I wasn't factoring you in this "we" you mention, I specifically clarified I wasn't. This "we" tribalism is a simulated and false perception, that's the point I'm getting at.
Are you actually responding to me or are you just talking around me to make a point?
It's a timeless classic for sure.
But you don't achieve wisdom by cloistering yourself apart from the out-group to create a neo-intelligentsia that treats theory as scripture and prioritizes only the aesthetics of revolution while ignoring the plight of the uneducated masses as a lost cause. That is the idea I am critical of (not you per se, but the behavior I've seen from a lot of others around the fediverse who care more about tribalism based on nothing more than the instance someone calls home).
I'm just here for a forum, not a soapbox.
Ok, I am also here for some memes, too. Life sucks without laughter.
In your quoted text, Mao is fighting those members of the communist party that shirked their duties and looked at themselves as above the masses, a small but relevant issue within the CPC at the time.
That is the analogy I was looking to make, yes.
Then please recommend the .ml admins approve my application this time.
Until then, I could do with less patronizing about circumstances beyond my control.
I looked it up, it does look like a line from the original PS1 script. Cid says this line, in the context of Cloud being potentially short-sighted by letting people finish their personal business before entering the Northern Crater.
Cloud: No! What I meant was... What are we all fighting for? I want us all to understand that. Save the planet... for the future of the planet... Sure, that's all fine. But really, is that really how it is? For me, this is a personal feud. I want to beat Sephiroth. And settle my past. Saving the planet just happens to be part of that. I've been thinking. I think we all are fighting for ourselves. For ourselves... and that someone... something... whatever it is, that's important to us. That's what we're fighting for. That's why we keep up this battle for the planet.
Barret: You're right... It sounds cool sayin' it's to save the planet. But I was the one who blew up that Mako Reactor...... Lookin' back on it now, I can see that wasn't the right way to do things. I made a lot of friends and innocent bystanders suffer... ...At first, it was revenge against Shinra. For attackin' my town. But now...... Yeah. I'm fightin' for Marlene. For Marlene... For Marlene's future... Yeah... I guess I want to save the planet for Marlene's sake...
Cloud: Go and see her. Make sure you're right, and come back. All of you. Get off the ship and find out your reasons for yourselves. I want you to make sure. Then I want you to come back.
Cid: Maybe ain't none of us'll come back. Meteor's gonna kill us anyway. Let's just forget any useless struggling!
Cloud: I know why I'm fighting. I'm fighting to save the planet, and that's that. But besides that, There's something personal too... A very personal memory that I have. What about you all? I want all of you to find that something within yourselves. If you don't find it, then that's okay too. You can't fight without a reason, right? So, I won't hold it against you if you don't come back.
Similar problem, but we could also start using Shavian
Isn't that the same accusation that people throw out about Lemmy.ml though? It's a reductionist meme at this point. If you honestly think the entire instance is a Nazi bar, why not just filter it out entirely instead of engaging with Nazis?
Like I said, I signed up for Lemmy.ml first. The admins rejected my application for reasons they would not disclose. I don't know if it's that they just didn't like my username/email or whatever, but I tried a couple times and got the same result each time.
I settled on Lemmy.world barring the first option, because I was tired of applying and waiting just to keep getting rejections, and a friend had told me this instance just accepts everyone. So I figured why not?
But why advocate cooperation and mutual support on the fediverse when we can just foster more infighting based on tribalism, I guess?
It's not perfect, but the basic idea is that assuming malice as default in every scenario will cause one to spiral into paranoia.
It's not saying "people are never malicious and always just stupid" but just asking someone to take a step back from the situation and ask which is likelier in context.
Hanlon's Razor is an old adage that boils down to: when you think someone is intentionally trying to be evil and ruin something, take a step back and ask whether it's likelier they're trying to be intentionally malicious, or if they're just stupid/incompetent.
For example, you go to a restaurant and tell the waiter that you can't have dairy, so you order a pasta dish without cheese. They bring it out to you, but look, there's cheese. You can assume either that the waiter or the staff in the kitchen absolutely hate you and intentionally gave you cheese just to spite you...or that they just screwed up and forgot. The latter is probably likelier.
I was half-joking about potentially updating this idea to include an additional stipulation about AI bots online, which are good at looking like stupid people but actually are often malicious. Bots are used to sway political opinions. You have cases where they are trying to pass themselves off as real people to drown out legitimate discourse with a simulation of it, and cases like Musk's Grok AI where it's programmed to ignore truth and instead answer questions in ways that further his agenda or inflate his ego.
So sometimes when you see political posts that just defy all logic, or are ignoring a hard truth that is staring them in the face, you're inclined to ask "How can this person sincerely believe what they're saying right now?" And often the answer will be that they don't, because they're not a person, they're a bot just regurgitating propagandic talking points.
But a good day to have eyestalks I guess!
For sunk cost, I think the post could have illustrated this one more accurately as "You were raised a boy," which I think encapsulates the parental investment that makes it a sunk cost. That's how I had initially read it, at least.
I think the false dichotomy angle could also be expanded by factoring in intersex people who are similarly forced into AMAB/AFAB boxes despite biologically not fitting neatly into those categories, basically that the labels male and female themselves are a false dichotomy. Sorta blurs into the next point re: chromosomes, but I think it still captures two different ideas (Biologically male and biologically female are not accurate categories, and chromosomes are not indicative of gender identity).
And I think even the ad hominem aspect could be blurred a little bit to still make sense, if read in the sense of, like, "You're a man, you can't understand what it means to be a woman, therefore you're not allowed to call yourself one."