thats.a good timestamp!

Hey, some people got mom issues

"UMMM ACTUALLY!!!" - varietywarrior, 2024 Hi varietywarrior, idgaf about the semantic difference between "corporatism" and "capitalism." I have researched it, and it's A distinction without a difference. It serves 0 function when what I'm critiquing are issues that are materially real. Literally anyone can tell that when i say "capitalism" i mean "the current system," because that is how it colloquially understood. You're just parroting conservative rhetoric, my guy. Go read Wittgenstein to develop an understanding of when semantics is and is not important to philosophy

You know what, let me actually give you some definitions, so that you can know going forward that bith corporatism and capitalism function side by side. 1) capitalism: an economic systemin which all value, including property, real estate, and intellectual ownership, can be represented by liquid capital (money). The goal of the system is to maximize capital, and thereby theoretically maximize the total value in society. 2) corporatism: economic interests having political influence over policymakers, resulting in a regulated rather than free market. With an emphasis on the interest of the corporations maximizing their profits. (It’s just lobbying my dude!) 2a) example: Donald Trump offering to cut drilling and frakking regulations to the oil companies if they donate large sum to his campaign. (literally asking to be lobbied to in public. pro-active corporatism.) 3) So, let's do some economic realism. People will always pursue their perceived self-interest. Those with more money will seek to use that money toward self interest. The current system defines "self interest" in an economic sense to be the maximizing of profits. Those with capital will thus seek to use that capital to further maximize their ability to accrue capital and hoard more money. So, they will lobby politicians to create conditions more favorable to maximizing their own profits. the ultra-wealthy and Corporations lobby politicians in order to fund deregulation, but also to fund favorable regulations, such as reducing the cost of safety by ending safety regulation and allowing them to break up unions. They happily fire employees en masse to both prevent unions from forming and to reach quarterly profit expectations, so that shareholders feel like theyre maximizing their capital accrual. They keep wages for long time employees stagnant, which is why workers are constantly quitting their jobs for the chance to negotiate better pay elsewhere. They engage in shrinkflation so that people dont notice immediately that their cost of living/eating food enough food has gone up. They engage in mass-unemployment on a routine, annual bassis, while never decreasing their own earnings or profits to do right by the middle class and the poor. Because Capitalism says success is maximizing capital, regardless of the human value being lost in thw shuffle. "Corporatism" is just naturally what a person with enough capital to wield social power natually does: use capital to wield social power. You good now? Void be the word, and the word be Profit. Because profit is a void of true value.

you're welcome, LettuceCat. Would you believe this one still gets comments from people saying it's too much gameplay? haha

@@SocraTetris Not for me, hahaha.. i think i know what you were going for with the gameplay vid. Sort of "bridging" the gap between story beats. But this version had just the right amount!

I absolutely will, momisthatyou! And there's still more where that came from! I hope you enjoy yhe rest of my channel :)

thank yoi, Halos! Hope you enjoy the rest of my warframe videos too. there are a lot of them now!

we are many years out from me playing the game, so I can't really hold a conversation about the lore 🤷🏾‍♂️ but if you're interested in the philosophy, I can gan about that

It's always better when we can replay the quests. especially because people who chose different options will have different experiences to the ones i show in my videos.

I appreciate yours!

lol.Buddy, it's a business. one third of the game's enemies are a critique of capitalism. Please reserve edgy political anger sentences like "fat with greed" for corporations that drilling for oil, manufacturing weapons of war, or politicians taking bribes from lobbyists and criminals.

Also, they've released a Tileset expansion this year. Four story Quests. And we're going to be getting Waframe 1999 likely near the holidays. So many story seeds have been introduced since New War cincluded the first arch. They are going places with this

wair for it. you havent reached that part of the story yet

I did my best. But i don't speak Finnish. It would be weird for the flow of the video if I either apologized every time a said a name, or tried to completely accent switch to a language I dont speak like Peggy Hill.

If you've seen my other videos, you'll know there are. lot of words from a lot of languages that I have to say to give the info

i may reach out! thank you for the suggestion!

great point!

Cuz it's my house. They can do that in their house. I'm not the government. But I have a responsibility to the rest of my house-guests to kick out the fascies from my bar

@@SocraTetris Alright, suppose it’s fair when you put it that way.

And, for clarification, the group I'm saying i would delete is people arguing that slavery is preferable to freedom. Different context than the one you mentioned

It means they become our friends. Maybe the question of "natures" is the wrong one. Orokin tried to organize their society by assigning bioessentialiat natures to their social classes. The Grineer, Corpus, and Tenno all chose to deatroy that system when given the opportunity

Not sure exactly what part you are at. so consider this possible spoilers. Warframe's story currently has only 1 extant timeline which we follow. Margulis was an orokin dating Executor Ballas. When Margulis wanted to protect the children of the Zariman 10-0, she spoke out against the Orokin and was sentenced to death for it. A sentient Mimic named Natah then took the form of Margulis. Here you must remember the Orokin's "Vain Faith" religion. They considered beauty/appearence to be equal to truth. Natah in the form of Margulis was thus Margulis in fact to Ballas. Natah, in disguise, then cared for the children during the era of the Second Dream, when the children lived as warframes. Until after The Old War. From the end of the war and the night of naga drums on, Natah lead the Tenno as The Lotus. A new identity that was neither Natah nor Margulis.

I definitely wouldn't say it was ever a critique of christianity. Gnosticism was an influence on Eva, but Hideaki Anno has stated that it was mainly in the interest of it being cool for visuals and appealing yo western audiences. Anno wasnt really commenting on the beliefa or ideas of Gnosticism either. It really is as simple as that he made a mecha show about trauma and mental health. The rest is set dressing, imo

@@SocraTetris When I first watched the show it created a large crisis of faith for me as a Christian, after I was exposed to further analysis of the series. I very much confused elements like Seele and Instrumentality with Christianity and Religion as a whole, along with the concept of a Christian God and a future paradise. I personally don’t believe that the gnostic or Christian and Jewish symbolism in the show isn’t there for no reason. And if you want a video as to why I believe this to be the case, look up the video “Evangelion: Intimacy and its discontents”. I feel like Evangelion is passively promoting the idea that religion is a form of escapism. However after going through this “dark night of the soul” you could say, I came to have a deeper understanding of the knowledge and the meaning of what is said in the Bible. I came to realize that everything that Seele was doing and the instrumentality project itself stood in stark contrast to the Christian solution to life’s problems through applying Biblical principals. In fact the entire book of Ecclesiastes in the Bible is a full confrontation with reality and accepting it as is. Which is a crucial message that Evangelion has. Due to this I believe that there are two possibilities. 1.) That Hideaki Anno put the Christian imagery and themes into the show to criticize Christianity and religion as a whole due to a gross misunderstanding of scripture and what the Bible actually says and means. This is likely due to him diving into people like Sigmund Frued, and Frederich Niche, who were both motivated by misunderstandings of scripture and a strong opposition to either religion and Christianity, or to the catholic church which was plagued with a lot of corruption back then, and still is today. 2.)Or that Hideaki Anno was unknowingly criticizing something else. And after looking at the possible inspirations that Anno likely got from Gnostic Christianity and similar analysis videos about the frenzied flame in Elden ring like this one, I feel like I realize what Anno unknowingly tried to criticize in an attempt to look at Christianity and religion as a whole as a form of escapism. I feel like he criticized gnostic Christianity in the original series, with how similar things like Seele and the human instrumentality project are. Much like the way that the frenzied flame is inspired by gnostic interpretations of the garden of Eden and the revelation/paradise account. Or maybe I just have the wrong interpretation of Eva. But if you want a video describing how much Evangelion is inspired by Gnosticism, search up the video “No one understood Evangelion . . . . Until now”.

When I first watched the show it created a large crisis of faith for me as a Christian, after I was exposed to further analysis of the series. I very much confused elements like Seele and Instrumentality with Christianity and Religion as a whole, along with the concept of a Christian God and a future paradise. I personally don’t believe that the gnostic or Christian and Jewish symbolism in the show isn’t there for no important reason. And if you want a video as to why I believe this to be the case, look up the video “Evangelion: Intimacy and its discontents”. I feel like Evangelion is passively promoting the idea that religion is a form of escapism. However after going through this “dark night of the soul” you could say, I came to have a deeper understanding of the knowledge and the meaning of what is said in the Bible. I came to realize that everything that Seele was doing and the instrumentality project itself stood in stark contrast to the Christian solution to life’s problems through applying Biblical principals. In fact the entire book of Ecclesiastes in the Bible is a full confrontation with reality and accepting it as is. Which is a crucial message that Evangelion has. Due to this I believe that there are two possibilities. 1.) That Hideaki Anno put the Christian imagery and themes into the show to criticize Christianity and religion as a whole due to a gross misunderstanding of scripture and what the Bible actually says and means. This is likely due to him diving into people like Sigmund Frued, and Frederich Niche, who were both motivated by misunderstandings of scripture and a strong opposition to either religion and Christianity, or to the catholic church which was plagued with a lot of corruption back then, and still is today. 2.)Or that Hideaki Anno was unknowingly criticizing something else. And after looking at the possible inspirations that Anno likely got from Gnostic Christianity and similar analysis videos about the frenzied flame in Elden ring like this one, I feel like I realize what Anno unknowingly tried to criticize in an attempt to look at Christianity and religion as a whole as a form of escapism. I feel like he criticized gnostic Christianity in the original series, with how similar things like Seele and the human instrumentality project are. Much like the way that the frenzied flame is inspired by gnostic interpretations of the garden of Eden and the revelation/paradise account. Or maybe I just have the wrong interpretation of Eva. But if you want a video describing how much Evangelion is inspired by Gnosticism, search up the video “No one understood Evangelion . . . . Until now”.

It seems like you might have a video or two in ya. There's also dozens of videos about eva from a gnostic or christian lens. I dont find those valuable. I would suggest you watch the Eva series from the podcast Pen Pen Pals. They spend hours taking the time to analyze the series and movies from every angle possible. Great bunch and very dedicated fans. moreso than i

@@SocraTetris do you have any links to their podcast? And also go ahead and watch the videos that I’m talking about and I believe you’ll understand what I mean.

We need not appeal to immaterial nor religious principles yet. That one application of randomness you mention is neither the basis of her argument nor only argument presented. I said plenty in the video, but there are plenty failures of logic itself because her arguments are largely semantic, based on definitions of what the word "free" means. She relies on an unstated assumption that "free" means without limits, when "free" could mean otherwise, such as "within a sphere of influence or range of possibility." As for "will". To you I would restate some things like this: consider for a moment the possibility of emergent macro-physics that do not appear probabalistic. Gravity for example does not have a "quantum gravity" account in the standard model. These deterministic physics emerge from randomness, thus physical phenomenon that are not possible at the quantum scale become possible and true at the classical scale. This opens the door to entertain the possibility of top-down causation as well as bottom-up. If a macro-phenomenon only emerges at a macro-scale, yet has the ability to cause a shift in the range of possibility of a quantum-scale objects wave function, then we essentially would have a top-down causation. If the brain were a sufficiently complex system such that such a phenomenon occurs, we would then attribute that physical property to the organism. to its "will". None of this needs to be taken on faith, mind you. It isnt a matter of "belief in free will" as sabine changed her title to at a later date. It's the refusal to engage with the question. the refusal to think one could devise a test for the various things discussed. All because she has some semantic dismissals of the concepts. That's the incurious, semantic gobbledygook. then again, she also was jumping on the anti-trans and autism "trender" conspiracies while citing sociological "papers" from hate groups that didnt have peer review at the same time as the video I was critiquing. But by all means lets focus on her logic being supposedly sound.

@@SocraTetris I believe her argument was that if quantum effects were random, they would cancel out at any scale that mattered. They would be noise, not signal. Even if they did not, even if some randomness were preserved in effect, I don't think it matters so long as the molecules bounce to some predetermined rules. There many be a random force applied but if the reaction to any given force is predetermined then it isn't a free choice. So I was going beyond what she said but a long the same vein.

@@SocraTetris You do suggest things that would end-run her logic. But do we have any non circular evidence that free will is a top down phenomenon as you describe it? I suppose the theistic view is also top down, but I meant in your context. If We Can detect subtle particles and forces we should be able to detect a macro driven process.t

Review the sections in both videos about the decoupling of scales. She at one point says to assume the math would prove deterministic and thr math is always right, and at another time tells you to ignore the math when people who actually did it discovered that it suggested different, measurable infinities that could introduce probabilistic behavior at macro scales. We don't have evidence for something like that thing I suggested. My point is that we shouldnt be dismissive of exploring the idea, which was Sabine's final takeaway. To stop caring about it because she assumes no matter what it ends up being it isnt science. She chose the conclusion before the wonder, the questions, and the science.

To state the critique of the video succinctly: Sabine is using rationalism/logic, not evidence, to assert conclusions about evidence-drive science/mathematics have already been reached. Logic is not a proof of material fact. That's the cornerstone of empiricism. But Sabine places herself as authority and derives that her faulty, semantics-driven logic is proof. >> Her original title for the video was "Did science disprove Free Will" and a thumbnail that said "Yes." Before she changed the title and thumbnail to have a much softer initial claim when she started getting dragged for the incompetent way she tried to cite evidence as part of her argument.

and yet i didnt lose. skill

​@@SocraTetris true

We don't have that information, as it isnt presented in game. Thr story is incomplete, because none of tje charactere telling thr story were present for the events. So all we can do is speculate

@SocraTetris ah I see, that's really disappointing. Like I said, I still really enjoyed the video - even if it wasn't what I expected. Thank you very much!!!

Glad you liked it Warblenoise!

glad you liked it fedjamagga

lol, did you go through the story without playing it? I forgot thos was a movie. my b

@@SocraTetris ya i just thought it was a full on explanation of everything since i was confused about some things but it was just the story. well i did end up watching it all as i was playing the game so it wasnt really a waste of time, just background noise as i played and did learn a couple things. great video

youre welcome, crimsonkarma

The Can Opener of La Puta Madre strikes again.

Toxic Positivity is the worst, lol

💜

Like Miyazaki combining Berserk with Games of Thrones, and then combining it with even more Berserk.