deleted by creator
Engineer/Mathematician/Student. Iām not insane unless Iām in a schizoposting or distressing memes mood; I promise.
deleted by creator
Well actually itās the other way around. The reason imaginary numbers were invented was to solve a problem weād been crying over for centuries.
Then, as in most cases, solving one problem opens the door to millions of other problems like why in the fuck does the universe use these imaginary numbers we made up to solve cube roots?
Why is i a core part of the unit circle with like ei*pi ? āOh thatās because i is just perpendicular to the real number lineā ?! Say that sentence again, how the fuck did we go from throwing sharp sticks to utterly deranged sentences like that? More importantly why do utterly deranged sentences like that accurately describe our universe and what is the next ludicrous math concept weāre going to discover is integral to the function of the universe?
āThe Yellow Wallpaperā
Itās written as journal entries by a woman who may or may not have been insane before she got locked in an asylum or possibly just a room in her house by her husband. Thereās a woman in the wallpaper who creepily crawls along the wall but actually itās her shadow because sheās the creepy woman crawling around the room and rubbing up against the wall. Of course you donāt really know this until she starts really sounding crazy and starts ripping up the wallpaper trying to free the woman in the walls. In the end her husband returns home and either he faints or she fucking murders him with the blade she uses to sharpen her pencil. The book ends with her thinking sheās been freed, not by escaping through the now unlocked door but by entering the yellow wallpaper. Thereās also a creepy film adaptation we watched that wasā¦ unsettling.
It was quite scarring for most of the kids in my 7th grade class.
Also Iāve only just now realized that wallpaper back then could have contained arsenic so going insane from being in contact with it constantly enough to stain your skin is a very real possibility.
Trick them into thinking they could destroy you and your ideals in an argument if they were only slightly more informed. Worked on me lol
Jk, I mean that wouldāve probably worked on me, but really I started because I was genuinely curious and someone here said State and Revolution had the answers
Well suggestion for recruiting techniques, all it took for me was starting to read State and revolution. Two days of that and boom suddenly Iām telling my liberal friends they are in fact not socialists at all.
Also Iām not even through the whole thing yet because I keep getting distracted, but Iāve already told several of my friends to read it because I think they, like me, will be slightly stunned when they see things from Leninās perspective.
Sidenote: while on the train as Iām reading, I feel the urge to talk to people about it. Unfortunately, I live in like one of the most conservative places ever, so I honestly might get shot if I start a converstation about socialism. That being said, if someone here dares me to do it I will lol
āScary doorā from Futurama
Itās a play on the twilight zone and itās quite something.
āA casino where Iām always winning? This must be heaven!ā āA casino where I always winā¦ I must actually beā¦ IN HELL!ā
āNo Mr. smith. Youāre not in heaven or hell. Youāre on an airplane!ā
āHelp! Thereās a gremlin destroying the plane! Youāve gotta believe me!ā
āWhy should I believe you?! Youāre Hitler!ā
For those interested: The Scary Door
Yeah I now understand why real socialists hate what most people think is the left. Everything Iāve ever heard called socialism or socialist by anyone I know, left or right leaning, is focused entirely on economics. Itās always like begging the state to make the lives of the working class less horrible, whereas socialismādefined by Marx and Lenināisnāt really much about economics at all, focusing on class and the āissue of the state.ā
I only got about a third of the way through before I decided to reread from the beginning taking notes on every sentence, so Iāve still got a ways to go (especially since I have difficulty reading due to ADHD). But I really am surprised by how invested I am in this and how many new things Iām noticing in the world around me.
I realized this morning that even terms like āsocialized medicineā seem to be exactly what Lenin is describing about how the ideals of revolutionaries are manipulated to entirely exclude their core values, to become palatable and innocuous. Nationalizing the cost of healthcare has nothing to do with the āissue of the state.ā It doesnāt have anything to do with revolution or the dissolution of class. Itās just begging the state to make the situation of the working class less horrible.
And thatās the point. When most people think socialism they think about stuff like that (or at least I did and most of the people I know). They think about trying to tax the rich more or trying to get the state to fund more public services. They are placated by the illusion that actions like those will slowly but surely fix the issues that arise from classā¦
Anyway, I have yet to disagree with Lenin. And while Iām still hesitant to openly call myself a socialist before I learn more, I definitely will be defending that term. Like honestly Iām so ready for one of my liberal friends calls themselves a socialist so I can explain that nothing they do is really socialism lol
Yeah, I should have realized that the term fascism would obviously have different definitions depending on the ideology of those using it. I also should have realized that in using an umbrella term like fascism or nationalism, I was obscuring the underlying reasons for my opinion.
And not just obscuring them from you all but from myself too. Had I put thought into the specifics of what I was writing, I probably wouldnāt have posted here at all because I would have realized how uncertain my own opinion was and how little I knew.
But, itās not all bad. First, itās good for me to make a fool of myself every once in a while because I definitely need to be humbled sometimes. Secondly, it is only because of the comments here that I started reading the stuff Iāve been telling myself I need to read for like years.
I started āThe State and Revolutionā today and I am enjoying it significantly more that I thought I would. Definitely is making me see things from a new perspective and also to just see things I never noticed before. Anyway itās very entertaining because I like learning, and Lenin keeps answering the questions that I have about what heās saying like as soon as I have them which is kind of neat
Alright, firstly, my original question was strictly about the opinions of people in this community and their reasoning behind them. This was the proper place to ask that question.
Second, instead of receiving answers to my question, I was made aware of my ignorance and my further comments were primarily asking questions to further my understanding of those responses and asking questions about where I could go to learn more myself.
You are correct that it isnāt reasonable for me to expect all of you to hold my hand and teach me everything. That is why I did try to ask questions more focused on where I could find the answers myself.
they were created with science and observation
So were the ones in any dictionary ever. Now if you mean that the Marxist-Leninist definitions are more rigorously defined then you can assert that, but you canāt assert that other definitions are invalid or not based on ārealityā only that they are less rigorously defined and do not share much overlap with your set of definitions.
You can even argue that more rigorous definitions are more useful for in depth discussion, and youād be right, but that still doesnāt mean the other definitions are any less āreal.ā
As for the rest of your comment, it seems like you donāt understand what I mean by right now.
Imagine you were asking someone where you should go eat and they brought up a time they accidentally ate rotten food from their fridge. Does that help you decide where to eat? No. Does that mean that the story didnāt happen? No. Does it mean that the story isnāt important? No. But it isnāt important in the context of your decision on where to eat.
Imagine you were asked your friend what shade of red a flower was and instead of answering they decided to talk about what shade of blue a nearby one was. Is the shade of blue of that flower any less important and the shade of red of the one youāre looking at? No, but hearing about the shade of that flower doesnāt help you with your question. So it isnāt important right now.
That is what Iām trying to say with the moon example. Sure weād all die, but that wouldnāt answer my question and while relevant to you and I, would not be relevant to the intended topic of discussion.
Do you get what Iām trying to say?
Your inability to talk about the state of the US empire and itās effect on the world is really not our problem
Firstly *its. Second, yep youāre right because that is a problem that doesnāt exist.
It is presumptuous for you to assume Iām incapable of talking about the US or the atrocities committed by it. As it is presumptuous that you think I in any way support those actions or have no empathy for those affected by them.
Iām sorry youāre upset. Clearly Iāve struck a nerve and I do apologize for that.
I do not think you are a ābad guyā for telling me to do reading. You are correct on that front and I believe I said as much.
My criticism of your responses was strictly about how emotional and unhelpful some of it was.
This response is similar.
You seem so focused on belittling me or hating me for opinions you believe I have, that you donāt seem to be attempting to understand what Iām trying to say.
Iām sorry that you think I have no sympathy for others. Iām sorry saying anything that initially offended you.
Iām sorry that you automatically assume people do not care about what has happened and what is still happening to people around the world due to the imperialism and disregard of countries like the United States. Your compassion for others is admirable, and your distress over the perceived disregard for their suffering is also valid. But your hatred towards me is misguided.
I am not your enemy. I am not blind to the problems of the world and I am not silent about my distaste for the USās role in those problems. However, considering I made that point in my last reply, it seems you are so set in your belief that I am your enemy that you will no longer listen to reason. I doubt there is any evidence I could give you, or words I could write that would change your mind, so instead Iāll end this with an apology.
I can imagine where youāre coming from. I can imagine where your feelings of anger and hatred and paranoia arise from. I can imagine the feelings of distrust you feel towards me and the feelings of wrath you have for anyone who you believe would defend the atrocities youāve learned about.
It must suck feeling all of those feelings. It probably sucks worse feeling like you canāt share them openly because there is prejudice towards ātankies.ā Finding a safe space on the internet for you to share those thoughts only to then have to deal with someone from the outside questioning those thoughts may feel like a violation.
I really am sorry that I have added to your negative feelings today. I hope you forget about this conversation quickly and can focus your mind on more positive thoughts, or at the very least, one less negative one.
None of us are deliberately being antagonistic or trolls.
I did not mean to imply you were being trolls. If that was unclear I am sorry. I also did not mean to imply that you were being deliberately antagonistic. I was trying to make you aware of the fact you were coming across to me that way. And that dealing with trolls would explain why you may naturally have responded in that way
The others who have already tried to help you were far nicer than Iām willing to be
You are correct, the others in this chain have been much less condescending. Thatās why my reply about it was directed toward you.
ā¦are based in reality with clear definitions.
Wikipedia fits both those requirements?
You are right that I should probably have researched the terms definitions that you would use, but I honestly did not know there were significant discrepancies in the definitions of these terms until this discussion.
As for your second point, I do not want to ātotally disentangle the USAā from this discussion. I simply wanted to point out that your argument was fallacious. The wrongs of one entity do not justify the wrongs of another.
The reason I said my argument didnāt involve the US at all was that Iām not interested in comparison between North Korea and another country.
Analyzing one variable is also how science is done. I want to analyze specifically DRPK because that is what my question was about. If I ask why a flower is red and you start describing how itās not as complicated as why a flower is blue, can you see why that isnāt helpful?
Bringing up how the US shaped the current state of NK is certainly relevant. Bringing up a genocide being funded by the US on the other side of the world with no connection to the DPRK is not.
Furthermore I am not here to ārank nationsā though I will admit I definitely do need to reconsider the way I currently rank them and why. I was wondering what the justification was for supporting a nation with traits I viewed as negative and that fit my definition of fascism. If you do it because āthe US is worseā then I guess I have my answer.
Why arenāt you interested in what you call āAmerican corruptionā
I guess I should have specified that I meant Iām not interested in that right now, as in that isnāt the topic Iām asking about right now.
splash in the kiddie pool
This is what I meant by condescending and antagonistic.
You THINK having clear definitions of this is somehow salami slicing but it is incredibly important.
Firstly I have never heard that expression before. Secondly, what? The whole thing Iāve been bringing up with definitions is incredibly important.
When I say āwords have the meaning you give to themā Iām not saying that it doesnāt matter what definition you have, Iām saying the exact opposite. It is important that we have the same definitions of words if we are going to use those words to try and communicate with one another. Iām not sure how you misinterpreted that but Iām sorry if I didnāt make it clear enough.
every description you give of it applies to the US
Again who gives a shit about that right now? I donāt care if the US were to blow up the moon, that has no bearing on whether or not the DRPK is militarized or why it is or isnāt a justified trait.
rank nations based on
Bruh why are you obsessed with ranking nations? Did my comment really come off that way?
Also technically speaking, if we were to set common definitions of what militarization means and its degrees then we absolutely could rank nations like that and it would not be subjective like attractiveness. However that would require common definitions which we donāt have and it would also require us to desire to rank nations by militarism which in currently not interested in tho the US almost certainly does win that one lol
Anyway, sorry if my questions or response are pissing you off. You are right that I have a long way to go, but hey Plato said to never discourage anyone who makes progress no matter how slow right?
Ha well youāve never met me!
(Fact check: This still might not help conversation because Iām definitely just bad at conversation anyway lol, also hearing myself called a liberal just reminds me of conversations back in my hometown or with my grandparents lol)
Edit/Update: I suppose it hasnāt helped with conversation but Iād like to say I am using the wiki to define terms as I read them in State and Revolution, so that I understand the text as it was most likely intended, hopefully avoiding the misunderstanding that plagued me in this comment section lol
Thatās mercantilism right? Except with democratic representatives setting prices rather than a monarchy. Doesnāt that get arbitrarily complex as new kinds of things are made? Why do you think it is better than āoutsourcingā that work to a market?
You do make a good point. I do think it is reasonable to have a strong military or the desire for one if your country has been repeatedly attacked. Being proud of oneās country is also not necessarily a bad thing.
The military issue I have is that the prioritization of military is not strictly due to a reflexive urge but that military strength is a core concept of Juche. Military is not just prioritized out of need but is a core principle. There is no non-militarized Juche.
The issue with things Iād call ānationalismā is primarily when patriotism leads to antagonizing other countries or reducing the desire for international cooperation. The desire for self sufficiency that Juche dictates seemed to border on this. āSeemedā because this thread has made me aware of my ignorance and until I read more, I shouldnāt set or hold to any strong opinions
There is definitely some truth to this statement. While trying to think of examples I realized I definitely was just thinking of examples Iāve seen. I will say though, the US definitely does still count as hypermilitarized in my mind and in the minds of most if not all the (non-conservative) people I know, so I think you might be exaggerating the double standard a bit
Damn the theme for this comment chain really is that you all use esoteric definitions of terms haha
Iāll try to read State and Revolution (thatās the one by Lenin right? I think I already had it on my list)
As for hypermilitarism, I think ingraining military prowess into the national ideology would count. Tying national identity to military dominance does not seem healthy for a society. Furthermore, bragging about oneās military prowess also seems unhealthy for a society and pointedly against international peace / cooperation.
The definitions of militarism I think of when I hear the word are typically āGlorification of military,ā āPredominance of the armed forces in the administration or policy of the state.ā And āThe view that military strength, efficiency and values should dominate the countryās public policy choices and take precedence over other interests.ā
Personally the definition: āThe policy of maintaining a large military force, even in peacetimeā falls more on the āhypermilitarismā side of things in my mind. However, I do understand that desire in countries that have been colonized and repeatedly attacked.
Anyway the DPRK seems to fit all those definitions and from what Iāve read (donāt worry Iām reading more) those definitions are ingrained in the ideology of Juche.
Also my questions donāt involve the US at all. The US is a clear example of militarism and definitely takes the cake as the most hypermilitarized country. That being said, the US hypermilitarism arises from the prevalent corruption in it, whereas the militarism of DPRK is a foundational element of Juche. <- this is not to say the US is better in any way, only to illustrate that what I dislike is not specifically that the DPRK is hyper militarized but that its founding principles require it to be and that seems flawed.
Regardless, trying to say something is good because another thing is worse is a fallacy. Iām not interested in American corruption Iām interested in opinions on elements I view as flaws in the ideology of the DPRK.
I also realize that you are probably used to dealing with trolls being antagonistic on purpose, but I really am just trying to learn.
Where would you suggest I go to learn about those terms and their differences?
Thank you for your response.
Out of curiousity could you provide sources that you count as being backed by the CIA and evidence that the CIA is in fact backing that misinformation?
I have a somewhat macabre interest in all the misinformation and coup stuff the US does. Like the coup over bananas? Fascinating
As for using Wikipedia as a source and the definition of fascism, I used Wikipedia because I assumed that definition was the most widespread. Words have the meaning we give them, so If we donāt have the same definitions in mind then the term fascism isnāt useful in our discussion.
However, I do appreciate that you still adressed each part of the definition I used since those items are still negative traits whether they fall into the definition of fascism or not.
Also, good point, I guess lots of the countries I can think of with extensive militaries kind of fit that definition.
Where would you suggest I go for less CIA-biased information on the governmental structure and history of DPRK?
Iām sorry that my inquiry sounds inflammatory. I tend to lack tact with words and much of what I say comes off aggressively because Iām bad at finding a non aggressive way to say it. Thank you for putting up with me lol
Also thank you for providing a source for me to look into for more information.
As for Wikipedia defining fascism, terms hold the definitions we give them. Communication is based on shared definitions of terms. If I refer to an animal as a cat you are likely thinking of the same animal I was referring to.
I use Wikipedia as a source for definitions because its widespread use means that the definitions listed in it are ones held by wide audiences. So using Wikipedia means Iām more likely to use terms in the same way others use them.
However it looks like your definition of fascism differs from my own and that of the majority. Until we share definitions the use of the word fascism will only hinder our communication.
Iāll check the sources you linked when I have time between classes, but would you mind defining fascism in your own words?
Also, while our definitions of fascism may differ, I do still hold the specific items listed in the definition (dictatorship, nationalism, hyper militarism, etc.) as negative qualities for a society/government. Regardless of whether those fall under the definition of fascism, they do not seem like traits found in a good system of government. What do you think about those traits specifically?
Edit: Just here to note how my perspective has changed. Yeah those āspecificā traits I mentioned are, in fact, not specific. Like in my first comment Iāve realized using terms like āNationalismā obscures my reasoning even from myself. What did I mean by Nationalism? What do I think counts as hyper-militarism? Even if I were to narrow those down to very specific, concrete traits, do I even know enough about the DPRK to know if I those apply?
Okay I mean this sincerely, do you guys actually like the DPRK in its current form?
Iām not an expert, but while the original DPRK sounds like it was socialist and democratic, the current state ticks all the boxes for fascism right?
According to Wikipedia Fascism is ācharacterized by aĀ dictatorialĀ leader, centralizedĀ autocracy,Ā militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a naturalĀ social hierarchy, subordination ofĀ individual interestsĀ for the perceived good of the nation orĀ race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.ā
Firstly, Kim Jong Un is the supreme leader, so that ticks the dictator box, but more importantly it looks like Juche in its currently practiced form has become dynastic, requiring the supreme leader to be in the family of Kim Il Sung. So doesnāt that make the DPRK more of a monarchy than democracy?
There is definitely forcible suppression of opposition, and the point mentioned above is a ābelief in natural social hierarchy.ā Furthermore, the ideas of Juche are by their very nature of individualism a proponent of nationalism.
I get that āthe subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation.ā Is not necessarily a bad thing and that is the belief of communism right? Like the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. So we can give that one a pass.
However, apart from that one item on the list, the rest of this seems like pure fascism. Hyper-militarized ethnostates fueled by nationalism and run by dictators are fascist regimes.
So my question is: why do some of you seem to support this?
I do mean that sincerely. Iām not an expert in this, so I really just want to know if Iām missing something or if people in this community are actually fine supporting fascism so long as it has a few socialist/communist ideas thrown in.
Personally it does feel kind of weird to do the latter. Like would you support a serial killer like Jefferey Dahmer just because you want to support gay people?
Perhaps that example is a little extreme but given the emphasis on nuclear weapons I found in my brief look into the ideologies of the DRPK, it could be just as extreme as that analogy.
Edit 1: Alright congratulations, you all have made me aware that my current understanding is limited and biased. Also rereading this comment made me realize it really does come off very pointedly and agressive so sorry about that and thank you to everyone who responded without being condescending.
Anyway if Iāve learned anything itās that definitions are very important when using political terms and it is much more useful to describe specific elements rather than use umbrella terms with differing connotations.
I knew words had differing definitions, but I was not aware of how extreme the discrepancies between terms as they are defined by dictionaries and defined by Marxist-Leninists could be.
While I canāt say youāve reversed my opinion, youāve all made me realize I lack enough information to hold any meaningful opinion on this topic at all.
Anyway, the solution to ignorance is learning, so assuming I have time between school and work this week, Iāll be trying to read through the articles and watch the videos youāve linked.
Also, Iāve downloaded āThe State and Revolutionā and Iāll try to read it on the train over the next week.
Maybe by the next one of these weekly discussions Iāll have some informed questions to ask lol
Edit 2: I am very surprised at how much Iām enjoying State and Revolution. I have ADHD that makes reading kind of daunting. But after getting about a third of the way through this book, I realized I was missing interesting things because I was having difficulty deciphering some complex sentences. So, because of how much I really want to learn everything in this text, I started over and am now highlighting and writing notes about basically every sentence lol
It was only during my first read, after I got to the part in like section 2 I think? Iāll get to it again eventually, but when he was talking about the police and military it finally clicked in my head that like holy shit the state really is just built to protect class and it really is impossible for the state to get rid of class because it is class. Thatās when I started asking my own questions and shortly afterwards decided to restart.
Anyway, none of this really has anything to do with my original question, but as mentioned in my previous edit, that question was kind of nonsense.
I also wanted to say that I definitely get the emphasis on definitions here. This morning I realized the term āsocialized medicineā kinda has jack shit to do with socialism defined by Marx and Lenin. This made me realize basically nothing Iāve ever heard called socialism was really socialism in any capacity. This discrepancy is exactly what Lenin describes with revolutionary thought being distorted to become innocuous to the state and used to āconsoleā and pacify the working class. Shifts in definition are exactly how that happens.
For what itās worth, the next time I hear someone refer to higher taxes or welfare programs as socialism, I will start a discussion about what socialism is.
I grew up in a rural Utah town. Here are things I attempted to correct my teachers on while in elementary school with the result of them telling me if I continued to disagree with them Iād be sent to the principals office:
Iām sure there were more seeing as I frequently had to āpull a cardā in nearly every class and most times had no idea why what I said was wrong. There were definitely some on global warming but I donāt remember the specifics.
Anyway, it is almost certain that I would argue some things that were wrong, after all, I was like < 12yo and surrounded by people who would constantly tell me the encyclopedias I read were wrong (I didnāt like chapter books and encyclopedias had pictures) but even then, there still definitely were things I was and still am right about.
And it probably would have been better for my mental health growing up if I hadnāt thought āwow if all these adults believe this thing then it must be true and I must just be an idiotā No past me, you were right, they were wrong. Essential oils are bullshit and definitely donāt cure cancer, animals do feel pain and deserve to be treated with respect, and yes the cult you were raised in makes no sense whatsoever. Basically the entirety of your hometown, and most of your family members are just delusional. Youāre not wrong and they donāt just not believe you because youāre a kid, they just donāt believe in evidence, and thereās no evidence one can use to convince people who donāt believe in evidence.
Edit: to clarify, this was a legitimate public elementary school not some weird religious institution. Its just the typical education found in small Mormon towns in Utah.