MovingThrowaway [none/use name]

Yeah, symbols are imperfect representations of their essences, and each layer of abstraction is ripe for ideological obfuscation. The entirety of our culture seems trapped in a semi-orchestrated signifier dance that suppresses not only class consciousness, but consciousness in general.

Is that the instance filtering that out? Thats removed lol

What are you trying to say?

I’ve heard it with varying degrees of the R sound. There’s a common shorthand “bougie” (BOO-zhee) that people often hear before learning the original term, so they’ll maintain the pronunciation into BOO-zhwa.

Sometimes the R is slightly swallowed so it sounds more like BOH-zhwa, maybe very light throat vocalization. Or people skip over it and it’s buh-ZHWA. Some commit fully for BOR-zhwa.

Universally seems to maintain (my non-native understanding of) the French “oi” and silent S.

I have yet to hear anyone pronounce it correctly: bor-gee-oice.

Tankie is an empty signifier

That is to say, it’s a label that can be used to describe an array of different and conflicting ideas, values, and identities. Because of this it serves as an obfuscatory device rather than a communicative one. The sub-logic becomes tankie = bad, so if someone I don’t like = tankie, then person I don’t like = bad.

Almost none of us were alive when Khrushchev rolled tanks into Hungary. Most MLs aren’t particularly fond of Khrushchev.

It’s made a resurgence in this new, weird context because most of the terms used during the previous red scares lost their power through similar misuse. It’s become unfashionable to hate on leftism in progressive spaces, doing so using old terminology makes you sound like a fox news conservative. But you can do the same thing by calling it this instead.

You forgot Ryan Drive from the movie Driver (2011)

Worth keeping in mind that these ideologies each have multiple self-definitions (the ideal with which they describe themselves) as well as a set of definitions from the perspective of each other ideology. Tack on semantic drift (words changing meaning over time, or growing different meanings in different contexts) and it can start to feel hopelessly complicated. And they each offer different ways of understanding the world and history, so on top of all the aforementioned complexity, they also interpret historical events and real-world applications of each ideology differently. So learning about them is a process where your understanding slowly moves from abstract to concrete by getting rough definitions then tempering them with seemingly contradictory definitions, over time building a network of understanding that includes the contexts of each perspective.

My perspective is largely coming from a communist ideology fyi. But here’s a quick rundown.

Capitalism is a system in which a class of owners leverage their ownership of productive assets to engage in non-equal exchange with the un-owning classes, most notably the exchange of labor value for a fraction of the products of said labor value. It necessitates a large government to enforce these hierarchies of ownership and exclusion. (Classical) liberalism is the ideology of capitalism. Conservatism is generally a subset of liberalism. It’s the culturally dominant ideology now, so most of what you see and read will come from this perspective, explicitly or not.

Communism is a theoretical system in which class tensions have resolved themselves. No one knows what it’ll look like, it’s explicitly a theoretical ideal. Communism as an ideology is advocating for the interests of the working class against the owning class. A country that calls itself communist would probably be doing so in reference to the ideology, rather than claiming it has achieved communism.

Socialism as an ideology can be synonymous with communism, although there are subsets of liberalism that have taken on the word to mean capitalism with welfare and regulations. Socialism as a system is the interim stage between capitalism and communism, the point where workers have seized control of the state and means of production and now have a strong influence over how class tensions develop.

What is this image lmao

Like why is fry on Jimmy Fallon holding a beer

Is it implying he’s the one saying the joke, while being interviewed on the talk show??

But like it’s a really old, common joke, whats the significance of this specific cartoon character repeating it on this specific talk show

Idgi

A notable contribution by decolonial theory to Holocaust/fascism studies is that these phenomena weren’t unprecedented, but were the mechanisms of colonialism turned inward. Denial or ignorance of this fact hints at the fascist base of social democracy within the imperial core.

If this is true I think it’s a bathtub curve

But I’m not even convinced it’s necessarily true, at least with regard to generalized well-being (not acute emotional reactions to specific experiences). As far as physiological determinants of well-being, those are universal. I work with people with disabilities, and people that have mental/learning disabilities deal with the same variables that other people do: exercise, diet, sleep, socialization, medication, etc, which contribute massively to general happiness. And many of these people have fewer facilities and resources than other people to get their needs met.

On a philosophical level, intelligence and/or knowledge about the world doesn’t inherently necessitate unhappiness in the general sense of the word. A negative outlook implies the existence of expectations that the world failed to meet, but the expectations are arbitrary, and thus is the value judgment that follows.

Learning more about the world should add complexity to our expectations. A binary value judgement resulting in philosophical pessimism is an active choice (albeit interconnected with or superstructural to the aforementioned physiological determinants) that refuses to engage with reality in all its complexity, a dialectical stagnation. Unrefined expectations about an idyllic world that never existed.

And I think ignorance is bliss only temporarily or only for a statistically small subsection of people who have their physiological needs met and can use escapism to ignore the suffering of others (or who materially benefit from said suffering). Righteous fury is just as viable a reaction to suffering. Revolutionary suicide or revolutionary nihilism at the very least.

Again, not to disregard acute reactions to specific events, I’m talking about one’s choice of philosophical outlook.

Been pretty rough. Lucky to have made it this far I guess. I know a lot who’ve had it worse.

But yeah it’s been interesting to witness other people be able to weather the same things that put me on the street simply because they had a support group to lean on. I’m not bitter anymore, it’s just a testament to how important that is. We just have much less of a barrier, if any, between us and homelessness, and the state violence that comes along with it.

I’m only now sort of stable due to undeserved kindness from people who barely know me. Intersections of privilege made a difference too I’m sure. Definitely nothing to do with any merit or personal strength.

Moving countries with a language barrier sounds incredibly difficult. Being a statesian that’s not something I’ve had to deal with. Hope things go well for you!

Second bunbun’s idea. Meet in smaller groups and with lower stakes. My org regularly does social meets that are just like hanging out at a bar or cafe or going to a movie.

Not just a long time, that’s been the primary purpose of NATO since its inception