Sacrilege

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 I’d be sent to the principals office:

• Evolution does in fact exist and “monkeys aren’t turning into humans today” because that’s not how evolution works.
• There are different methods for multiplying numbers (lattice)
• The amount of protons in an atom is equal to the number of electrons not neutrons. Yes for lighter elements they can be the same but isotopes are a thing (yes this actually happened and the next day we watched a bill nye that said exactly what I was saying. Of course bringing up the fact I was right and she was wrong was not a wise course of action.)
• If the earth was a few feet closer to the sun we would not die. The earth actually is closer and further throughout the year on the scale of a few million miles. (Asserting that this was also not proof of god’s existence was similarly not a wise thing for elementary me to do)
• “Foot zoning” has been debunked and you should tell people to see a real doctor when they feel sick
• Those white homeopathic medicine pills don’t do anything
• If we know how disease spreads and it’s due to human action/choices then it’s not gods punishment because he couldn’t control the spread unless he controls those people.

I’m sure there were more seeing as I frequently had to “pull a card” 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 don’t 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 didn’t 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 hadn’t thought “wow if all these adults believe this thing then it must be true and I must just be an idiot” No past me, you were right, they were wrong. Essential oils are bullshit and definitely don’t 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. You’re not wrong and they don’t just not believe you because you’re a kid, they just don’t believe in evidence, and there’s no evidence one can use to convince people who don’t 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.

deleted by creator

Well actually it’s the other way around. The reason imaginary numbers were invented was to solve a problem we’d 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 e^i*pi ? “Oh that’s because i is just perpendicular to the real number line” ?! 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 we’re going to discover is integral to the function of the universe?

Well, we’re adding “learn to create Linux distribution” to my ever growing list of ambitious projects I’ll never finish lol

“The Yellow Wallpaper”

It was quite scarring for most of the kids in my 7th grade class.

Also I’ve 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 would’ve 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 I’m telling my liberal friends they are in fact not socialists at all.

Also I’m not even through the whole thing yet because I keep getting distracted, but I’ve already told several of my friends to read it because I think they, like me, will be slightly stunned when they see things from Lenin’s perspective.

Sidenote: while on the train as I’m 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

Some people even call that “networking”

Yes! Fucking preach! I loathe how many times I’ve been told by even my university that I need to “network” in order to be successful and what they say is “make friends with these people so they can help you get a job” But what I hear is “use friendship to manipulate this person for your own career goals.”

Sure I should talk to my professors and get involved in research, but not because I want the possible job advantage of knowing people in the industry. I should get involved because it’s cool fucking research!

“Scary door” from Futurama

It’s a play on the twilight zone and it’s quite something.

“A casino where I’m always winning? This must be heaven!” “A casino where I always win… I must actually be… IN HELL!”

“No Mr. smith. You’re not in heaven or hell. You’re on an airplane!”

“Help! There’s a gremlin destroying the plane! You’ve gotta believe me!”

“Why should I believe you?! You’re Hitler!”

For those interested: The Scary Door

Yeah I now understand why real socialists hate what most people think is the left. Everything I’ve ever heard called socialism or socialist by anyone I know, left or right leaning, is focused entirely on economics. It’s always like begging the state to make the lives of the working class less horrible, whereas socialism—defined by Marx and Lenin—isn’t really much about economics at all, focusing on class and the “issue of the state.”

I only got about a third of the way through before I decided to reread from the beginning taking notes on every sentence, so I’ve 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 I’m noticing in the world around me.

I realized this morning that even terms like “socialized medicine” 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 “issue of the state.” It doesn’t have anything to do with revolution or the dissolution of class. It’s just begging the state to make the situation of the working class less horrible.

And that’s 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 class…

Anyway, I have yet to disagree with Lenin. And while I’m still hesitant to openly call myself a socialist before I learn more, I definitely will be defending that term. Like honestly I’m 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 wouldn’t have posted here at all because I would have realized how uncertain my own opinion was and how little I knew.

But, it’s not all bad. First, it’s 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 I’ve been telling myself I need to read for like years.

I started “The State and Revolution” 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 it’s very entertaining because I like learning, and Lenin keeps answering the questions that I have about what he’s saying like as soon as I have them which is kind of neat

Ha well you’ve never met me!

(Fact check: This still might not help conversation because I’m 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 hasn’t helped with conversation but I’d 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

That’s mercantilism right? Except with democratic representatives setting prices rather than a monarchy. Doesn’t that get arbitrarily complex as new kinds of things are made? Why do you think it is better than “outsourcing” that work to a market?

Damn the theme for this comment chain really is that you all use esoteric definitions of terms haha

I’ll try to read State and Revolution (that’s 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 one’s 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 “Glorification of military,” “Predominance of the armed forces in the administration or policy of the state.” And “The view that military strength, efficiency and values should dominate the country’s public policy choices and take precedence over other interests.”

Personally the definition: “The policy of maintaining a large military force, even in peacetime” falls more on the “hypermilitarism” 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 I’ve read (don’t worry I’m reading more) those definitions are ingrained in the ideology of Juche.

Also my questions don’t 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. I’m not interested in American corruption I’m 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 don’t have the same definitions in mind then the term fascism isn’t 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?

I’m sorry that my inquiry sounds inflammatory. I tend to lack tact with words and much of what I say comes off aggressively because I’m 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 I’m 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.

I’ll 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?

Okay I mean this sincerely, do you guys actually like the DPRK in its current form?

I’m 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 “characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.”

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 doesn’t that make the DPRK more of a monarchy than democracy?

There is definitely forcible suppression of opposition, and the point mentioned above is a “belief in natural social hierarchy.” Furthermore, the ideas of Juche are by their very nature of individualism a proponent of nationalism.

I get that “the subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation.” 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. I’m not an expert in this, so I really just want to know if I’m 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: 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 I’ve learned anything it’s 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 can’t say you’ve reversed my opinion, you’ve 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, I’ll be trying to read through the articles and watch the videos you’ve linked.

Also, I’ve downloaded “The State and Revolution” and I’ll try to read it on the train over the next week.

Maybe by the next one of these weekly discussions I’ll have some informed questions to ask lol

ANSYS my beloved