Political physics: Identity and states

Sadre Spinegnawer

Trakanon Raider
1,151
752
6d 8h 33m
I find trends toward identity politics unpleasant. So I was thinking, the big mistake we are making is, we are mistaking states for identities, and a state does not define the identity, and an identity is not defined by a single state.

Here was my thought experiment. Imagine a car. A car is a thing -- an identity or "identical" thing. The thing can be in many states. It can be parked; it can be going 60 mph; etc. The thing has multiple states. But it is still the same thing.

Here comes the tricky part: applying this to identity politics. For this to work, all transient or contingent states need to be regarded, not as identities, but as states.

That means, to cut to the chase, I am not "white" but "whiteness" is a state of what I am but that is not enough to define me. You can redo this formula where "X" is a stand-in for any transient or contingent state. I am X years old, I am X gender, I am fond of the Dutch, etc etc etc.

You can guess what is the million dollar question. If all these names and burdens are just states of me, then what is this identical thing I call "I"? I think that is where the interesting questions lie. What is the I, and, Who are "we"?

Bonus question: does "we" merely refer to our species, or is "we" a set that includes but is not limited to, human beings?
 

TBT-TheBigToe

The New Evil
<Gold Donor>
4,478
14,401
77d 19h 55m
I find trends toward identity politics unpleasant. So I was thinking, the big mistake we are making is, we are mistaking states for identities, and a state does not define the identity, and an identity is not defined by a single state.

Here was my thought experiment. Imagine a car. A car is a thing -- an identity or "identical" thing. The thing can be in many states. It can be parked; it can be going 60 mph; etc. The thing has multiple states. But it is still the same thing.

Here comes the tricky part: applying this to identity politics. For this to work, all transient or contingent states need to be regarded, not as identities, but as states.

That means, to cut to the chase, I am not "white" but "whiteness" is a state of what I am but that is not enough to define me. You can redo this formula where "X" is a stand-in for any transient or contingent state. I am X years old, I am X gender, I am fond of the Dutch, etc etc etc.

You can guess what is the million dollar question. If all these names and burdens are just states of me, then what is this identical thing I call "I"? I think that is where the interesting questions lie. Who are "we"?

Bonus question: does "we" merely refer to our species, or is "we" a set that includes but is not limited to, human beings?
"we" refers to whatever the fuck you are talking about at the time, it's a word meant to be used in context and cannot be defined without external variables.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: Sadre Spinegnawer

OneofOne

Blackwing Lair Raider
4,042
1,895
49d 30m
"We" are those different from you. No cucks allowed. Not even Doctor-Lawyer-Astronaut-Professor cucks.
 

Break

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
1,184
3,572
13d 14h 41m
"we" refers to whatever the fuck you are talking about at the time, it's a word meant to be used in context and cannot be defined without external variables.
I like turtles.
Turtles go we we in the water.
Ergo, I am water.
 

Sadre Spinegnawer

Trakanon Raider
1,151
752
6d 8h 33m
"We" are those different from you. No cucks allowed. Not even Doctor-Lawyer-Astronaut-Professor cucks.
Are you a we? You acknowledge I am a you to you, or is it to we? Maybe I am asking the wrong audience. I was looking for I's ultimately, with we's being maybe nothing more than an aggregate of external variables as TBT said, that is, an aggregate of states not identities. But I was wondering, is the I also just an aggregate of states, or does it have an identity, a quiddity that is more than just a happenstance aggregate state.

We may be just a state-function. But is the I also just a state-aggregate? Or does it have an identity?

It is not a difficult question. But it is a necessary question to escape so-called "identity politics" which I am arguing is actually politics based on transient or contingent states. Which is bad politics imo.
 

chthonic-anemos

Golden Baronet of the Realm
5,807
12,866
No word filter evasion
Thank you for this.

I'm writing it all down and committing it to memory, just in case I ever need to escape from a pack of [REDACTED] or [REDACTED].

no word filter evasion -Amod
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 1Worf
Reactions: iannis

Titan_Atlas

Tranny Chaser
<Prior Amod>
7,222
18,265
28d 11h 53m
Thank you for this.

I'm writing it all down and committing it to memory, just in case I ever need to escape from a pack of REDACTED or REDACTED .
Pretty sure they would run from this conversation. But really though, what percentage would run away as an "I" and what percentage as a "we".

On the OP, identity politics are a product of importing "we" into your country. If your country was made up of "I" you would have many fewer problems. Now, your culture would be more uniform, "boring" to openness programmed humans, it would also be high trust, safe, less violent. You live in a country with identity politics because people promoted diversity and equality, both of which are horrible on all levels, also fuck every single retard who is dumb enough to argue for freedom of speech. You have never been free to speak, you are literally stupid to believe that is a real thing in any country, at anytime in human history.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TBT-TheBigToe

The New Evil
<Gold Donor>
4,478
14,401
77d 19h 55m
Pretty sure they would run from this conversation. But really though, what percentage would run away as an "I" and what percentage as a "we".

On the OP, identity politics are a product of importing "we" into your country. If your country was made up of "I" you would have many fewer problems. Now, your culture would be more uniform, "boring" to openness programmed humans, it would also be high trust, safe, less violent. You live in a country with identity politics because people promoted diversity and equality, both of which are horrible on all levels, also fuck every single retard who is dumb enough to argue for freedom of speech. You have never been free to speak, you are literally stupid to believe that is a real thing in any country, at anytime in human history.
Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd;

 
  • 1Worf
Reactions: OneofOne

Sadre Spinegnawer

Trakanon Raider
1,151
752
6d 8h 33m
I's and we's. Is the former merely the singular "thing" that gets, as things go, defined into various we's, with the former being an identity and the latter a variable set of states.

Does the "I" exist w/o a "we" to be a part of? (Robinson Crusoe problem)

If the "I" exists is it simply a collection of states or can it be said the I is a definable thing (identity)?

Does identity exist, therefore, simply as a sloppy way of speaking about contingent and transient states of a null self?
 

Denamian

Night Janitor
<Moderation Tools>
2,657
3,258
63d 20h 33m
Paging Brando Brando to the white courtesy phone. We are in need of your expertise.

Need to make sure he can weigh in here, so to the shaw with you!
 

Asshat Brando

Potato del Grande
4,898
-537
12d 7h 12m
I'm not sure what there is to add about men who can't handle a vagina talking back to them.
 

iannis

Chairman Meow
27,887
21,597
59d 21h 10m
It's possible to go too abstract.

Henry Miller (that guy who wrote all them books about fuckin) lived to 90 and kept his wits. In his later years he turned to painting watercolors. He has a collection of essays titled "the angel is my watermark" that is suggest reading for anyone that hasnt. It's fascinating because Henry wasn't a dumb guy, and he wasn't senile, and each essay actually has a solid core. But his manner was to always go too big and that collection is a study on how a lack of restraint can take an otherwise productive topic and render it inert.

They really are interesting.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: Sadre Spinegnawer

maskedmelon

Orator of Superfluous Nothings
571
417
10d 5h 13m
That's not a chair. It's a fleeting composition of hewn, polished and painted chunks of arbor flesh functionally arranged with ass and ground interfaces! It is a wedge between collections of adipose tissue confined to the posterior regions of the primary person hinge and other surfaces!
 
  • 1Truth!
Reactions: MusicForFish