OKOK, I sense that my previous statement on the matter has resolved a lot of issues with some of the things
I'm writing to You about; And what I have to say to that is: Now that I actually have a Hammer, kind of,
it makes sense to think about it more responsibly.
It's an "order of operations" type of thing. So, let me draw You this picture where we have two "things".
And to be super safe, we don't want to name them or give them any Character that adds a cognitive bias to
the idea. So, I'm thinking of/seeing two rectangles in whitespace. Say, one white and one black ... as for
the "baseline" bias of "good versus bad", by well, acknowledging that one is certainly dark by tendency
and the other is bright. Or ... let's color them in "Phasic Black" - with each being simply the opposite
color of the other.
The reason I'm here is because ... what I'm trying to get at is the picture where these two objects exist
in the same space and we can move them around in that space. Sort of. That's how I see it. Compared to that
... I think of "Your" idea of these things as like ... either of those rectangles is a portal. It's like
... "either or". And while "Both" is certainly a thing that people understand, it's exactly this. That
the fassade ... so, the 3D Environment as projected onto the 2D Surface that is the "Far Canvas" of our
Worldview ... makes it seem like there's an either or situation in terms of direction. And depending on
how much You can move around, changing Your own perspective on the matter, the relationship between the
two may never really change ... meaningfully. You'd have to do the mental equivalent of astrophysics to
figure that out. And I believe that we don't really have the tools for that. Although ... eventually ...
we can start to treat "these kinds of things" more as objects ... like, by default, ... rather than just
paintings on the wall.
The real topic that's brooding in my guts right now ... is about social cohesion. I mean, it's easy to consume
any kind of content on the internet and at least "step" into one of those "fly traps" - and how we relate to
those things is not only a matter of personal Character. If Your relationship with the Internet is strong, You'll
care about it differently than when Your relationship with the Internet is virtually non-existent.
Now, if You're conscious of those things and You want to use the internet like a civilized person would (if we
lived in a civilized world) You'd be ... 'concerned' about those things. But around those concerns are like ...
so I see it ... "rings" of dividing lines ... and the further out You get, the less people care about those
things.
Now picture this perhaps as a gradient ... where You have full saturation (of "care") in the middle (say,
hyperbolic orange) - and things gradually become less colored. That would be what we'd expect. A simple spectrum
where You have two extremes. But what if the very first ring around the fully saturated center ... were the
absolute opposite? Say ... black versus white? So You'd have like ... people that are terminally online but
like ... on Instagram ... they couldn't care less about censorship and stuff. So, we add another dimension
I suppose.
But that's not quite what I was getting at.
The reality is more like ... in the center we have like "purists" ... and at some point of "not caring enough",
corruption breaks in. And then we get to like ... a complete inversion of the values of care. And then "the
rings of care" ... kind of change color depending on ... where the real world influences are coming from. So,
let's number the rings for ease of use ... from zero (center) to 11 ("outside"). So ... uhm, maybe.
Anyway ... . If the center were white - but corporate support started to boost the inversion of the values in
that center, a person sitting outside wouldn't have meaningful access to those sitting 'inside'. They just
have to "take it" that the Internet is "black" as it were; And not hyperbolic orange.
Black to say: Here we actually have the "qualities" of "Ring 11" ... because there is ZERO CARE ... but it
sits there at Ring 1 ... or like, draws a wall around ... however close to center it might get.
And what we then have ... is like a ... "two sides of the issue" type of thing. But the issue isn't as much
between those sitting inside and those sitting outside; But it's the corruption due to which those that are
outside are like "drawn into" the opposing camp.
And the more critical things become for those in the center, the more desperate they will try to reach out
to those around ... but their inability to reach back makes it seem that those outside are part of the
corruption.
And Religion is no different; With the preachers and/or ... "whoever owns the building" being the first instance
of this kind of influence. And to take it back into the real world: They would certainly try - even if it's just
an image from a thought experiment - to occupy the center. Maybe there's something to be gained.
What that means is that those in the center, those that CARE, eventually say "fuck it, I'm out" - and that could
lead to a reconceiliation between those that sat inside and those that sit outside ... if it weren't for the
myriad of other disks we're a part of.
But that's also kind of where we are. They have occupied enough for there to be a large enough migration outward
that the common values we all share at the end of the day ... come back together as a rejection of "the core";
And, further down the line, becomes a disk of its own.
There may be a few topics that yet sit there like wrinkles. The way I see it right now, there's the matter of
Misogyny for instance - where I want to distinguish between "Cultural Sexism" and "Misogyny as a Value".
And naturally there's a spectrum too. And actually ... I have heard of a religion that kind of incorporates
this very distinction in its ideology; And You would be surprised to learn that it's Islam.
I mean, I've heard someone talk about it ... trying to explain what "Haram" means, or something like that.
Sure, Islam is Culturally very Sexist ... like ... we could put it at THAT far end of the extreme ... Enough for
"Misogyny as a Value" to kind of ... fly under the radar. At least when it comes to those disks; It's like easy
to "invert" the "good understanding" of that Cultural Sexism into active Misogyny.
And here's then why "so many" Young Muslims are attracted to the AfD of all things:
Well, if one thing is certain, it's that they're VICTIMS. From what I've heard, the more someone holds to their
conviction, the more ... of a victim complex they seem to have. Not playing victim, but wrestling for power and
control.
I've recently ... had the misfortune of having to think about our Chancellor again ... but I had to ... pick
something apart for better understanding. So, our "beloved Friedrich" ... he's a very outspoken racist. So, when
a woman suffers violence he's like "but the immigrants are the real problems". ... Literally?
Seems that way. But in the meantime he's also a Misogynist. Basically a "Misogyny as a Value" type of person;
Which is however most of where the 'cultural ire' between Christians and Muslims here in Germany - the way I see
it - comes from. The way he was put there, was simply by being the candidate of the CDU/CSU; As it was almomst
certain that the CDU would win the election given that everyone was super anxious not to let the AfD win.
What this then creates is an atmosphere in which those "Islamist" values 'dominate' - but the racist face of
civility and order in Germany is like ... just "more of the same dreck" and thus not an option for a lot of
Young voters.
Something like that. It's wild how all those: "Islamist Bad" type of politics/politicians eventually end up being
... just like them. At which point everything boils down into nationalism - and however many fall into the fold-lines
of these machinations make up the basis of the appearances based on which we then interpret the world around us.
And, as I noticed concerning #3 - that something that irked me was simply "the thing" 10x ing whatever I was holding
in my mind for comparison; I believe we have a similar inflation, perhaps fear driven, regarding the perceived
threat. I mean - I've been in the position where some "he said she said" threw me off guard enough ... versus not
having the time to care ... that I just had to nope out. And yea, that's what they're trying to do with Hasan.
To which I have to say: Antisemitism is OK (kind of Christian) for as long as it doesn't involve Concentration
Camps (not Christian) or Gas Chambers (very not Christian). I mean ... yea. I think that as a German I'm like
"genetically racist" - I've written about it a lot - and there sure is that "Zone" in which it can be played off as
a joke. I mean, we can't avoid ... looking at someone overweight and think "Fat". And it might be unhealthy to
repress these "mind farts" - just as, I believe, with real farts (and burps) [As our Family Motto went for as long
as my Grandpa sat at the table: "As the Great Luther once said: Why burpeth and farteth ye not - have You not
enjoyed it?"] - but, what we don't want is to build tensions.
And ... I don't know. There's just something awkward about those situations where You, culturally speaking,
can't really connect due to sensitivities. And yea, whenever a content creator got to this point ... they found
themselves in really hot waters right thereafter. And from there on what we have is a power imbalance. I mean,
what we find is an argument going down in public - and however it is resolved is significant because it did
happen in public. Affected: Everyone who witnessed it somehow. But now we - the observer - are semi incapable
of affecting that. We have to trust that all of the noise kindof ... filters out a good conclusion; And yea,
to give respects that I'm asked for is a courtesy I'm willing to give for as long as I like ... don't feel insulted
by it.
What we have here are, I think, two colliding hemispheres. It's like the "ought to" is already ... knocked out of
the center, home-run, and the "is" is a situation where we have to like ... bite ourselves in the fist just so we
can lower the all-over temperature to a managable point.
Uhm ... where was I? I think I got a little side-tracked ...
So yea. I have like ... a side-quest in my Active Quest log ... and it comes down, once again, to sortof formulate
a comprehensive argument in this whole "debate arc". So that You can see that I'm "sound of mind" - and what I came
up with instead could be described as a show titled "Yeet or Meet". But before we start thinking about stacking the
odds in our favour, I want to emphasize that this isn't a place for "Black Boxes".
Which is why You need me; And that's the crux of it all; At the end of the day. I mean ... I feel like if there's a
person - at this point - who feels like they need to argue with me - they have a hard time to even argue against You.
Which is ... great. I mean, if You're like "But the Bible is Misogynistic. What's Your stance on that?" - well, Meet
or Yeet? And I suppose it depends on context. It's not that the question in and of itself is offensive or undeserving
of an answer or further deepening; But if I'm under the impression that You don't care about that but really just
want to say that I'm wrong because I'm not Misogynistic enough ... the situation is at the end of the day just a form
of arm-wrestling. So, I'd be "Yeet" though, perhaps, You might vote "Meet" - and ... I wonder. I wonder if this
impression is real where this "stale mate of forces" would lock "them" into a paralysis as they have to remain in the
state of "pressing for an answer" - where all I have to do is to "hold it there" and I might do whatever. Like, them
being literally paralyzed to the point I could answer with a baseball bat and they'd be just sitting there still
waiting for an answer.
So, what I'm saying is that I've learned to let go ... of the argument.
I mean, in my journey I was at first put off by ... that feeling that I had "dead beat" arguments - such as to basically
"force You into believing in God" - so much so that I conceptualized "Truth as a Weapon" in context of people rejecting
what I had to say. So, little by little I compromised more and more of my Zaelotry in favor of consideration - and
given the circumstanced I'd say it worked out fine.
I mean, if You want the Truth - at the end of the day there's what You have to do Yourself; And if You "can't" do that
then ... what shall I say to You?
That ... birthrates have become like a political problem ... that's not problematic. That the issue however is a partisan
issue ... that's problematic. I mean, there's Liberals and there's Conservatives - or as I like to put it here: City
Dwellers and Townsfolk. So, Disks. The very simple one that simply regards Population Density. See, in a city a lot more
is going on and stores typically have more traffic and every person generally has a greater dependency on those stores.
So, in cities You thusly have more work - just overall - and all the business culminates in what could be called
"productivity maxxing". And all that ... is already enough to leave some imprint on our disk. But then add Children. Is
a City a good place for a child to grow up in? Does a person feel comfortable raising a child in a city? Does a person
who's caught up in the work of a city ... even have the time for the implied consequences of procreation?
There's lots of good reasons for people in a city to ... not want or have a family. The insidious nonsense here is ...
well ... You can piece it together Yourself. Why is this somehow a partisan problem?
I mean ... for all the Horror stories You might hear of Cities ... there's also a Horror story You might hear of a
Town. So please leave the accusations of degeneracy at home.
Hmm ... I also think ... that they might be so used to their BS - that they absolutely don't understand how social dynamics
work; But I suppose that that's just the impression because they just don't engage like that; And possibly may have lost
the ability to do so.
So, functionally they're morons.
It's like ... hyperfocused idiocy - condensed into a spiritual ideology; With all the bells and whistles of a major
religion.
And ... at this point You have to like ... prove me wrong on that. Because ... I see it for a fact ... and either I'm looking
at the Data wrong (because the Data I'm looking at certainly suggests ...) or I'm missing something. So, what's the End
Boss?
Like, between sane people this wouldn't ever be a huge problem. If I have a problem I'd tell You ... so, we like ... don't
put up a Gauntlet and Fortress around the things we want to have resolved. I mean, in a healthy society.
I shouldn't have to engage in a Souls-like quest for what even is going on - and Dark Souls Lore certainly is the Dark
Souls of Lore - to uh ... get to the thing. But yea, there's shame and then there's the shameful.
And so the thing loops back in on itself.
From what the Bible tells us about the Antichrist - and maybe, if we wanted to have fertile arguments regarding
Christianity we should start THERE - they want to be GOD - so, just replace all mentions of God or Jesus with Antichrist
... and that's like ... the thing then? It can't be that simple. Like, we get the symptoms - we can surmise what
"Family Values" or "Freedom of Speech" truly mean when they say it - but we don't see the "core".
And so it's either a "Fassade" we need to be dealing with or the "Truth". Where ... we finally get to talk of the Woke
Mind-Virus.
I mean, I know I'm bad at ... relationships in a way where I can't give You good advice. I've noticed that; Specifically
in contrast to "Wokeism". I'd like get fragments of a story and the person makes a sound case for themselves and I'd
agree while "the Wokista" would be wiggling the finger and calling it problematic at best. But then ... sometimes ...
there comes the twist and I see that the Wokista was right all along. It's as previously discussed in regards to racism.
There's like an "ought to" - which we can talk about - but it is the "is" that we have to actually contend with.
Now I see that the deeper issue is ... that the rats tail begins so deep within - it's difficult to parse.
Following situation I picked up in some compilation video: A woman goes through a traumatic pregnancy that makes her
decide to not have any children thereafter. Her husband, the narrator of the story, however has already sold himself
on the idea of having a family centric life with three children - and he feels that her decision is now taking that
away from him. What he wants is for her to acknowledge that; As he feels like he's just swiped into accepting a life
he didn't sign up for. He does a lot of damage control to emphasize that he doesn't want to change her mind (*) about
it; But he still kind of feels cut out of the decision making.
And from how the story was presented ... I'm sympathizing with his position. The wokista however sympathizes with her;
As she went through trauma and there he is making it about himself. And with that said I'm a bit on the edge. Like ...
here the story lacks the level of detail to ... have a proper armchair psychiatry response. And I suppose it's a bit
weird ... or interesting ... to see the dichotomy of psychology versus society in this. There certainly are psychological
issues. I feel with the guy because I know how it feels to be ... ignored or overridden. And that's a psychological
issue. But there's also societal issues, like ... how to deal with people that have suffered Trauma? I mean, beating
them to the curb yelling "Comply" won't cut it!
What brought me over then was a single line in which he expressed that all he wanted from her is to acknowledge that he
also lost something. He put it in quotation marks, like, a sentence he want her to say - and that's where my Alarm went
off. I mean, still I don't know the situation - but like, giving her a sentence to say is like ... brainwashing. It's
the start of guilt tripping her into eventually sympathizing with his wishes - and sure; People might call it a victory
if Breeding Machine works again. I mean, it kind of depends on "the balance"; And ... You can make the case that the
"issue" that the Man is feeling in this situation emerges from her trauma taking her like "Out" of the relationship; So
that her path to recovery would involve him more so than insisting on her decision. Because, once the trauma is resolved
it is no longer a problem. Sure she won't want to have another child while the Trauma is still there - and the idea that
resolving the Trauma is about being "Breedable" again won't help. (Even if it could I wouln't). And making her the villain
by like ... making her say it and having that be the premise going forward ... that's the involuntary admission of
egocentrism.
And that's the issue with the Woke mind-virus. That "the Wokista" seems to put "Cause and Effect" where there seems to be
no causal link. You have to digest a few things - consciously - before You have the tools to see these connections. So,
my advice to that couple: Don't make it a "Couple's Therapy" issue. It's an individual problem.
Maybe. I don't know how good these therapists are, all things considered.
And all things considered: Conservative Brainrott is when seeing Woke as a Mind-Virus.
And what are You losing? I mean, I'll go off on a limb here - but I'd say that most people aren't trying to kill You.
And unless You're living in a Hypercapitalistic hellscape, most people would even respect Your property.
So ... unless You so chose to entirely and blindly trust one of those bad folks ... hmm, well - I guess indifference
would be the most common response in most situations. So, let's take it one step further: Human Rights, just in general.
In a way, this is the true end-boss. So, as for how the arguments go - the thing is that resolving this ... also resolves
a lot of religious debate. So, we can argue whether or not Misogyny is OK based on the Bible and try to come to a point
there - or we can resolve the matter of Human Rights and let that then inform what kind of BS we yet need to hear more
about and what we can safely cancel off stage.
And it's almost silly.
I mean ... speaking of Townsfolk versus City People ... there's this argument that filters everything through a "Why should
I/We support THEIR lifestyle?" kind of lens. But ... I mean, we had it last year. All those USA Farmers being like ...
super upset because Trump didn't in fact improve their conditions - and nobody on the other side of the political isle is
even a little bit surprised. The simple answer: THEIR lifestyle is what makes YOUR life easier. I mean ... what if we just
got rid of cities? Well, new cities would pop up. That's just how society works on that Scale. There's a function there -
where the social togetherness simply ... finds these nodes on which things first focus and from there they grow. And for
safety we maybe should start distinguishing forms of politics. Like, rural politics ought to be different from urban
politics. But as the city grows, it's culture starts to shift. So, naturally You have this dichotomy - and yea, sometimes
a plus is a plus and cannot be a minus - but sometimes plus and minus are just social constructs.
So, following Trump, what You're upset about is like ... "How people live in the City" ... ignoring all the dipshits and
victims that inject themselves into the conversation ... and so we're back to the disks. You dislike the color Black ...
so You vote against Hyperbolic Orange. It makes absolutely no sense if You knew the situation; But because to You the
city is Black and not Hyperbolic Orange ... You kind of mistake the two for the same thing.
Or You don't see "City" but "Liberal"; While Liberalism is like at the core of ... "the American Way" ... . At least the
one I saw while the Statue of Liberty was still a shining beacon of hope.
But in this world, she's an involuntary hooker thrown to the wayside.
And yea ... this "why should we support their lifestyle" thing - I get it. I look at Trump and Musk and ... I'm asking
the same question. Why should we accept that lieing is OK in politics? I mean, maybe it's OK to bend the rules ever so
often - but by the time that ... people care to know what's going on ... Your mandate has lost its value. If You can
deliver a satisfying answer ... you're good. Otherwise ... well, we kind of have to care a little harder.
Anyway. Sure ... covering things this way leaves a lot of things unattended. But at some point You have to learn to
handle this feeling of loss. Boomerangs are a fun thing ... because they come back when You throw them. Sort of. It's
not quite that they invert their velocity mid-way - but that their trajectory is a circle - and the danger is in not
catching them right when they come back. You may think that "gone is gone" - or You understand how the thing works and
learn to aim.
But sure. At some point I also have to cut things short. So, let's get to the other final boss ... "the Darkness".
I mean ... I've seen the new Beetlegeuse and ... for those who haven't: Monica Bellucci is in the movie and she looks
absolutely stunning in there. It's also a good sequel, by the way, ... kind of like Shitten on Havel it ... breaks the
mold somewhat. Taking "controversial" items or uncomfortable elements and ... not messing with them. I mean, we for
instance never learn - though the question certainly presents itself - whether or not Charlie is a Trans kid. That
Character so or so isn't attractive or "cool" is played for laughs ... but it's not the only thing the Character is
good for. Beetlejuice is a sexist ... gender dynamics and relationship issues are all over the place ... but it's
balanced; Like ... who cares? I see Monica and her victims in the movie give an accurate representation of my reaction
to that; And by the time that's about to overstay its welcome she gets eaten by a worm. I feel loss, but that's OK.
Uhm, point being ... I suppose ... the "too good to be true" part. And so ... maybe this is a topic about tendecies and
slippery slopes. I mean, a lot of religious argumentation takes the route of pre-emptive damage reduction. The entire
logic is built on some concept of tendencies and their consequences. And with that we can return to the start - speaking
of objects versus perspectives. And, uh, the history of astrophysics comes to mind here. I mean, the whole journey of
figuring out that the earth revolves around the sun, that the ether doesn't exist - all these ... discoveries that are,
in and of themselves, needles in haystacks - it's kind of similar. I mean, think of the motion of planets in the sky
for instance. To us, at first, they seemed like they're moving back and forth on occasion. Like, the move left; And all
of a sudden they move right and then left again. It looks ... what it looks like. And eventually we figured out that
this back and forth is a perspective issue that emerges from the circular orbits. There's no back and forth, but it
looks that way. Here we look at "gates" ... the tendencies and slippery slopes ... and whatever is behind "habit X"
is like, automatically bad. If we however move past that and understand 'bad' - and 'evil' - as their own thing ...
we can understand 'how' habit X sustains that; But not only habit X. We don't have to restrict ourselves to habit X to
see and understand the bad or evil consequences beyond it. So we are obligated to shift our attention to there; Leaving
habit X aside in as far as it doesn't matter; Or it may be on par with other things that haven't yet had a prominent
entry into the codices of religious thinking.
But yea, it's a discomfort that's probably ... still safe-ish to listen to. I mean, I understand that the first impulses
I get from embracing my clarity wouldn't really send me down a path that ... I shouldn't second guess ever.
And Jesus is also very outspoken about that. I mean, relatively speaking ... I suppose. It's kind of the whole morale of
the story that tradition eventually ... fails when the "natural evolution" imposes change. Like ... stoning people to
death is like ... we don't have a place for that in modern society; And we reject the practice with all good reason and
I suppose we can thank God that this is one of the explicit examples. I mean, we can say that "our sensitivities are
different now" - but it is also Christ who kind of championed that. So; Everyone who's like upset at the Old Testament
God is ... right but also ... kind of too late to the party. By a little bit.
I mean, talking of punishment ... we, in some sort of legal speak, have the right to be merciful. What we get from that
is, sure, the consequence from not obeying the divine Law. What are they? Well, Religious Freedom. Is it Good? Is it
Bad? Well, if Religious Freedom is a matter of Truth versus Illusion - we're pretty much having this discussion right
now. But if our concept of Religion is fundamentally flawed ... we do no good by upholding that religious tradition.
If You're a Christian ... we might say that You don't have to understand this because Religious Freedom and bla ...
but whether or not You do kind of ... still determines whether or not You actually care about the God and Truth ... and
that in turn ... is at long last my top issue.
So, while I keep coming back to it, it is here worth emphasizing that this is the "stable core" of my position. The argument
I sit on. In the chaos of this world we might feel encouraged to dial back our ... criteria and criticisms. Like, in favor
of having any company at all. This tolerance is important and neccessary and I believe also universally acknowledged. But there
also are certain thresholds that draw the separating lines between ... rings let's say. Like so, Your criticism or contra
regarding the Testimony ... it's a sensitive issue because at the end of the day that's Your journey - and while You're there,
arguing, You're kind of not doing it.
Now, I don't know what Sex appeal I end up having through all this ... but if there's anything at all that could be called
a temptation; I would think that I provide enough context to that ... for You to filter out what's happening. And so ... I
believe that my presentation is enough of a buffer between You and Me for Your concern to rest on the issue and not the
temptation. And the rest is God being Himself and ... where else would You want to go?
It's ... yes ... the Gnostic Dilemma. Point 1, Point 2, Point 3. Rinse and Repeat.
I would think that ... throughout all this You'd learn how our relationship might evolve - but at the same time You'd learn
to relativize that against NOW. So, eventually the temptation turns into understanding and that understanding then transforms
into a more real time association. Not? The one moment You feel like beating me up, the other You find the flavor of it -
and in tasting it You learn that it is Love which extends beyond the confines of a simple image; And You realize that right
now it might not be the best moment to fantasize of beating me to a pulp.
But yea, that's like ... in theory it makes sense but when we start with stuff like Telepathy ... we're far outside my
comfort zone.
Anyway. At some point - and, correct me if I'm wrong - the accusations of what I'm doing shouldn't hold anymore. Like, they
can be like "Are You Crazy?" all day long pointing at the interpretation of an image ... that You don't share because something
else and more valid has taken its place. And so I suppose I can wrap up this topic as an actual topic is a wrap.
Social Cohesion ...
requires us to somehow resolve all these unknowns between us. Sortof. As a general piece of advice for everyone: First pump the
breaks of Your head ... and switch into "Shut up and Listen Mode". Let the waters calm ... and find ... hmm ... "the central
emanation of Your heart"? ... and then don't be afraid to speak.
Sidenote: Progress has happened on the front of Nightmares. This morning I woke up with pretty much the same nightmare I was
having the last couple of days (week+) ... but it also sat like ... on the verge of not being a nightmare. And the impression
was relatively clear; And so, after concluding that the feeling of discomfort was 'the message' to say: "You're mining away
Your own Base" ... I fell into a kind of dreamstate where the dream continued and instead of the discomfort I got a feeling
of safety while the images were constructive. And so, now, it is really clear to me.
Hmm ... I almost feel like I'll need a second take on this. Or something. I'll have to let things settle for a bit. Anyway
... Dreamteam "Father of the Cosmos" and "Daughter of Light" done did a thing or two once again ... dream-team surpreme ...
and a whole bunch of stuff on top for good measure. So ... maybe I'm overdelivering here and there ... but well. Spherical
perfection is for suckers and mathematicians and those who just happen to be spherically perfect.
Hmm. So, I touched on a lot of subjects without resolving any of them properly? ... Hmm ... at some point I wanna know what
these arguments You're having look like.
I mean, there's a chance that I don't get the issue because they're flying under my intelligence radar. But I'm so having a
hard time finding a topic that I haven't resolved to my personal satisfaction just yet.
Well, please don't refuse to grow alongside the happening of things. From my experience ... the discomforts are few and far
between - and even if it means taking the L sometimes; It's they who laugh last that laugh best; And I've noticed that I've
been laughing a lot harder and better as of late.
[Evil Laugh]
Saying ... I suppose I have some AFK Aura Farm up and running - like, if You simply understand the metaphor with the disks;
The whole issue around "Social Cohesion" is going to shift; And the conversations we can have then ... make like ... 'actual'
sense (versus the circlejerking that is the modern debate-stage).
And if there's any kind of "implied sense" that I'm supposed to acknowledge; You kind of have to explain that to me. Explain
it to me like I'm 7; And then like I'm an expert on my field.
I'm getting a sense of ... "toxic family dynamics" ... . "Because I say so", "Shut up and Drive", "Stop asking stupid Questions",
"if You don't know that already, there's no point in telling You".
Violence stage 2: When scrutiny fails, we can try patronizing dismissal. "Take a deep breath and think about it. Do You want to
rephrase that? Take a minute to reflect about it. What happens to be the issue?". But it makes no sense ARGUING about this -
without actually having the ARGUMENT itself. Like, arguing about arguing ... is really just ... a way to avoid confrontation;
And yea, in some instances violence would just be a symptom of not having an answer. Yea ... so, context certainly matters.