Because some bags of meat are horny for bags of meat that aren’t horny for them.
Some bags of meat are all horny for the same bag of meat.
Some bags of meat aren’t horny at all.
Horny tubes of electric meat, really.
There are seven natural body openings or orifices providing access to an internal cavity through a natural passage called a canal, duct or meatus.
Sir, you are no coffee mug, you are a much more. You have 7 holes. 7 genus. 6 more holes than a boring old donut. Appreciate yourself!
🍩🍩🍩🍩🍩🍩🍩
LPT: You don’t need to know that. I’ve managed to avoid conversations about dialectric whatever you said for decades.
I think the current state of wealth inequality and destruction of the middle class says otherwise. We would all be better off if we understood a little more about the world. Sorry I broke your decades long record.
The big caveat there is that knowing things doesn’t change the world. Scads of people are acutely aware of the problems facing society—maybe more than at any time in history. Vanishingly few feel empowered to do anything about it.
I’m not pro-ignorance by any means; education is the silver bullet. But we urgently need to find better ways of translating our spectacular surfeit of knowledge into individually actionable mechanisms of social change.
People understand the problems, particularly the ones that impact them but, most of the time, that understanding is extremely shallow. Knowledge dissemination alone would absolutely have been enough to prevent a second Trump Presidency, and actually a first Biden presidency as well. People make bad choices because they don’t understand them.
I think the same goes for activism as well. I think a lot more people would get involved if they understood the stakes and the effectiveness of organized engagement.
Anyways, this is a humor sub, so I feel a little bad for going all serious, but I’m really bugged by pseudo-zen aloof disengagement rhetoric. (From the above, not from you.)
Kinda, but kinda not. Case in point, people in the US who believe immigrants cause their poverty. They’re a huge proportion of the population. I bet if most of them knew then Trump would have lost. Further, probably Bernie would have become president. Also most of them would have joined a union. Those things would have dramatically changed the quality of life in America for the better.
I didn’t know dialectical materialism was a thing till this meme. Now I need to know. Thanks asshole!
For as much as people talk it up, I thought there was a lot to it. There isn’t.
A dialectic is a tool for thinking through a problem or idea. You start with an idea or concept (called the Thesis) and then you consider the forces and concepts that lie in opposition to the chosen one (called the Antithesis). After considering both, you try to understand the relationships between the two things and how they support, oppose, and generate each other. This unified understanding of how the two concepts are actually one concept through these connections is called the Synthesis.
Dialectical Materialism is applying the dialectic as a tool while also keeping in mind physical/material reality and the ways in which physical/material constraints influence these things.
For example you might ask “Why do rebellions occur in formally peaceful states?” Your thesis is “rebellion” and so your antithesis is something like “the state” or “status quo.” Through materialism, you’d ask questions like “where do the rebels/state acquire food, shelter, weapons, etc. What is the role of poverty in fomenting rebellion?”
Through synthesis, you would come to conclusions like “the people pay taxes to fund the state, but some people also devote a larger share of their time and resources to the rebellion.” Or: “Rebel recruitment goes up after police crackdowns, a lighter hand with policing may reduce re-occurrences of riots.”
Because this isn’t ideal dialectics (not “ideal” like optimal but “ideal” as in “concerning ideas and immaterial things.”) So we’d be less concerned with “what is the rebellions stated aim” or “what is the state’s majority religion?” you can make these questions material though: “what do the rebels hope to gain materially” or “how is the state religion funded and enforced?”
And although I’m just riffing an example, in real life when using this tool to convince others of your sound logic, it is best to have actual references and data to support the conclusions derived. This gives reality to the material considerations.
Elementary Principles of Philosophy by Georges Politzer is my favorite introduction to Historical and Dialectical Materialism if you’re down to reading a book!
If not, the gist of it is that Materialism is a subset of philosophy that believes matter shapes thoughts, rather than idealism where thoughts shape matter. The Dialectical aspect focuses on contradictions both within something and between things, their relations, and trajectories.
An example of the usefulness is when Karl Marx developed it and used it to analyze Capitalism, seeing how it arose from Feudalism, and predicted that because Capitalism has a tendency to centralize and the Proletariat stands at odds with the Bourgeoisie, eventually Socialism will be the next phase, emerging from the conditions laid out by Capitalism via revolution. The class dynamics formed a contradiction, as you cannot have a bourgeoisie without proletarians, as well as vice versa. Additionally, Capitalism contains the means to make Socialism, the internal contradictions.
This was an extreme oversimplification, but that’s the bare gist. I recommend the book if you’re interested in more!
wrongly predicted
Pseudo-science is a bad tool for scientific prediction.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m a big fan of marx. But the outdated and pseudo-scientific aspects should be emphasized instead of obscured.
