Remove ads

Puella Magi Adfligo Systema

Reader mode
could your daughter secretly be a magical girl? here's how to make sure she's unionised.
Spectral Waltz said:
I second the skepticism, saying that anarchy is the best form of governance is similar to speaking well of a benevolent dictatorship. It works in theory perhaps, but in practice, people are people. We are simply too flawed for such things to work on pure theory
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
*ben shapiro voice in coming* lets say, for the sake of argument, that humans are naturally cruel, stupid, etc, would you want a flawed person like that in charge of you? it is presisely because humans cannot be trusted to rule each other that anarchism is necessary *zizek sniff*

Architect Iront. said:
The one thing that's consistent about anarchy is that it doesn't last. The power hungry always rush to fill the vacuum, and the default government setting coming out of anarchy is Feudalism, or warlords, which are the worst government types when it comes to providing a nice place to live and protecting human rights. Constructing a society where atrocities aren't beneficial to the ruling class, let alone everyone, is a careful balancing act of freedom against order, justice against mercy, one that can't be achieved by tearing everything down and hoping for the best.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
if you mean anarchy as the absence of all authority then absolutely, but no consistent anarchist advocates for that, they instead agitate for a world where authority is derived and maintained collectively. basically we want people and communities to be in charge of thier own laws and order directly, instead of being dictated to by those higher up the pyramid scheme of power, we wish to level it, and build sctructures to resist someone proping up a new one. capitalist and liberal democracy is in practice an oiligarchy of the wealthy, as despite having representives who dejure represent everyone decide things, defacto these representatives are unaccountable. different leftists have different solutions to that, as an anarchist, id say there are structural problems there that just merely filling all the posistions with dyed in the wool reds will not fix.

re: joe freeman, imagine not being an intersectional anarchist feminist, ill read thier essay later when my bloodsugar can handle it, but i find its sus still be second wave in current year. the theory has advanced alot since so to cling to the past, it makes me ask, what are you so keen on rejecting? thats not meant to be a slight against you, its just one link, and if the person who wrote it did so before second wave gave way to currents in the hardcore leftist side of thirdwave then fair enough.

EDIT: it's not easy formatting effort posts together on a 40 squid android tablet, the keyboard doesnt behave and cant keep up with me and the screen a fucky size for writting (a great one for reading though, which is why i have it)
 
Last edited:
I dunno about painting Ben Shapiro as being pro anarchy (I'm pretty sure most anarchists would take offense), but I did just realize we can probably insta gem any guca when we are with Homura because we can just fit our grief to where it isn't quite touching the relevant gems in timestop (like near molecularly close, and then 4d twist them onto our inventory faster than even magical girls can react to.

Which would instantly out them on another plane of existence.
 
Last edited:
JIMI94 said:
I dunno about painting Ben Shapiro as being pro anarchy (I'm pretty sure most anarchists would take offense), but I did just realize we can probably insta gem any guca when we are with Homura because we can just fit our grief to where it isn't quite touching the relevant gems in timestop (like near molecularly close, and then 4d twist them onto our inventory faster than even magical girls can react to.

Which would instantly out them on another plane of existence.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
i taking the mik out of the framing device he always uses, i do NOT like the man one iota.
 
prof_Chemical said:
*ben shapiro voice in coming* lets say, for the sake of argument, that humans are naturally cruel, stupid, etc, would you want a flawed person like that in charge of you? it is presisely because humans cannot be trusted to rule each other that anarchism is necessary *zizek sniff*
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm assuming that there's some sarcasm in this but seeing as I'm not sure where or how much, I'm going to choose to take it seriously.

I don't believe that humans are naturally cruel or stupid, I don't believe that humans are 'naturally' anything . Our social structures are complex to the point that they surpassed our base instincts long ago. Trying to apply some kind of universal 'human nature' to all people is an exercise in futility. We're too chaotic to be pigeonholed.

What that means is that in any given group of humans, some of them will inevitably be assholes who must be managed in order to prevent them from causing problems.

With proper government, we place checks and balances on each other to prevent cruelty and stupidity.
 
Spectral Waltz said:
I'm assuming that there's some sarcasm in this but seeing as I'm not sure where or how much, I'm going to choose to take it seriously.

I don't believe that humans are naturally cruel or stupid, I don't believe that humans are 'naturally' anything . Our social structures are complex to the point that they surpassed our base instincts long ago. Trying to apply some kind of universal 'human nature' to all people is an exercise in futility. We're too chaotic to be pigeonholed.

What that means is that in any given group of humans, some of them will inevitably be assholes who must be managed in order to prevent them from causing problems.

With proper government, we place checks and balances on each other to prevent cruelty and stupidity.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
i basically agree, i just dont think goverment (or power structures more broadly) should be hierarchical.
 
JIMI94 said:
I dunno about painting Ben Shapiro as being pro anarchy (I'm pretty sure most anarchists would take offense), but I did just realize we can probably insta gem any guca when we are with Homura because we can just fit our grief to where it isn't quite touching the relevant gems in timestop (like near molecularly close, and then 4d twist them onto our inventory faster than even magical girls can react to.

Which would instantly out them on another plane of existence.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There's no reason to believe Soul Gem range is a sphere rather than a hypersphere. Indeed, all the evidence we have suggests that 4d rotation is a normal part of the Magical Girl powerset, just one that's not as commonly utilized. Mami was using it for her teacup trick long before we figured out it was a thing. So simply rotating Soul Gems out of 3d space is extremely unlikely to actually shut down their connection. We'd need to move the gems 100m away from their bodies like we've been doing in 3d space so far. And given the limitations of Sabrina's control range and the fact that Sabrina tends to stay in the same 3d space as other girls, the farthest point within our control range from any other Magical Girl's Soul Gem will always be in the same 3d space.

Beyond that, we haven't tried rotating Soul Gems, or exploring what the hypergeometry of Soul Gems looks like. We do know that Soul Gems can shift between ring, egg, and broach form as part of their normal operations. Are those shapes distinct shape shifting, or are they simply shifting the Soul Gem slightly along a 4th dimensional axis so that different 3d crosssections of the 4d Soul Gem are extruded into our 3d space? Is the shape and structure of a Grief Seed another possible 3d crosssection that's already present alongside the other three, and if so, are the other three standard forms still "there" when it's been rotated into its Grief Seed orientation?

I really want to do more science.
 
Last edited:
prof_Chemical said:
if you mean anarchy as the absence of all authority then absolutely
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
But that's what anarchy means? That's the definition of the word.
prof_Chemical said:
no consistent anarchist advocates for that, they instead agitate for a world where authority is derived and maintained collectively.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Collectively? Which is to say, communally? That would be communism. Or perhaps socially? That's socialism. Or maybe it's just collectivism in the first place. These are all real terms. You're going to spend a lot of your life clarifying, if you use the wrong word like that.
 
Warclam said:
But that's what anarchy means? That's the definition of the word.

Collectively? Which is to say, communally? That would be communism. Or perhaps socially? That's socialism. Or maybe it's just collectivism in the first place. These are all real terms. You're going to spend a lot of your life clarifying, if you use the wrong word like that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
anarchism *IS* communism. im not using words wrong, i was asking because people often conflate anarchy (chaos) with anarchism (ideology) also words can have several meanings


Redshirt Army said:
Colloquially, yes. In political science, no.

prof_Chemical is using the correct academic definition of anarchy.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
academia is funny, in that multiple separate disciplines can use the same word to mean completely different and very specific things in technical language

this is why cross discipline interaction is so important, increasingly niche specialization allows for more knowledge total to be stored or understood, than if we were are generalists with redundant copies of the same information, but sacrificing one thing other people already know to make room for something only you'll know creates blindspots, and if you arent talking to the people who specialize in the things you dont know you are going to miss things. what was a collective gain becomes a collective loss.
 
Last edited:
prof_Chemical said:
anarchism *IS* communism. im not using words wrong, i was asking because people often conflate anarchy (chaos) with anarchism (ideology) also words can have serveral meaning
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
A definition of a word that is mutually exclusive with the word's literal meaning is a bad definition. It's the same problem—though vastly lesser, granted—as using "literally" to mean "not literally."
 
Warclam said:
A definition of a word that is mutually exclusive with the word's literal meaning is a bad definition. It's the same problem—though vastly lesser, granted—as using "literally" to mean "not literally."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
personally, i use the word figuratively instead, also this a well documented path that semantic shift takes (a word coming to mean its inverse) because people like being hyperbolic or something idk, i dont remember.

like no-ones uses romantic to mean: - is like/ is of romans or whatever

anyway, no one reply to me anymore because i dont want to talk about political theory anylonger

also read everyone read david graeber or something. hes a world renowned anthropologist and he seems to think anarchism is a good idea. makes you wonder why a learned man who studies humans as his profession and is not disgraced thinks so. im not a fan of appeals to authority as argument rhetoric, but i know some people are so if u care there is that.
 
Anarchism, as I understand it, is based on the fundamental assumption that if you take away existing hierarchal systems and the reasons they exist nobody is that much stronger or better positioned than others just by dint of their own personal characteristics, so they shouldn't be able to rebuild them, and instead people will have to be cooperative to achieve things.

With Magical Girls, this is manifestly false. Some Magical Girls are clearly more powerful than others or capable of things that others are not. Sabrina is tremendously dangerous in a fight and holds a monopoly over a vital service. She doesn't need to build a complicated hierarchal system to impose her will on others, she can just walk up to them.

And she's not the only one who is far beyond the average girl's power, though she's a very extreme case.
 
065tdsa said:
Anarchism, as I understand it, is based on the fundamental assumption that if you take away existing hierarchal systems and the reasons they exist nobody is that much stronger or better positioned than others just by dint of their own personal characteristics, so they shouldn't be able to rebuild them, and instead people will have to be cooperative to achieve things.

With Magical Girls, this is manifestly false. Some Magical Girls are clearly more powerful than others or capable of things that others are not. Sabrina is tremendously dangerous in a fight and holds a monopoly over a vital service. She doesn't need to build a complicated hierarchal system to impose her will on others, she can just walk up to them.

And she's not the only one who is far beyond the average girl's power, though she's a very extreme case.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It isn't just that, some humans are just more physically powerful than others. And beyond that, even the most powerful man in the world would be considered less powerful than a man with an assault rifle. This is the main reason why I think Anarchism might be impossible to implement, and that's forgetting that most other countries would probably jump all over the anarchistic society.

Anyways!

We gonna get a vote going, or is there already one in circulation?
 
Angrygenius said:
It isn't just that, some humans are just more physically powerful than others. And beyond that, even the most powerful man in the world would be considered less powerful than a man with an assault rifle.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Hence anarchism's frequent enthusiasm for assault rifles. The issue as presented is that most men can become a man with an assault rifle very easily in the right circumstances, while very few people can summon a battleship or stop time or personally operate hundreds of bases around the globe. I don't believe this to be an insurmountable problem, especially since the Superman in this setting is Sabrina, but people that are capable of individually enacting their will on scales that usually require an industrialized workforce are not something that anarchist philosophers have spent a whole lot of time on.
Angrygenius said:
and that's forgetting that most other countries would probably jump all over the anarchistic society.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I assure you, we're thoroughly aware of the issue.
 
just as a tolerant society must have zero tolerance for intolerance, so too must a free society mobilize force against those that would impose shackles... or in a more regular way of speaking, it requires active maintenance. the current system has its own maintainance systems, and anarchism adjacent project or society that has existed has also had them. also the new society must grow big n strong enough to resist the old society or any new rival ones, this is why communists say there must be a world revolution, though i prefer insurrection, which is quite an insular distinction.

so ive recently been reading another quest on site based around the spartacists escaping out of berlin and its gotten me thinking about luxembourgs writtings and council communism again, i never got too deep into it, as it was basically marxisms answer to anarchism and i was already repping the latter, but it rehabilitated marxism for me, that they werent all either leninists+ or melty academics. Workers' council - Wikipedia

magi councils 👀 pretty similar to what we are already doing.


ngl my real issue with magi communism is that magi do not represent the common people, a dictatorship of the magi, just like one of the burghers, would become an oligarchy of the magical class, holding a monopoly over magical power and thus, magical force. this isnt an impossible problem to solve, but its one that would need addressing.
 
Meguca having a monopoly over their own magical power is both inevitable and probably for the better given how magic works in this setting. Meguca powers are very individualized and carry very high personal risk. Governments and organizations would 100% horribly exploit them if they could. There might certainly be problems if we figure out unlimited cleansing for everyone all the time and magic becomes cheap, but I am not totally convinced that we will reach that point.

Bad actors like Iowa will always be a problem, and we know there are more groups like them out there, but I think they have to be dealt with by other Meguca who have the power to stop them, and don't have a conflict of interest when it comes to rehabilitating them. I would never trust a major government to hold a rogue team (even if they could) without trying to recruit or exploit them. The temptation would be incredible and I wouldn't even blame them for trying.
 
Last edited:
Tokyo Group: "Why is she suddenly muttering about anarchism and magic monopoly?"
Sayaka: "she does stuff like that sometimes - you get used to it."
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top