party operation which are oddly specific. cons of Bordigism: I don't have the slightest idea what any of these things are.
• essentialism
• anti-essentialism -> one of the better theories for understanding human individuals themselves rather than whole populations
• strategic essentialism -> a particular concept of benign nationalism used in context of national independence from global empire, as in India. I am trying so hard not to say the words "culture", "colonial", or "postcolonial" because I feel like that cluster of concepts has muddied up absolutely everything and made every single struggle people are trying to get through across the world harder. why did we all decide people were made of culture rather than being made of people and populations. why did we do that.
• strategic anti-essentialism -> George Lipsitz (b.1947). the act of resisting membership in a particular restrictive Social-Philosophical System of culture by expressing the practices of a different Social-Graph System of culture. see: Satanism and Gnosticism, wiccans and pagan revival, schizoanalysis, United States otaku.
• agent -> already used to describe the concept of Group Subjects in slightly obscure biology/ecology research
• solidarity -> original definition of Third World proletarian subpopulations standing together against all owning classes; vulgarized definition where it has been co-opted into the entirely different idea of Existentialist individuals throughout multiple First World countries standing together because they are The Subject. this word is like, the day that Marxism absolutely died because Marxists ceased being aware that the First World was weaponizing the notions of "empathy" and "community" to defend all scales of chunk competition and crush empathy, community, and solidarity alike.
• denial of coloniality -> way better phrasing than trying to turn every word for empire into a word for prejudices in people's heads
• The West -> it's always been really weird to me people say this. it always weirdly feels as if people passively acknowledge the existence of a British Empire after the British Empire.
• The East
• Filamentocracy -> add to "Filament"
  • democulture is the class ideology of Filamentocracy. that's just it. that's why people believe in democulture and Goku's filter
• intersubjectivity
• Market Society -> this came up in MDem v4.3 and kind of fell off as a major topic although it very much stayed a term. near synonym for primitive Existentialism but focuses more on the notion of isolation. coined to mock the term "market economy" by pointing out what economies really are: society itself. socioeconomies.
• [S2] Kirby is a metaphor for humanity / Kirby is the quintessential Subject -> really funny copypasta [214] [215] somebody seems to have dreamed up while up into the morning unable to sleep, I mean that's my injection of my own experience but yeah. from a Polygon video? I was just trying to find the definition of "bookman's bluff" and here we are
• free-floating -> add to "free"; very similar usage to an object being "knocked free" or "wrested free"
• constructive process -> related to "construct" as is also used as a verb
• destructive process
• nationogenesis -> the slow or quick assembly of individuals within an existing national population into a new nation and spatially-unique realized Bauplan. the reason this "needed" a new word is that it can happen with people of the same ethnic group and religion and who are overall seemingly the same group of people in every way, yet who spontaneously begin drifting into totally new groups of people thanks to the news station they listen to, their incomplete understanding of Leninism, or some other factor that would be unexpected to most people
• postification / post- / post-ify -> not used many times in v5.2 in favor of returning to plainer language, but the concept is always there in basically every chapter
• physics as equalling factical systems; physics as relativistic causality exchange
• thought / think -> logical process Lexeme
• modal realism: all hypothetically possible worlds are technically real. David Lewis.
• economy / socioeconomy
• socioeconomy, sociophilosophy, socioempire, sociocurrency
• rival / rivalrous -> I forget why I added this. it had something to do with Creative Commons and "non-rivalrous goods" and some killer analogy I'd gotten from that vaguely related to chunk competition or graph economics but I forget the exact connection I made. I think it was something like, when everyone lives in rivalrous houses, and has to pay for them with rivalrous jobs, and it's so easy to totally slip past anyone else's attention because people have to "spend" their attention on one thing or another, it's hard for anything to really actually be non-rivalrous. populations are rivalrous, countable Cultures are rivalrous, physical individuals are rivalrous. you have to overcome all of that just to create a non-rivalrous good