Smash Ultimate Political Compass


#102

Bulma did not convince the god of all creation to make nine universes fight each other for survival because she really wanted to fight a strong guy.

By Super, Goku is an active threat to the order of creation because he just really likes fighting. Even when he knows what the stakes are, he’s still like “oh boy i get fight strong boys!!!”


#103

there are more where these came from lol but the hypercube is real.

aka, tag urself im soft sciences


#104

wait scribbes out anarchism and rights libertarianism, scribbles out socialism and writes authoritarianism
~x-files music~


#105

Yeah I’m sure Pikachu tends towards libertarianism when he votes in local elections

?


#106

Continues three year long streak of being perplexed by the word “praxis”.


#107

so i think this dumb thread can withstand me throwing my two cents in about it, but i feel like i should spoiler it because I Went In Hard

Summary

gonna assume not much prior knowledge but i’m sure some people are gonna know all this in various guises already lol. bg: midway through a philosophy masters doing epistemology and pragmatism and marxist fun, and a lot of organising where we actually talk about this shit somehow.

praxis is, in definition, ‘the process of making real or embodying a theory or belief’. it could be as basic as stopping driving so much or taking part in a boycott, but often it gets used to the messy relation of theorising and activist action. the reason it gets so contentious in marxist thought is the two implicit directions one could take the notion when trying to be a leftist - either everything leftists do is praxis even if it has no real impact, or there’s a more narrowly prescribed way to bring about the revolution and only that stuff is praxis.

marxism is deeply tied to a form of (dialectical) materialism, which says that ‘all there is is the actual conditions of the world and the interactions of things’. the two things to keep in mind on this is the opposition of dialectical materialism to dialectical idealism, which basically says that perception and the formation of concepts to explain things is the foundation of reality. a marxist critique of idealism generally starts from the position that ‘existence does not match up to essence’ - that the supposed Whole Content of Reality that Hegel thought he was talking about doesn’t match up to the actual conditions of the world. it’s basically a massive diss to call someone an idealist in Marxistspeak because it allows you to lie about the actual conditions of the world clinging to some sense of True Reality or Natural Order that might be oppressive or whatever. Marxists claim not to have access to some absolute sense of the world.

The other side is that actual marxists spend A Lot of time just theorising, and there has always been a tension between those doing the theorising and those doing the radical organising and revolutionary work. obviously the most important figures do both and synthesise the process. but it’s clear that materialism gives you a get out clause to say ‘all there is is what we do in the world, what i’m doing is theorising and this is a constitutive part of our Marxist descriptive framework so theorising is part of the revolution’. the problem with that is it allows people to sit on their asses, usually in universities, and talk a lot about the revolution without doing anything “”“material”"" to help. you aren’t trying to claim they aren’t part of the material world, students clearly do exist, but the argument is that the weird history of marxism being tangled up in dialectic thought allows people to get away with sitting on their asses and not doing activist-work.

so, praxis gets used to talk about the marxist-theory-informed activist work. the grafting of organising, unionising, active resistance and direct action. it’s also why this kind of left-talk uses ‘material’ so frequently - “what are the material consequences” is both an invocation to remember what actually matters is the lives of people and the relations of class, race etc they live within and how the events of the world relate to them. it doesn’t mean people are thinking about ‘non-material consequences’, but that our understanding of theory needs to be oriented towards action in the world, not the theory itself. marxism in this form isn’t a metaphysical package, more a guidebook to action - a ‘philosophy of praxis’ is the term that often gets thrown around. the key person for me on this is Antonio Gramsci, who wrote some massively important texts on marxist theory while in prison for being a communist organiser and politician - there that’s it that’s the guy who does both the action and the theory it’s him. https://www.viewpointmag.com/2016/10/03/between-dialectical-materialism-and-philosophy-of-praxis-gramsci-and-labriola-1959/ is a really good post i’ve been directed to before for getting my head around praxis, parts 5 and 6 are the important ones and the prior bits are useful intros to Marxism’s embedding in Hegelian philosophy and why that causes so many headaches.

oh no this is a doke thread uhhhh debating whether inkling is a phenomenological marxist is praxis oh no now i want to write an essay about the social origins of the x is praxis joke


#108

Thanks for the explanation but I’m withdrawing my option to give you a like because you posted an esoteric wall of text then linked to a bigger wall of text that has further sources cited via footnote.


#109

i tried, i promise :pray:


#110

As someone with an English degree the fact that you write more while tired is confusing. When I’m tired it means, academically, I say “fuck off”, drink whiskey, cry and then whip up something in only just 500 words. Have you tried going “In Hard” less and alcoholing more?


#111

i tried the alcohol route and it 100% doesn’t work with philosophy. you need to be 100% earnest 100% of the time otherwise it turns into a mess.


#112

Ew.

15 charact-- but like seriously, ew. The only reason I made it through college was because of the previous years of school teaching me to bottle up everything even close to authenticity. If I were ever be anywhere near 100% earnest I’d hurl something at a professor then run off an hide somewhere they’d never find me.

I should stop taking the discussion off topic as this thread is already on thin ice.


#113

I think we need to take everyone’s final smash attacks into consideration in judging them. For example villager forcibly builds you a house and uses the debt to knock you off the stage.


#114

This is something I feel like I need to expand on.

read more

philosophy has an image problem of being seen a humanity, or a soft science, concerned with an abstract world divorced from material conditions; devising answers to future theoretical conditions instead of doing direct action, which usually allows those theoreticals to come to pass. think of the conservative boogieman of the liberal philosophy professor, cruelly denying that God exists to a former marine, who had laid body on the line for god and country, only to be beaten up or beaten in an intellectual duel or maybe there’s some epiphanic moment where God shows up, however abstractly, which proves the whole business of God being dead to be a waste of time at best and a cruel rejoinder at worse, even though God being dead isn’t, in and of itself, an argument, but shows a dialectical response between the enlightenment and the industrialized world, or a literal transformation of the Christian God from something “alive” to something “dead.” perhaps Islam had spooked conservatives into believing that the Christian God had been trending more towards its Abrahamic roots as a singular deity defined by covenants rather than ontological origins, bolstered by the fact that liberal elite college students, who clearly didn’t learn the lesson of Kent State well enough, were hurting ideological principles of the nation-state by denying the importance of its most crucial self-sustaining and self-determining moral authority: a benevolent, towards Americans, Christian God, that loves hard work and rewards true believers with eternal mercy for all deeds enacted in the service of the people, whoever those are in any given state. how could this college professor theorise that the axis mundi of foreign intervention not be morally sound by denying life to its arbiter?

What I’m saying is that theory is often realized as a kind of engine that produces realities synchronized with how things are or how they ought to be, better synchronized at that than actual first hand accounts of lived experience, at the very least in the case of american politics. a political cartoon is a kind of thought experiment, where the most basic and cut and dry versions of concepts battle it out with clear winners, a truth engine that “cuts through the bullshit” and shows how silly something really is. It is irresponsible to think of theory and praxis as being a spectrum, where activists and revolutionaries simply direct their lives towards a universal moral center, beamed to their brains largely independent from the entirety of history, and students sit in chairs and try to piss themselves off by thinking about what they would have to do if their dad was a cop, would it then be problematic to say that they’re class enemies, etc. This is largely because the entrenched ideological supporters of social hierarchies, as they currently stand in the capitalist anglo world, are already making full spectrum attacks on every aspect not totally subservient. the only people that gross simplifications of marxist thought help are the people who are already winning.

It bugs me to see this kind of stuff trotted out by people who should ostensibly know better, because they themselves are already the butt of jokes meant to belittle their disciplines. political theory charts are themselves a kind of political cartoon that try to explain action and reaction in terms of ideological directions; things are happening for x reason towards y reason, a mechanical approach that frowns at arbitrariness, ignoring the fact that politics, much like language, is a sort of affected overlay on top of a much more complicated set of personal and interpersonal relationships being played out at scale. I feel like creating these fictions for video game characters by trying to extrapolate material realities from their minor details ignores the most glaring thing, which is the larger material reality of why those fictitious worlds exist in the first place and then how “real” that further layer is. is a market driven economy really the logical endpoint and who does it benefit if we think of it like that? What is being reproduced in these worlds and how much of it is by conscious design and how much of it is by unconscious design? Pikachu isn’t a libertarian or a communist, he is a video game character, but the world he comes from seems to trend towards a particularly libertarian or hardline stalinist design because of its notions of champions born of hard work or happiness in slavery, which largely derive from the ontological limitations of designing game systems, a burden which decreases as the systems get more advanced, and you end up with Pokemon liberation plotlines derived from meta constraints, which then inform the meta constraints by moralizing them. it’s this sort of relationship between the meta, ideological goals, practical concerns, and ontological beliefs that make politics appear to manifest in places where they weren’t intended, because politics are being used as shorthand for the combination of all things that happen to encompass the ideas of theory and praxis, the abstract and the literal.

I just think it’s weird to be concerned with these theory obsessed marxists because they don’t help the revolution. You come across as someone who has some sort of stake in the future of marxism-leninism, because clearly you care about if it’s being done efficiently or not, so why do anything that’s inefficient, or even worse, unhelpful? Unless you sincerely believe that talking about Rosalina being a monarchist is some sort of lens to better understand the nature of the revolution to come. Anarcho punks did this kind of thing all the time, satire of the state and its media apparatuses. “I’ll see the peasants grovel, if they refuse to bow” - Rosalina. This kind of preoccupation with dominant culture as it represents itself, and not as a relation to dominant ideological and material practices, is less useful than the theory focused students so disdained earlier. It’s, at the very least, tedious.

Hope this helps, inshallah!


#115

Hey yall, it’s worth noting that this conversation is totally fine and good but would be better served in its own thread in the politics category.


#116

Me, I can’t relate to characters unless I know they’re syndicalists.


#117

this deserves something in return but it’s late and it needs a new thread, i’ll get on it tomorrow x


#118

Stick to Tenkaichi Budokais!!!