It's when a drug makes you need to pee a lot

You have a herbivore and a carnivore. If there is no carnivore, the herbivores eat themselves into starvation and cease to exist. If there is no herbivore, the carnivores starve and no longer exist. Both are interdependent on the other to sustain their relationship and the wider ecosystem of relationships they participate in. There are contradictions in that interdependence, places where resource scarcity and social conflict favour the needs of one group over the other. These contradictions will mount- drought driving waterway changes driving vegetation distribution driving caloric availability and shelter- until there's a catastrophic rupture. Suddenly the population of rabbits stalls and the foxes have nothing to eat. Either new relationships are formed to meet the needs of those former intertwined groups, the groups in their current state die out, or their relationship finds a new equilibrium. As you study how the natural resources drive those interconnected relationships in the ecosystem, you're doing dialectical materialism. As you study that change over time you're doing historical materialism.

[SPEECH 100] Nobody knows what the dialectic is really; but especially not Edward Sallow, who had to have gotten his knowledge of Hegel from fucking Jason Unruhe.

You don't need to worry about dialectics unless you have kidney failure.

No fucking No hurry

The Dialectic

I told someone I matched with that I like dialectical materialism. We're now discussing Palestine with historial materialism. That's dialectics

since nobody knows for sure, I'm going to take this opportunity to say what I think it is but it's probably wrong so ignore this

I think it's called "dialectic" because it's like a "dialog". Events, history and problems and such, unfold logically until they reach an impasse, a contradiction. To resolve this, you have to take into account what has come before; your response can't just be a non-sequitur. So, like, reactionaries look at a problem that exists and say, "We have to go back to before this problem existed and just do that" -- but it never works because what came before eventually became what is. Or sometimes people try to brush away all the context, find a clean slate to start over. That really doesn't work. Your still plugged into the same context, and in attempting to wipe away everything you've just made a whole bunch of new contradictions as well.

So to be dialectic, you gotta pay attention to what's going on and what's already happened. You gotta really study the context you are in, so that when you decide to respond you are prepared for how that in turn unfolds to the next contradiction.

...i think that's what it means, anyway

I tried to learn about it, and now I have negative understanding

Dialect-deez nuts-ic

the kids these days, they don't even know what the DIALECTICS all ABOUT

Lobsters and methamphetamine

yes, but have you heard of the cousin of dialectic, diegesis?

Does it have any relation to the Parliamentarian?

You can't call yourself a real Communist Scientologist until you understand the Dialectics

its just cause and effect

you know how liberals like to argue as if things happen in a vacuum. the dialectic argues that no, we live on a continuum of cause and effect

Emergent phenomenon, chaos theory, feedback loops, interconnected dynamic systems interacting

An old word to describe a myriad of things that deal with emergence and Phase transition