Message from @sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ
Discord ID: 519940117402746938
you guys are starting to hit what makes you you and the concept and nature of consciousness itself. I get the sense that you guys need to establish consciousness first and then move on to identity.
Generally form my view, psychologically we have both individual identity and a social identity, each being equally important and equally important to our purpose. identity forms from the most primordial, it must be based upon something and that begins the formation of "you". However you as a concept existed before however the nature of you is based on these in order to root the concept of you in the context of your current existence.
Generally if you were broken down molecule by molecule and rebuilt, you and everything you were is continued and the concept of you remains the same. The barriers remain the same. However these will be changed if we change the nature of the physical medium that is "you". In essence changing the barriers and what encapsulates you. But what if that too was not true and instead meant that your physical form changed however the internal you, particularly that which concept of you started, is the immutable you. rather only the social you, the you that others percieve changes and as such social identity changes rather than individual immutable identity?
This is a flow of ideas so i may have gone over things you guys already have or might simply not make sense.
looks like there are fairly common (and stable through time) phenotype, and races are real
If your in Canada consider coming out to protest the UN Compact on migration in Ottawa this Satuday
Antifa is going to be there so we need people to show up
Generally how People look d9es not repeat So exactly which is only common for twins. The chances are beyond astronomical. Alternatively were looking at inbreeding of some sorts
Fascism is a form of socalism
change my mind
@sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ Define socialism
this is a necessary first step
Socialism is often conflated with heavy market regulation
Where the means of production are collectively owned by the state or workers
That's accurate
But it's not as black and white as that
extremely heavy economic intervention by the state
Market intervention is not socialism
Not market intervention
Take Venezeula for example
Fascism doesn't seek to abolish private property
The state owns the property
in fascism
In Mussolini's case, it was a mixture of state capitalism with state socialism
No
Mussolini wasn't a man of his word
Not really
it depends
he didn't follow fascism as he should have
and state socialism is just socialism
state capitalism does not exist
Hitler for instance was pro-private property, but he winded up betraying national socialism in the end
Yes it does
It's just semantics
No it doesn't
define state capitalism
Hitler was pro private property in the sense that he could seize it if it went against the state, it was heavily regulated
A business can be owned by the state and driven by profit, being ran like any other business
lmao no it fucking wasn't