adding incoming files

mind/totalitarianism.md

@@ -4,6 +4,14 @@ It appears that everyone is being pulled deeper and deeper into an authoritarian
 2. The self reflection of human
 3. The tendency for systems to become self corrective as they increase in size
 
-The biological systems finitude is, in a sense, the plight of humankind. To be aware of mortal limitations and to seek to overcome them. In order to construct a complete world unto oneself, one must apply an unimaginable amount and extent of detail which is simply unattainable. Furthermore, to seek to apply these things is unreasonable and, perhaps, even maddening. As the human system is fundamentally composed of biological systems to which we are able to study, it might seem likely that tasks of unimaginable complexity which are extremely to make sense of can lead one to distress, or even insanity.
+The biological systems finitude is, in a sense, the plight of humankind. To be aware of mortal limitations and to seek to overcome them. In order to construct a complete world unto oneself, one must apply an unimaginable amount and extent of detail which is simply unattainable. Furthermore, to seek to apply these things is unreasonable and, perhaps, even maddening. As the human system is fundamentally composed of biological systems to which we are able to study, it might seem likely that tasks of unimaginable complexity which are extremely difficult to make sense of can lead one to distress, or even insanity.
 
 Having faith in a system which is expected to care for the sick and, in turn, yourself if ever the need arises, is in a sense a belief in immortality. To place faith in, for example, the system's capacity to treat disease, without having to have witnessed it and without having to completely visualize every detail of the journey and experience.
+
+# Infantilization
+
+There is a lot of infantilization happening lately. The reduction of our expectations for reason and logic, the reduction of our expectations for humans to perform well, or even better than before. We just want them to be performing at all, so that we know that there's a bare minimum? That doesn't sound right, surely any good educator understands that you don't get good work out of people if you give them the minimum of standards and, particularly in this case, the minimum of demands. Students not having to take certain exams or entry tests, not having to live up to previously agreed upon contracts. It 
+
+### Broken contracts
+
+We sometimes go through a phase where a new concept is applied and the result is a method to attempt and produce a partocular result. This might be limited to certain types of interactions but certainly, for example, in interactions where an expectaiton is made and a range of performance is possible, if one finds a way to remove particularly stringent standards, then even by having experienced the reduction, and in spite of any reason for wishing to avoid it (avoid ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

new/Privilege_of_proximity.md

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+We have before us a carribean food truck playing Bob Marley with workers who are entirely of non-carribean descent.
+Working hard, providing a likely delicious and nutritious meal. A benefit to all who enjoy the privilege of proximity to the food truck.
+Should we perhaps infer morality and fairness on the basis of proximity?
+Could we create a society where everyone is in a moral panic, a crazy, constantly falling into patterns of folley, all to simply occupy space, ever closer, to some holy object?
+The steps of a building? The vicinity of some monument? Perhaps it is something which we believe extolls wisdom, isdom through proximity, proximity to knowledge
+Sort of like the intersections which allow you to be present in a domain of knowledge, which is otherwise inaccessible
+Would a world with such a privilege of proximity still use terms such as gentrification, white flight, persons of certain wealth of implicitly, colour?
+Would things always have a tendency to revert to evaluating these immutable traits?
+exit

new/all_lives_dont_matter.md

@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+the strange and interesting matter of all lives matter and black lives matter
+it seems that every once in a while, we see that Twitter is allowing a hashtag to trend which goes against what's deemed acceptable by popular culture
+case in point, the AllLivesMatter hashtag, trending at a time when there has already been incessant conflict over compelling people to participate in the proclaiming of BlackLivesMatter, particularly at a time when there is a BlackLivesMatter organization which whose fundamental tenets are appalling and mostly unknown by many of its participants
+or only implicitly known, but not scrutinized with any degree of care
+why would Twitter allow AllLivesMattter to trend?
+well it's similar to when Canada has hashtags which attack or demean the current siting Prime Minister of Woke
+at first you think "oh Ig uess they're allowing for a plurality of views", but then you take a look at the posts and the majority of them are actually attacking those who would want to make the claims of the hashtag
+it's almost as though the hashtag is trending to silence the view that might otherwise be supported by that hashtag
+hijacking its use so that people can't participate in disseminating a particular idea, because to revie of that idea causes one to be flooded with the ideas which go  against it
+this is always a truth of discourse by humans operating in any environment which has some degree of freedm of expression, but it is quite absurd when you cna predict htat a hashtagg which has widespread support, will actually only be presented as an attack on those who would support it
+that they occupy most of the posts and the posts which Twitter brigns to the top, begs certain questions for which we'll never have adequate answers
+nevertheless, it's intersting to see it happen this week with AllLivesMatter
+particularly because someone was just murdered for uttering "All Lives Matter" in a verbal argument at a protest
+that protestors positioned themselves to attack a young woman, of 23, engaged to be married, and caring for a 3 year old child
+they positioned themselves to snipe her with a firearm and did so successfully
+all because of having uttered "All Lives Matter" to protest the Black Lives Matter movement, a movement which has been revealed, with absolute cerainty, to be a Marxist movement, or at least a movement whose funding an leader are marxists or driving marxist ideals
+It is interesting that a collectivist uprising would be prone to kill those who might value life in general, when their goal is to ensure that particular lives are being valued more
+you can't actually suppress the proclaiming of all lives mattering because you only wish to allow statements of support for one particular group, or race, of human lives, without also devaluing some lives, or only valuing particular lives
+you can assume that there is a problem, but and force everyone to agree  with you
+but this is intolerance and a sure sign of fascistic tendencies.. that people embrace it so openly, especially under the auspices of being anti-fascist, is quite difficult to contend with
+because the deduction is that the supports of this mode of behaviour, and possibly even Black Lives Matter supporters in general, is to devalue some lives, specifically dividing people by race and colour
+That anyone would assume this would lead to a more peaceful and just society, is completely idiotic. Would anyone actually believe tis?
+this?
+exit

new/beauty_of_improvsation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+let's get those words out
+out they come and on we go and go
+the longer we can havew a stream of words and thoughts the better
+allw e want is to keep up momentum so we can have a method fo r deploying thoughts and ideas
+the best way to continue is to keep going, to enjoy the change in the parameters and specifications and utility and transforemative aspects of a set of faculties
+as they change and mature and become better developed
+iof even not in the ways that you most ideall want ot see developed
+but at the very least, as you spend more time performing some form of development, you get better at being able to direct the manner in which the development is taking place
+that you have spent more time doing anything means you will have better control over certain parameters of it
+in hte case of continuous output, you have a somewhat chaotic process of outputting continuously at all costs, and this does come at certain costs indeed
+what are these costs?
+well one of those costs would be the dfact that you lose some accuracy
+you  might be outputting things which are not relevant to your cause
+things which are superfluous, superficial, irrelevant, redunadnt, and otherwise nonsensical in some regard
+also there will be more errors
+that you are focused on putut as a whole, means a quantity over quality approach, and it necessarfgdghgfdfghjkhgfdsfghjknbhvgcfdtr67yuhijbvgcfdtrhjbvcg fxdrtyhjbv cgfxdrtyhjbnv cgfxdr56uhbv cxdfse45678iokl;mcfgdxrtyui
+and it necessarily follows that some of the output will have a greater chance, ro rather all of tthe  output, will have a greater chance of being lower quality, incurring a higher error rate, and thus reducing the focus o f the message
+however, as we endeavour to perform more outputs at the speed of thought, we become better at tuning the process such that it more closely replicates and represents thee thought processes which we wish to have displayed and portrayed
+communication improves and that helps in all other areas of communication, especially ojes performed on the fly (they all are, in a sense, because it is a human output done in real time,even in preparation)
+we become better at improvising in all of its forms, as ilife is an improvisation and so this follows that we improvise in all areas of our activities and actions
+that we think about it more specifically, target it as a skill, and learn to see sets of its form in domain specific endeavours, allows us to maximally hone ou rskill and ensure that we perform it more accurately
+thus will overaall help us in life, where we doncduct that improvisation at all times
+improvisation is perhaps the greatest of all skills, as it is the skill of life itself
+we can plan things, and even that planning is a form of improvisation, because you need to decide in real time whether or not you are planning, how to plan, where to begin, the set of areas that need focus, the hierarchy for approaching each of these areas, and how much tiem to give consideration to each, what is considered as being a fullfillment of the benefits or requirsite components for having actually traversed that area effectively, ho to seqeuence them, which ones are optional, which ones are mandatory, and on and on
+we cathis same methodology can be applied to all things, but the important thing is that you have some aspect ofimprovisation in your life and that you maintain the ability to utilize it
+that you practice both in a prepared facshion, which has aspects of improvisation embedded into it, but also have actual sessions which are devoted to nothing more than immprovisation... working at the speed of thought.. directing output in real time and ensuring that you can direct the flow and the result... this is a wonderful skill which I ahve enjoyed since before I can remember.. and since I have so much experience with it, I also know that many factors affect it.. and that many who aren't as aware of what components are involved in improvisation might think that some components are inherent, aree inherited, are something which comes naturally to some people
+and this might be true, to some degree, in that some people might have an environment, a body or ma mind or all of the above whihc allows them to more easily begin improvising
+or might have an easier time building up performance to a level of momentum which is noteworthy remarkasble and admirable
+but we cannot prove this very well, since there are so many aspects
+and furthermoer, becuase there are so many parameters and factoers which affect the asbility to improvise, the level of performance achieved, the ability to understand even if improvisation is taking place or not
+because there are so many of these factors, it becomes almost useeless to conceptualize the process as one which is more easily performed by some and onot others
+we would have to take it a step fiurther and say rthat some humans are more successful at life as a whole compared ot others, and this is certainly true
+so there's no need to limit it to just improvisation in this case, because since improvisation is such an important skill, necessary at all times in the human lifetime, then to give oneself an excuse to avoid developing it, or to stop thinking about whether or not it is involved, and not be aware of the parameters which are involved in the process or in that veil of what is being conducted, the perceptual frame of a fgiven activity which takes into account the fact that improvisation is being performed, because of all of this, it is necessary to avoid ways of htinking which prevent its development
+therefoer it is irrelevant that anyone might be considered a better improviser, or that someone may have reached a level of improvisation because of their inherent abilities
+we'll never ba ble to undesrtand exactly what those abilities are or why some abilities are inherent, or whether or not an ability wsas mostly manifested and calibrated and developed because of inherent abilities, or because of situation and circumstance
+if you have more recently performed activities which allowed you to valibrate and actualize a motoer engram, let's say.. a neurological pattern which becomesincreasingly easier to recall and reproduce with exceeding efficiency, then obviously in the moment one has an advantage
+but that they demonstrated this advantage because of some inherent characteristic which is only available to that person and is not something commonplace with all humans, is an unreasonable wahy of looking at the world
+since it is unprovable, and since it harms you in all aspects of your being and action, means that it is an unreasonable and self destroying way of viewing the world
+exit

new/brother.md

@@ -0,0 +1,100 @@
+what should be done in this situation
+should I be compelled to spend the time with family members, even if I am not convinced that there is even any specific reason for us to be hanging out, other than habitaul ones
+habitual ones
+the habit of us always expecting to see family at family events
+that somehow the event is made more important and meaningful by attendance alone
+we are expected to be present, and therefore that canbe taken for granted
+and these minute little inflections of indulgeance become more readily presented
+I've long suspected that the interactions between myself and my brother, and especially between myself and his wife, do not bear the dignity and respect that should be expected of a healthy relationship worth pursuing and engaging
+that is, it leaves a lot to be desired, and even if there were some assurance that doing work on the relationship can result in improved communication and a more meaningful experience for all parties involved, I am not really sure what would result from the interactions such that I would feel the effort is worthy of being pursued
+what is it that I'm looking for in a relationship with my brother's wife?
+Am I hoping to learn from one another, or at least to have a better understanding of one another?
+Do I put up a roadblock to understanding her? what is my duty in that regard?
+am I to ensure that the exchange is authentic and meaningful?
+am I to ask very specific questions at specifc times to lead the conversation in a direction which is something more than her repeating whatever happens to be on her mind, with absolutely no interest in the other party or any exchange of ideas?
+i'm not even sure if we've had a conversation of any sort other than "how are you" or "how's working going?"
+and even when asked those questions, I can manage to not even respond to her without her noticing, because it's only but half a moment after she has finished speaking that she stops really paying attetion
+there is no listening from her end, it's just a brief moment where she pauses her speech, as though it's the expected custom, and if something else happens to be present for her to divert her attention, it will easily be directed to it and I am free to disengage from a contrived, fake conversation without having to spend more time, and without her noticing
+so how is that something worth salvaging? Should I be spending my time playing into that scenario over and over?
+If i had only 5 minutes to live, but she happened to be present, shoudl I be spending those 5 minutes pretending to have a conversation with someone who is completely disinterested in anything I mgiht have to say?
+I know what it's liek to have a meaningful conversation with people who listen and exchange ideas, because I've had them before and when you find yourself in one, you both learn and benefit from the experience
+there is nothing of the sort with my brother's wife, and I have lost all expectation that this will be the case
+as time goes on, the same has become true of my interactions with my Brother
+perhaps this began to happen more or less a few years ago
+but there were issues withour communication throughout our history
+earlier on, it was because of hte great divide in our ages and experience
+it would be difficult to engage someone who is that much younger, without also having to remove a great deal of your expression
+but it also taught me to interact with people of an older age, which was a great experience for me
+we grew apart, fo course, just by sheer distance and period of time between in-person interactions
+but then things became very political
+at a certain point, it would seem that he was forced to support ideologies or political organizations which were informed by such ideologies, because they were in lithey were in line with the type of work that he does
+as time goes on, he became increasingly invested in that way ofthinking, as he also began to study these subjects in university
+for example, when the Syrian issues began, he was fully on board with the uprising in the country
+as well as any uprising in any middle eastern country
+it is, perhaps, symbolic of the modest, meagre power of an individual against a giant tyrant
+the individual vs the state
+and this is a powerful image
+we are, of course, forced to presume that that is actually what is at play in this scenario
+it is, of course, deeper, and there is more than one way to approach the story
+in fact, there are various false dichotomies, approaching from divisions of opinion within a particular domain, and each of these domains approach the subjectge (or even just one, but truly it shoudl be considered as a range) of abstracted interpretations of the issue at hand
+in this case, we could say that one is supporting intervention vs not
+another is supporting western ideas vs eastern ones
+another is supporting one interventionalist government vs another interventionalist government
+in most cases, however, the stories surrounding the events of Syria are romanticized, and paint that need for diverting resources towards initiatives which promote a greater amount of change
+requiring more political power to propose, develop and support those initiatives
+and that is very empowering to people who are already engaged in similar initiatives here, which describes my brother, at least to some extent
+I don't believe that such a characterization is necessarily in bad faith, or unaccurate
+but perhaps it might not be the most nuanced 
+nevertheless, the state of affairs is that we have a different divide over the issue
+mine has always been out of a need to uphold people's liberty - I don't like the idea of being a slave
+and I think that the best way to mitigate the threat of being a slave, especially in any sort of legal capacity, is it ensure that the rights and freedoms of every individual is maintained and upheld
+the problem with the language of supporting freedoms nad individuals is when it comes to expression
+because, whereas the original idea about expression was simply being able to speak
+to have opinions, and to be able to proclaim them in public
+this is an expression, and the simple manner of preserving that expression is to not allow the government to restrict speech
+the next step that process would be to use the government to increase safety from violence
+that the government is willing to apprehend and punish those who commit acts of violence
+but we have changed our ideas about what it means to enjoy freedom of expression
+rather than simply being able to say and do things (non-violent), it is not the expression of being
+that is, that you are able to embody a particular identity, and that there could be threats to your ability to do that
+there could be an imposition in the form of verbal criticism
+and what constitutes that criticism, being difficult to ascertain already, will need to be proven on the basis of the opinion of whomsoever believes themselves to be criticized
+we can see how this goes into a whole other conversation really fast, but keeping the overarching idea going forward, this leads to many new initiatives which require legislation, activism, new funding, new industries, and so forth
+and that these issues are closely connected with those which already supported the funding of interventionalist or developmental activities in foreign countries, means that there is a bias to accepting and adopting them readily
+in the case of my brother, this has lead him to participating in LGBT ideology, as well as BLM
+so these were already ideas that lead to us having a difference of opinion, and perhaps leading to conversations which can't really be had in hte presence of his children
+so, for the most part, since the act of responding to his opinion, especially as a refutation, is also the act of questioning his authority in front of his children, it becomes complicated to have a mature conversation about these subjects
+furthermore, it has been seen that having conversations about these subjects makes him angry and leads to his wife protesting, who is also present in all these instances
+because of this, it has become commonplace that he utters short representations of his ideas, without expecting any sort of retort, and we remain silent and just imagine that he is oblivious to whether or not we have any sort of opinion on the matter
+but this, of course, forces us to assume he is ignorant, or intolerant
+or that, he is wishing to be disrespectful by proclaiming something as a moral good which we do not believe in, which implies that we are not moral people, or that we are the ones who are ignorant of something
+this becomes increasingly complex as time goes on, and I no longer even feel the need to go through the effort of engaging in a conversation which will be necessarily shallow, doomed to fail, and likely to become a conversation with multiple people, when it really should be a one-to-one affair
+when actually engaging with my brother under 1-to-1 pretenses, the conversations have been cordia
+cordial
+but, mostly, it consists of my brother complaining about his job, or something similar
+and asking very little about what I do
+if I speak about myself, it's because I offer him information, and then try to gauge whether or not he's interested enough for me to actually put effort into elaborating on the subject
+I've often found that I am only bringing up something about myself so that I might participate in conversing with my brother through means which are not simply me asking him a succession of questions
+but, then, it also seems like I'm just trying to talk about myself
+and, since I already resent him for only wanting to talk about himself, I don't really feel the need to do the same
+so that makes the conversations even less fulfilling and more contrived or superficial
+though never as superficial or contrived as those with my brother's wife have been
+those conversations with his wife don't really exist
+it's mostly a procedure of making certain statements which, if taken at face value, would be for very specific purposes
+but the purposes they are utilized for are nothing of the sort
+they are mostly just a show of civility and a customary routine of demonstrating some degree of ethical community behaviour
+this, over time, is something I resent
+because I feel as though, throughout the yeras, I have tried to have a real conversation with her
+but I've never found that she actually pays any attention or even addresses me with respect
+as time has gone on, she has began to address, at least in person, with more respect, but the degree to which she is attentive
+or even interested in anything I have to say, has lessened
+or perhaps has remained nil, which it most certainly was at any time except perhaps the earliest years when she was a new person in my brother's life
+I've even found that being around people who speak constantly about themselves, fills my mind with their thoughts and words, which arem ostly a form of them thinking out loud for things to say, but often not about anything of any interest to anything but themselves
+and, whenever there is an opportunity to try and engage them in a conversation, anything that is said is instantly transformed into a search for them to find an opportunity to share a storyof their own
+there's never any interest in developing an idea, or in understanding something about the other person they are speaking with
+over time, this has become satirical in that I can even completely avoid communicating with them, and they don't seem to notice
+and when I do that, almost as an experiment, and find that I can predict the results, I lose my respect for them
+because I have to wonder, why they would want to allocate their own time to be spent with people whom they dont' have any interest in interacting with
+if they're just looking for an audience for themselves, then what can they possibly be learning in this world?
+what can they possibly be doing to mitigate the tragedy of life?
+exit

new/choosing_ideologies.md

@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+Why do people choose belligerent Ideologies?
+Does it provide a path to power? Morality?
+Is it indoctrination and brainwashing? Something akin to Godlessness?
+One might say, pure indoctrination and pure brainwashing, but did we not have reason, the enlightenment?
+Is it not a matter of the best ideas contending with one another?
+exit

new/conversations_with_women.md

@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+it's always good to have a chat
+I am talking and you are replying
+I don't have many problems
+none, bitch
+why you are a bitch?
+you know it
+it's the only thing that I do
+Why thank you
+Thanks
+this is always an interesting exercise, but we need to start utilizing some sort of neurolinguistic programming
+neurolinguistic programming
+it's nice to say really complicated words which might impress people
+I used to try and do that consistently as a child, now I wonder if I was only fooling myself, but a big part of it was probably the fact that I would spend so much time typing to older women on the internet
+I was looking for some sort of free flowing communication with someone
+i never seemed to be able to get to that point with most people in real life
+but online, it was really easy to flirt with women and get htem to open up, be emotional and even become aroused
+and this was a bit of a skill, it was probably because I tried to employ a lot of authenticity, because that has simply been my nature
+and os my ability to assimilate that into somewhat complex interactions with a variety of women, repeatedly, prepared me to be able to communicate with society
+I wasn't really getting tha from my interactions with other men, which was often very juvenile, at least as far as the communication was concerned, and didn't really challenge my ability to express myself intellectually
+the women, however, wnated to be impressed, and when the only tool oyou have at your disposal is your word, you optimize your performance that, and that seemed to work very well
+it was probably partly because I would offer the authenticity in a very general way,and this would make it such that the woman would be wanting to listen t ome and give me her attention
+It wasn't necessarily arousal or sexuality, although those are always factors in human interactions, but simply the fact that there was some prospect of meaningful interactin
+this gave me an opportunity to express myself about a wide range of subjects that were of particular importance to me
+I would specifically try to make everything accessible to them, as a lay person, or by interfacing the information through something with whcih they are more familiar
+such as a different musical instrument, hobby, social ritual, and so forth
+over years, this developed continuously, to hte point where it was really easy to take it for granted, and it was no longer authentic
+I would say that it might have been still authentic, but that there was a lot of cynicsm and a low degree of tolerance or patience
+this is probably a useful thing, asi couldn't keep wasting my time there forever, but the habitual conversing with a variety of women did keep my communication skills at a top notch level
+this is something that you can probably get from writing, but it's a little less field tested
+nevertheless, tweeting is actually what writing is for most people, nowadays
+and tweeting is a constant toxic tidal wave of contextually ambiguous unrest
+I'm not sure if anyone actually feels fulfilled by using Twitter, but it certainly gives you a bit of a zap everytime you check, even with very few followers and frequent iinspections which reveal that no activity has occurred
+it's always somehow exciting, how bizarre is that?
+exit

new/dead_communication.md

@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+let's talk about things a bit first
+so many thoufhs and ideas but they come so fast that you aen't even sure of what to make sense of at times
+what is the thought that yoy are thinking, and what is a random word or phrase or concept which was spun up because tyou decided to pay attention tot he possibility of having thoughts
+it's interesting how this might come about and how we use filler words and phrases to link things together, to chain a manner of thinking, to produce a connection between separate ideas and to make them into one idea, that is the idea of their having a relationship
+bret weinstein and his wife have been making a lot of tracktion lately, and I noticed something peculiar abou ttheir podcast for mat
+or their livestream, I should say
+it seems as though they spend a lot of time letting people join and have a timer which counts down at a pace slower than it reads out
+it's very strange because it seems as though you're watching 3 minutes countdown but it takes about twice as long
+I wonder if they do that to help put themselves in a different bracket for monetization
+in which case, they're attemtping to game the system
+those fuckers ... sounds about right for them
+anyway, let's have more discussiona bout the thoughts at hand
+that is, my thoughrts haha
+yeah I like to type and practice being able to use the keyboard without having to look at different angles and different places
+just having words come out and expecting it to help my thinking and reasoning
+what a strange thing ot pursue
+to have output so that you might make sense at all
+isn't that strange
+wouldn't it be nonsense if you are simply trying to have any kind of output without scrutiny
+what is the sweet spot between scrutinizing each and every one of your thoughts, and simply having an output so you can increase and improve your momentum
+become better able to refine your thought process and make goo decisions as to what to describe and how to describe it
+having a fully functional taxonomy for every situation
+having a arsenal of words and concepts which you can utilize and suggest and break out at the speed of thought, without having to really spend time searching for teh appropriate one
+because you have several to choose from, and that you chose one was partly whimsical and arbitrary, but so long as it has enough of the right meaning, you can keep pushing forward with your discovery
+like having shitty light
+or a small garden shovel when you need a subterranean mineral drill
+or something you might see in a futuristic dystopian movie where humans had to run underground to survive
+is this how comic book writers write?
+do they just write nonsense and hope that it turns into an idea that they can inspire themselves with and draw female buttocks?
+Buttocks is a great word to say and to type
+I bet we could make a comic book just about butocks 
+thge buttocks of buttocks
+the butts of butts
+oh but
+so now that we've considered different ideas, it's time to put it all together and focus on something to move fowrad with
+what are we writing about and what do we have to consider
+exit
+this is where we go
+let's see how many words we can type and how quickly they come out and how caccurately they are spelled and how meaningful they are and if they help me become better at expressing myself
+or that is to say, if the act of typing absolute nonsense and trying to keep continuous thought output or expression of some sort allows me to improve my ability to speak my mind and communicate my thoughts
+the interface of human language for a being to express it's thoughts ideas and observations about the universe is an interesting proposition
+that we must contend with so man yfactors in order to perform the actions necessary to do this
+but still be forced to succumb to the lmitations which are inherent with humna communication of any kind
+is quite a proposition to have to contend with, to have to accept, because there's an element of acceptance in the fact that one might never be able to actually express themselves
+but what other options do we have?
+the only option is to attempt to express, or to give up expression altogether.. every action of a biological organism is an expressio nof some sort, so that it might be measured in terms of the ideal expression which perfectly encapsulates and communicates an idea or thought from an organism is, in and of itself, a concept which needs to be scrutinized and accepted before we can realyl move forward with deciding that it indeed is a valid supposition to behold in the face of the overall issue we are grappling with
+but let's assume for a moment that, indeed, we can deduce or envision or theorize that htere is an actual llevel of expression which perfectly transmits the conceived idea, and that it can be done at a capacity which the organism in question can acknowledge as having met the standards of perfection
+with that in mind, we could go a step further and state that no expression has ever been perfect
+and that, in a sense, no being has ever been able to express tehmselves to another
+even lovers who are in the throws of passion or who are in their utmost empathetic form, completely receptive to one another, and doing their best to understand one another as possible
+and, simultaneously, at their utmost level of intellectual and biological faculties, such that they are able to compose the ideas and sbtract them with the greatest finesse ever possible
+and that they are able to utilize their biological implements in order to transmit and receive the informationf rom one another
+even in that state, one can argue that there is a level of signal-to-noise ratio, so to speak, which prevents the message from being delivered perfectly
+if ths is the case, then we might say that no organism is ever able to communicate, and that they are all damned to being excluded from one another
+from never participating in true communication which actually meets the mark of delivering what everyone really hopes will be delivered eventually
+the capacity to be heard
+the capacity to be understood
+the capacity to hear 
+the capacity to understand
+that they can never achieve these things might drive one mad, and cause one to opt out
+what is opting out?
+well that is simple
+it is death
+exit

new/difficult_individual.md

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+I think this is just you being very gullible
+I'v ebeen wanting to say this for a long time
+It's not exactly just my problem, I think it's an overarching problem that affects everyone
+OUR
+What I'm saying is that you assume this is a problem which affects me, and is somehow encapsulated except for, perhaps, how my own behaviour or actions might affect ohters
+but what I'm saying is that the problem itself is something fundamental, something related to the experience of all mankind
+we all need to contend with a difficult life
+there are many elements of tribulation one encounters in their life
+and that's assuming that one gets a chance to live a life of appreciable length
+there are some who are born into this world in an absolute chaotic state of physical pain and psychological torture
+because of nothing other than the laws of physics and developmental circumstances predicated on their genes, their parents, their surroundings, their environment, their nutrition, their exposure to the material composition of those environments, and other things which can not even be fully enumerated, but I'm sure we could attempt to enumerate and reveal many more factors
+and due to the combination of these things, the lifewhich is experienced, even when considering the idea that one might not yearn for that which one is not aware, but nevertheless that experience which is undertaken by the person in question, has the potential to be a harsh form of suffering, even when considering all of the aforementioned
+and that isn't to say that just such a person suffers and others do not
+all have experiences of suffering, because there is a biological reality which each person must contend with
+they must understand that just because they exist doesn't mean they'll necessarily get to perform the actions that they wish
+just because they exist doesn't mean that they'll have the chance to have offspring
+that they'll have the chance to enjoy mostly healthy years
+that they'll have the chance to even feel that they can put their thoughts or emotions into words, express them to another, and have it be understood
+even just putting it into words is somethign many or arguably most will never adequately do, depending on your mode of empiricism
+so that all must endure a form of suffering makes it difficult to contend with the reality of life, because one wasn't really gven a choice in the matter
+it just began and now these challenges lurk in the future, it's impossible to avoid them except through measures which, themselves, are incredibly challenging, difficult, frightening and the thought of which easily deters most from actually performing the actions associated with them (the measures -> suicide)
+so how to contend with all of this?
+well, the biological circuit is at play, it is performing actions which allow for its propagation
+that is to say, its continued existence
+this is partly, in a basic sense, and fundamentally, a process of maintaining the neergy required to exist
+simply replenishing the fuel sources utilized by cells, such that they can continue to operate harmoniously in a manner which expresses some form of behavioural equilibrium
+though an organism may not have self reflectin, ro an intelligent awareness which one associates wtih a human
+it might not be aware of itself, or of the differences of beings which might exist
+but it still operates and performs actions and seems to be influenced by a range of biological predicates, biological manifestations which are common to all biological beings
+these are neurological triggers, from nerve complexes and their relevant behaviours, to innate neuromuscular patterns which allow for continued use of organs without the requirement of a conscious effort for all of the minute operations which are associated with the use of those organs
+this is augmented, especially in terms of the ability to choose to pursue it, when there is any sense of urgency
+any sense of angst or difficulty of experience 
+this will consequently lead to changes in the presence and expression of neurotransmitters
+by presence I mean the concentration and pattern of dispersal
+and by expression I mean the manner in which those neurotransmitters are utilized, and how this changes as per a variety of circumtsances
+ones which extend from the body are likely to be important
+for example, if the experience one naturally endures is one which, as was previously explained, especially difficult
+case in point, an individual who is not able to breathe except without great effort
+to the point where it would be seen as a conscious effort, though it may have been necessary since very early age
+fuck you
+exit

new/free_stuff.md

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+there is nothing for free
+we can assume that we are clever enough to identify an opportunity that others have not
+but even if this is the case, the probability that this opportunity is present in a recurring behaviour diminishes in relation to the length of time for which the behaviour has been present
+even if you are vigilant as a consumer, and seeking to make good decisions out of self-interest, which is a power motivator, it will still never be supported with the same resource intensive apparatae available to a private business, enterprise, or corporation with endeavours to stay in business through acting in a competitive market
+unless in a novel market, the entity will have precedence to draw from in order to understand the known limits of opportunity
+and, with this specified, it will understand the areas to examine in order to disprove those limits 
+it will have the potential for multiple persons to work on this problem
+and there are various consequences which will punish the entity if it fails to make decisions that are profitable
+exit

new/geniuses.md

@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
+---
+title: genius
+date: 2020-06-27 17:40:00
+tags:
+- politics
+- academics
+- intersectionality
+- social justice
+---
+
+# Geniuses
+
+## Definitions
+People are talking about taking the right position on race issues.
+
+Beyond that, not simply about race, but even just about justice and fairness. Things that are not being defined, and that we are assumed to all have the same definition for to begin with. Of course that's nonsense, as people never agree on the definitions of things, and are probably beholding more disparate definitions of the same term than ever before.
+
+What one person considers just might be considered criminal by another.
+
+Failing to enforce a standard definition for terms before permissing their use, without criticism, or even requiring the use of specific terms and refusing any cooperative discussion until one's interlocutor accepts the use of those specific terms (even if such a discussion is merely about the standard for a discussion) is both infantile and warlike. It demonstrates clear intransigence and an intent for absolute dominance in all aspects of the interaction. This doesn't mean that we can have a shared understanding, or develop some form of progressive mode of traversing a problem. The only progress, in their eyes, is to be in sole control of the parameters, to dictate their values, and to enforce an adherence to a declared outcome of their choosing. This is intolerance.
+
+This is a moral failure, an intellectual failure, and plain cowardice.
+
+## Cheap values
+We see this time and time again with intellectuals, the ivory tower elite. In almost every case, they previously held values of liberal democracy and secularism, as these had been espoused through mediums with greater rigor than that which they contend with today, and that they have become intellectuals today necessitates their having traversed a field of development whose mode of operation was predicated on them. This is likely the case, because without having employed such values, they wouldn't have been privy to a process which would have allowed them to become the intellectual elite, unless closely related to a feudal lord, monarch, or other form of dictator.
+
+These values included equality of opportunity, equality before the law, due process and respect for private property. That they were able to flourish and enjoy the blossoming their way of life to a point where they could have such aspirations, such broad pursuits, which do not require the immediate construction of market offerings which can be utilized for a direct material application, but are able to consider sociological matters and governance is a great achievement for mankind. That they were able to focus their thought on making recommendations for calibrating particular modes of being and ways of living by the populace as a whole, in order to yield some outcome whose predictions are most heavily abstracted, especially in comparison with any other means of empiricism that we also take seriously, is an astonishing accomplishment which would never have been possible without the use of those aforementioned values.
+
+These are things which we all inherently agreed with, at least at one point in time, because we've all felt the effects of these values being transgressed, when someone takes control of your property without your permission, defaces it, and so forth.
+
+We've all been that child on the playground who had their toys stolen, sand kicked in their face, and both physically and psychologically violated. Admit it, you cried like a pitiful little worm.
+
+## Lack of agency
+We've come to a new overpass, and people are deciding not to make decisions, to just sit back and let the narrative take over, and to assume that they can infer, from the news media, or their politicians, or their echochamber of whatever sort it happens to be, which side is the correct one for them to be taking. Since this is heavily influenced by media and corporations, as always (and perhaps now more so than ever, if not by sheer technology alone, prevailing ideologies not withstanding), it becomes increasingly difficult to take a stand.
+
+If you are an academic, or better yet, a prestigious one, then you need to contend with the fact that your academic institutions are playing the same tune as the news media, the corporations, your political elite, the celebrities, and on and on and on. There's no other way to describe it - there is unanimity among all of these representatives, and I call them representatives because they establish a consensus and ensure, increasingly more than ever, that those who speak publicly are disseminating this well delinated range of consensus, at least in terms of general concepts, as the demarcated lines are always moving. To fall outside of it brings about more criticism than remembered, at least since the cold war, and the criticism is increasingly more damning, having taken on an arguably religious form.
+
+## Intentions
+Intentions, are what can be inferred, or even ignored. That is to say, we have seen a normalization of the concept that proven intentions are inadmissible. That intentions could be proven is not important, it is more or less important to infer them based on outcome, or to do away with the notion of intentions completely and only look at the outcome, or proposition as to what the real outcome was, and asserting that the more serious of a nature, as is demonstrated by the degree of oppression upon which the proposed outcome was to have been inflicted, and deducing the gravety of the gesture. That the group whom was infringed was particularly more oppressed, by societies current accepted consensus, necessarily allows us to impose the understanding of whether or not intent is to be considered, and if it is, to intolerantly demand that the intent is read based to have been as severe and malicious, as it corresponds to the degree to which the group is oppressed.
+
+This means that all aspects of justice, such as due process, standard for evidence in criminality, and so forth, are all fair game for having their standards reevalutaed or, in some cases, ignored. If intentions don't matter, and only the the end result, or the opinions of those who observe the result, then we don't really need to respect anyone's individual rights.
+
+## Outcomes
+It is assumed that what we need most is a conceptual model as to the most desirable, quantifiably verifiable distribution pattern, and proposed strategy as to how we, as a society, have already agreed it should be achieved, and whether or not one's particular actions contribute can be understood to have been congruent to that strategy. Is your net contribution observed to push towards that ideal distribution pattern? The pattern which has been agreed upon, by consensus, to be the correct one? Your own proclamation of intent is not to be evaluated in your case, as it can be inferred based from the action in question in terms of its transformative effect on the corresponding distribution pattern.
+
+That you might resist accepting the explanation of your intention, or the effects, which must be considered supreme over your own proclamations, is not only ignorance to the facts of your actual congruence to morality, but the mere predisposition towards this resistance is an admission of guilt, and should be consequently treated as evidence that you are working against justice.
+
+This frame of mind in viewing the discourse is becoming more prevalent and, as it does, the potential for bloodshed and injustice at the individual level increases. This is necessarily so, as there's no way to remove the consideration of specific intentions in specific circumstances without also dehumanizing. As it is the communication and understanding of individual actions and their motives which allows us to contend the reality that we share a space with humans without sharing the same experience.
+
+## Experience
+Most would agree that as we exist, observe and act, and that this constitutes what we refer to as an experience. That this occurs at the most direct interface of human existence suggests that it would be reasonable for a human to believe that it is real. That the experience is real, or worth having, also means that we need to consider that other beings have some form of experience, analogous to our own. An experience that can be reasonably considered as equal in the sense that it is real, and thus valid enough to be given attention and to considered as the prime frame through which that individual is operating, and thus necessarily to be considered when deducing moral observations from their conduct.
+
+If one is operating without having an experience, without perception, then of course it would make sense to only expect the outcomes matter, at which point we can ignore that the person is an individual.
+
+## Humanity
+That they aren't a being with an experience, but are just part of that distribution pattern, and are either correct or incorrect depending on how the behaviours arising from their existence affect the distribution pattern, means that we can employ an antihuman, or inhuman, mode of analysis which is necessarily antithetical to the valuing of human lives.
+
+Given that all this discussion of morality and justice is had on the basis of preserving human lives, or valuing them, it is quite suggestive of that there is currently a calamity of mindless and poisonous ideas which have percolated and become apparent in all aspects of society.
+
+Alas, this is our challenge. This is what we must be making sense of and working steadfastly to correct and reveal in the most objectively receivable light. We need to uphold the notion that humans might value an objective truth which is universal and possible to be understood by one another based on logic itself, and not the institutional narrative's consensus as to the list of core principles, or list of effects, which are agreed to correspond with the tribe to which one has been ascribed.
+
+## Clever intellectuals
+What is the right way to be thinking about problems of injustice and inequity? (And are those terms interchangeable?)
+
+Academics and faux intellectuals who espouse that "certainly, there may be many factors, given that that there are inequities, and that we can propose immutable characteristics that can be observed in humans, and that these characterstics link them to humans who are agreed upon to have historically experienced an injustice, or suffered the effects of injustice, given these things, we have sufficient reason to assume that if any of the inequities currently observed follow a pattern which corresponds to the people sharing those immutable characteristics who did experience injustices, this is evidence that these inequities are caused today by the same injustices, and that since those who suffer today are suffering because of these injustices, those who were guilty in the conduct of the historical injustices, can be linked to any who share their immutable characteristics.
+
+There is, therefore, only one way to talk about these inequities. To assume that injustice has occurred, against them, and that the cause of the injustice must be others, and that justice must be served. To discuss this in another way would be facile and incomplete. Always, the immutable characteristics should be considered to take primacy in all of related deliberations, and thus the characteristics need to be considered in both the guilty and the innocent. The oppressor and the oppressed. The moral and the depraved.
+
+Any suggestion that a multivariate analysis which might lessen these veils of consideration is, in a sense, less intellectually astute, more facile, more simple. Too simple, and for the simple minded.
+
+It is of course not more simple to be considering a greater variety of angles and variables which can affect the whole. And though the case might be made that Critical Theory does this, it actually does the opposite since it enforces an ordering of variables which always put immutable characteristics at the top of the list. Whether this be in the form of intersectionality, of radical black feminism, the group membership in these specific "domains of study", though Marxist, move beyond simple class and necessarily include genetically heritable traits.
+
+Why do academics fall victim for this? One suggestion is that this mode of thinking requires a sacrifice off some kind, and this might make it seem  more intellectually astute.
+
+## Sacrifice
+Something must be sacrificed for the good of all, because it makes sense that in order to make progress of any kind, a sacrifice is always made. Whether your personal productivity, at the expense of free time, or something even more costly, such as reputation and lives, we're basically saying that, as we agree that a sacrifice is being made, we are so making a sacrifice. This is both a moral act, and an intellectually mediated decision in the sense that we are choosing a morally compelling outcome which fulfills greater obligations than any one individual, as we believe that the plight of humanity is greater than ourselves.
+
+It's still nonsense, though, because there's no reason to think that your way of thinking, which supposes that a sacrifice is being made, is even  causing you to make any sort of sacrifice at all.
+
+You might be delegating the sacrifice to other people who sort of relate to your group, or are defined, in some superficial way, as being in your group. Through their sacrifice, you are performing a sacrifice of yourself, and that raises your moral standing.
+
+This is an idiotic way of thinking. To believe that people can raise their moral standing, with no real clear expense to themselves, and also claim that those who work against it are working against morality and the seeking of justice.
+
+## Privilege
+Alas, this is how academics have been taught, because they already have a place of privilege, and that they may or may not deserve it is not even important. That they have this position means they must do things which demonstrate, or at least symbolize, their being deserving of that position, and its power.
+How wonderful this great moral good is. What would these moral busybodies be doing otherwise, instead of naming evil and making the world a better place? They might otherwise be doing something less useful, like creating implements for the world in the form of edificies. Yes, they choose to create the new world through the justice of destroying other people's edifices, based on what symbols they've been ascribed to, and how this can be measured while regarding the current trends and values of today.
+
+How astute. Brilliant. Surely to hold this view necessarily means one is a genius. To be such a genius that you might be able to always take the most commonly held position, both among intelligentsia, and the proles who are mostly programmed through mindless entertainment.
+
+It fits together most elegantly.
+

new/kpop.md

@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+this is so hot
+it's all so hot
+oh the dishes are hot
+yeah we have that problem again
+things change temperature
+what a world
+aahahahhaha
+it's ready, what do you meanit's ready
+it's ready to eat?
+it's prepared or it's presentable and ready for mstication
+is it in my mouth
+I NEED IT TO BE READY!
+exit
+what do we know about kpop and it's participation or engagement wiht activities that might allow for the wokesmiths and woke high priests to deem kpop musicians and producers as "allies"
+do they litter their music videos with lgbt propaganda?
+is that starting to happen in Korea?
+do they have lgbt? do they have t at all?
+I would think that these are very infrequent occurrences, scant and possibly, in some cases (trans), non-existent
+I suppose the ideas spread and people with a lot of grief find a new identity which helps them move forward
+that's a very charitable and stupidly generalized view on the matter
+but if they are starting to promote anything it would be in the following form
+ a corporate implement, a corporate creation, some sort of corporate endeavour or construction in order to achieve some sort of achievement desirable to the aims and aspirations of the corporation
+this needs to be finished later
+exit

new/reasonable_radicals.md

@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+Is willingness to discuss an indication of radicalization?
+
+Could it be said that one could be radically adherent to an ideology or domain of thought which is, itself, composed of reasonable ideas?
+
+Can one be radical for reason? Or is the aspect of radical behaviour one which is sought out of unreasonable thinking?
+
+Is it ever reasonable to be radical? What is the problem with being a reasonable radical thinker?
+
+# What is it to be radical?
+
+Radical behaviour is one which goes against the fundamental norms of a system.
+
+A good example of where this might be seen as a reasonable gesture is if one is operating in a system which imposes cruel constraints on the entities contained within it, and that the rationale(s) for such impositions are understood to be indefensible. What would make it indefensible?
+
+Well it would have to be indefensible because those performing the deliberation a rationale share a position, perception or understanding for which the rationale becomes difficult to defend. For example, the rationale might be to kill all of those performing the deliberation. There is automatically a problem with this proposition, because it invites immense bias into the evaluation.

new/redundant_conflict_emotional_correction.md

@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+why woudl anyone settle for that nosense
+to spend their precious time having discussions that are doomed
+where the attitudes being presented are a gross impediment to even being able to understand the purpose of the conversation
+as far as I can tell, ti's always a continuous loop with the same result each time
+well each time it seems as though we're beginning with the same outlook, the same expectations, the same hopes for some type of meaningful exchange
+perhaps we become tired of the same interactions with the same people, perhaps it's the people, or perhaps it's the type of interactions to which we've become accustomed
+we're not growing from them, they themselves are not meaningful or we're not really able to reach the level of expression and performance that is necessary to feel that we are truly living to our fullest potential
+it might also be the fact that we're not uncovering knowledge which seems to come from outside our frame of reference
+if something is always easily attainable then perhaps it's not very valuable?
+it could also be that we're thinking it's worth sacrificing ourselves for good will
+for some sort of benefit to the world, in our believe, which is in and of itself a form of "virtue signal" to the self, establishing a level of morality that might somehow make ourselves feel better about ourselves
+about life and existence
+in any case, we're set onto this route once again and the hope is that we'll be able to save the world and ourselves, and that this is very simple because we need simple retain the appropritae attitude and use logic and reason to deduce reality from fallacy and establish the necessary shared values in the represented matter before us
+of course, whether these intentions be strongly understood, robustly supported, statically reliable and so forth is always an illusion, for any human, because without a strict system that one must somehow adhere to, we're likely to modify our understanding or perception without realizing it, maybe not even realizing it at all in retrospect either, even for the most grave and exaggerated deviations from reality or objective truth, whatever that may be
+nevertheless, we start with these intentions and these modes of being, and soon we find na issue of contention which necessarily assigns us to different signs of a political spectrum
+it's easy to see where it is going, almost immediately, and we begin to have a conception of why the other person might be stuck to their way of thinking
+I can get our we each our own cognitive biases and that this will necessarily lead us astray, if we have these sorts of political opinions or are even subjected to a revealed differentiation of opinion on a political issue
+because you already will start to wonder just to what degree the other person has delved off into understanding the issue in detail, and just how much of that desire to study and analyze it is driven by desires of other types, which we all have
+so it's easy to establish a possible vector for unforgivable behaviour or thought, shall we say, and that already starts to contaminate one's perspective, and the interaction as awhole
+what allows us to get past that, however, are the elements in the exchange which RESTORE trust and goodwill
+and one would hope that in most situations that is done through manner and attention to details
+allowing for each identified component to receive some sort of honest moment of scrutiny or, better yet, observation and analysis
+to actually understand that it's possible for someone to give an honest opinion, an authentic disclosure, on something that has been at least of value enough such that you were willing to distinguish it from the noise of unlimited artifacts that might be also related to the area of concern
+and this doesn't happen because of random choice, or because of the order in which something is presented in one's life, but because it was remarkable and note worthy.. there are far too many things that one could have noticed instead
+but this doesn't actually mean that we're gettiing to a place where we're able to maintain that
+and i feel that, though I haven't been perfect, I do at least respond or touch upon the individual things he has brought forward
+especially in the sense that I'm giving an honest opinion as to why something is important or not
+instead of saying "oh that's facile, that's silly and unimportant, that's not something worthy of my attention"
+you actually say what is the point being considered, why is it being considered, what values might change one's opinion as to the validity of the point, the weight of it, and so forth
+and then you figure out how you can explain this to the other person in a way which accurately conveys your honest opinion, and also allows them to understand your good intention in the overall development of your shared and individual understanding of the world
+and of course this is no easy task, it's something which takes time, but it's a two way street and we both have to make the effort or somehow demonstrate that we would have wanted to make that effort
+but as soon as the spirit of one's ego causes one to reject something being presented forward, then you start to lose your trust and faith in the process
+and in one another
+so then, at the very least, you identify something of import when you are having a moment of good will
+you both understand that doing this is a going to allow that good will to blossom and extend beyond the moment, but into the realm of possibility and the future
+and it becomes forgoten, not even mentioned
+that' sfine, but at least demonstrate that you are willing to give honest thought o something else, so long as it is something which is relevant
+and it's not even that, it goes beyond that because it follows a pattern of getting down to hte root bottom of the values of a particular disagreement
+where the fundamental values are likely very similar, and that hte ego changes how these are being represented because of political association or personal experience
+the manner in which you survive in this world, and how you need to manitain particular activities and areas of activity in order to fulfill the requirement of what you believe is entailed in your survival
+but you still demonstrate, at some moment, if you actually think there is something good to be had, that you are willing to consider a view and give a careful or at least an honest and thoughtful, if quick, representation fo your feelings or your opinion
+to discourage, reject, neglect and discount someone and their idea because ou consider it intellectually beneath you is bad enough, but it goes beyond that
+because this gets into the fundamental reason for what I believe is the misunderstanding of the world
+the idea that, in order for one to be doing good things, noe needs to be controlled
+because if you really believe that others have to be controlled in order to do great, or even just good things
+then it's likely that you aren't really able to do good things either
+and that you have replaced your understanding that you aren't capable of this
+and you have, instead, hcaracterized all people who are not yourself, as falling into this category
+especially when you have a difference of opinion with that person
+and therefore in this scenario, the natural thing is to assume that you are the one who must correct all others
+to guide them into the correct opinion, best knowledge, and precise action that is necessary and relevant at that time
+this works, or at least doesn't cause too much of a problem, for most issues
+but when it comes down to the lack of gratitude about the good things one has
+and to cheapen it and allow it to all go to waste
+in a fashion which harms others, and destroys lives
+makes it impossible for some lives to ever be restored
+then you're actually risking people's pain and suffering, and even your own, for a little experiment in your ego
+at that moment, if you aren't able to consider an opinion about something when it really matters, you're really doubling down on everything that might nnonsense, and you don't care because you need to continue believing it so strongly
+ahh what a clusterfuck
+people have problems these days and it's impossible to always know the best way to behave
+so soetimes, ifs omething isn't working anymore, and you know that it has been wasteful
+the choice is to stop trying to fgure out the best way to act all the time
+and just choose the way to act now which will at least give you that time back, so that you can make, hopefully, enough progress to satisfy the needs of mitigating the problem whcih might arise if nothign is done to counter the risks of the now
+correct the emotion
+hahaha
+exit

new/self_controlled_authority_figure.md

@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+Idea pathogens.. oh boy
+so if we are to talk about the growing trend to accept and excuse protest, in so many different forms, seemingly for similar reasons but with different interfaces into the the concept which allow for each event or instance of the behaviour to be reasoned about independently, and accepted through a differennot be more appealing for one particular mind or another, then we need to talk about what we think is real about the experience and the behaviour, and what eactly we are arguing over
+what is it about the protest that doesn't allow for everyone to accept it unanimously? Are some people simply racist? do they not want to see equity for black people?
+you need to wonder if those who are claiming this, as a reason to obviously choose to support the protests, actually believe it
+because if they do, do they believe that the reason they are choosing to accept and support protest, is because if they weren't to support it, it would be because they themselves would prefer that equity is not achieved, and that people of colour, black people, or whatever group is in question, remain behind them in whatever relevant form of hierarchical stnading that one wishes to use as a framework for evaluation?
+so they actually think that, by choosing to support the protest, that are preventing themselves from allowing this type of belief to animate them, take them over, and force them into racist beliefs and practices
+How much of a factor is the fear of being perceived as such a person?
+That they are willing to avoid scrutiny as to whether or not they might be guilty of the most forbidden sin, racism, because it implies that they are insecure, unrefined, unknowledgable, antiquated and altogether irrelevant in space and time, as far as can be understood in teh current societal frame, is a factor perfectly plausible to be present to some degree, whether a prime factor or not
+In any case, if truly they believe that the only reason one would be against the protest, is because they were racist, then they might be suppressing racist behaviour and beliefs that exist in them, which they are aware of
+if that is not the case, and they are simply wishing to avoid scrutiny or accusation of being a racist, then they are delegating those designations to their peers who are otherwise trying to challenge them in order to reinstate a more reasonable practice of evaluation on the issue of protesting
+This assumes a lot of different things, and we need to work through them one at a time
+Let's take for granted that they are choosing to believe that the support is for something which they accept because of the following reasons:
+1. Society is developed enough to withstand the collateral damage of these protests
+2. Some of the ideas being promoted by these activities are ones which the consensus agrees as being beneficial for the social sphere
+3. That these behaviours are complex means that we can't know which fundamental values or behaviours are most important to consider, and since there are some good ones, we can assume that it at least is worth enacting and seeing through, because some good might come of it, and if not, then at least we have gained some understanding and can do a better job next time
+4. The consequence of not supporting this movement is not worth paying
+exit
+are there any other reasons? so here is one which was posited by a colleague and good friend
+New set
+1. there is valid concern for racism in the Southern parts of the United States
+2. This is a path towards creating a countr ywith no state
+So let's look at these one aat a time
+in the case of concern for racism in the south
+this doesn't specify a nuanced position concerning certain aspects of racism, the movement to abolish it, whether these methods are caspable of achieving the aims
+what other aims are being achieved,  orpossible achieved
+what is the cariability in teh likelihood of any of these aims being achieved, and how do they affec ton eanother
+I mean we can go on and on about these things and find more stuff to scrutinize over, and we might not necessarily be becoming more scrupulous in the analysis, in the case of paying particularly more attention to increasingly esoteric or xconfined ways of thinking about an interaction or the effects of a decision
+in the case of enacting changes which might resolve racism, what are we really considering here
+1. Forced education
+2. The removal of state provided security; or
+2. a) the transformation of state security into a new type of entity which is capable of giving particular care to one classification of human over another
+3.
+Admission of guilt
+the admission of guilt is cmoplex, because it can be communicated in different ways tto different minds or wauys of thinking
+it can be translated to mean a bit of something else
+so I think the example that I gave Ross was that in one case you have the radical black feminist who's asking to have the entire system destroyed
+burned to the ground, religiously even, and then allowing black people to take control of the new civilization, which will allow for a better society which doesn't have the same corruption which came from whiteness
+that's pretty insane, and anyone who goes along with it is obviously racist beacuse they want to see a racial dominance hierarchy
+in any case, we have far more salient versions of the argument, which arenot asking for the same thing at all, but are in the same spirit, and can be used to gather more support for a range of ideas which are ill defined
+in the case of demnding something radical, we're only asking them toa gree that the mechanics of the system which exists, incur the possibility of enacting phenomena which demonstrate an abuse of power by authority figures
+if this can happen at all, it's easy to see, because we know that there are human elements at playt, and a human's behaviour is not considered as beign reliable unless you are that human
+humans can only trust their own experience, because it's the only thing that's real
+even if they believe that humans, including themselves, are able to fall victim to the possibility of believing in the illusory, or failing to apply logical reasoning to a given issue or problem, they still can easily maintain  the perception that they might still be best able to detect when this is happening, since they are actively considering the possibility of it at all
+you can't really get around that, because yoy necessarily expect that of anyone who is able to mitigate their bias or propensity to think in the illusory
+this always brings us back around full circle
+we either have a divine being, which if not divine, is just like anyone you or me and subject to the same pitfalls of being just a human, or you have the belief that you would rather have yourself be in control
+and since being in control, at that point, means you need to be in control of yourself
+we're pretty much still also arguing for the idea that anyone can be in control of thermselves
+you can't believe in having someone who is in control of the society unless you also believe that person is in control of themselves
+because they wouldn't be able to enact or cause or create anything that you would have already been aligned to
+any positive expectation that you would have of this person gaining control, would necessarily require you to believe that ahead of time, and thus his ability to enact it requires some element of planning or understanding, at least in sofar that you are able to deduxce that they have a mindset which naturally allows them to make the decision you would prefer
+but even then, this assumes that their mindset has a sort of consistency at all, because you wouldn't have been able to make  a prediction about their ability or reasoning otherwise
+thus you are, again considering that they must be able to make those decisions because they are in control of themselves
+so you must also be arguing for the idea that someone is in control of themselves, and thus people are able to be in control of themselves
+if they can't be in control of themselves, then no one can ever be expected to be in control of anything at all, especially not all of us
+so again if the problem is having authority figures at all, we're still can't come to make ourselves believe that a new system would have any sort of authority figure that would be able to be free of corruption
+unless that figure was a divine one, and not a human
+if that's the case, then we're off the neverneverland and there's no coming back
+so again, are we asking for no authority? no we're not, we need to be asking for a transformation of authority, and we only know where that would go
+exit

new/self_observation_argument.md

@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+Technology allows us to see the limits of ourselves
+For example:
+I can't calculate as quickly/accurately as this machine
+My work takes so long, tech makes it faster -> we must be so much slower than the ideal creation
+COUNTER ARGUMENT:
+THe ideal conception can only be realized or posited because of man's existence and participation in the matter
+The intelligent factor is man itself, and otherwise we can't assume anything was create at all
+Original
+We don't need evidence, for evidence is not real but only created because of the blind nature and limited understandingc/capability of man
+COUNTER ARGUMENT:
+Standard for evidence is the natural result of existing as any biological being. Humans can abstract and communicate about it, but  about it but for any organism, if they do not make deductions about the world, they perish
+Original
+You assume this, but you are alive and you don't believe that all your actions have been evaluated and scrutinized for possible abstractions and conceptions that allow for a complete understanding of their reasoning, construction, implications, and so forth. Or perhaps you do believe all of your actions were well-scrutinized, but even in those where you are most certain you did scrutinize, you were still affected by your bias to believe you have insight and undertanding.
+Your experience predicated on your identity leads to the decisions made. That you isolate the concept of evidence, and believe it was applied, is just your belief structure.
+COUNTER ARGUMENT:
+The things we don't know about the world can harm us.
+We know this because we have experienced surprise catastrophes, from unforeseen attacks to unexpected results.
+Surely you have had an experience which, though uncomfortable, afforded you the opportunity wherein, in a future situation, you had a greater ability to predict outcomes, thus allowing you to mitigate unwanted consequences.
+Even the ability to assert decision making, or to draw from the circumstance and produce observations that you otherwise would not have ever seen is an improvement. 
+If you believed all ways or all things arbitrary, then you would go mad, more mad than you are already, as you would be surprised by every event, and all threats would be completely unpredictable adn unmitigated.
+Original:
+Possibly none at this time. Logic and reason wins. It would seem as much.
+exit

new/statues.md

@@ -0,0 +1,100 @@
+Idea pathogens.. oh boy
+so if we are to talk about the growing trend to accept and excuse protest, in so many different forms, seemingly for similar reasons but with different interfaces into the the concept which allow for each event or instance of the behaviour to be reasoned about independently, and accepted through a differennot be more appealing for one particular mind or another, then we need to talk about what we think is real about the experience and the behaviour, and what eactly we are arguing over
+what is it about the protest that doesn't allow for everyone to accept it unanimously? Are some people simply racist? do they not want to see equity for black people?
+you need to wonder if those who are claiming this, as a reason to obviously choose to support the protests, actually believe it
+because if they do, do they believe that the reason they are choosing to accept and support protest, is because if they weren't to support it, it would be because they themselves would prefer that equity is not achieved, and that people of colour, black people, or whatever group is in question, remain behind them in whatever relevant form of hierarchical stnading that one wishes to use as a framework for evaluation?
+so they actually think that, by choosing to support the protest, that are preventing themselves from allowing this type of belief to animate them, take them over, and force them into racist beliefs and practices
+How much of a factor is the fear of being perceived as such a person?
+That they are willing to avoid scrutiny as to whether or not they might be guilty of the most forbidden sin, racism, because it implies that they are insecure, unrefined, unknowledgable, antiquated and altogether irrelevant in space and time, as far as can be understood in teh current societal frame, is a factor perfectly plausible to be present to some degree, whether a prime factor or not
+In any case, if truly they believe that the only reason one would be against the protest, is because they were racist, then they might be suppressing racist behaviour and beliefs that exist in them, which they are aware of
+if that is not the case, and they are simply wishing to avoid scrutiny or accusation of being a racist, then they are delegating those designations to their peers who are otherwise trying to challenge them in order to reinstate a more reasonable practice of evaluation on the issue of protesting
+This assumes a lot of different things, and we need to work through them one at a time
+Let's take for granted that they are choosing to believe that the support is for something which they accept because of the following reasons:
+1. Society is developed enough to withstand the collateral damage of these protests
+2. Some of the ideas being promoted by these activities are ones which the consensus agrees as being beneficial for the social sphere
+3. That these behaviours are complex means that we can't know which fundamental values or behaviours are most important to consider, and since there are some good ones, we can assume that it at least is worth enacting and seeing through, because some good might come of it, and if not, then at least we have gained some understanding and can do a better job next time
+4. The consequence of not supporting this movement is not worth paying
+exit
+are there any other reasons? so here is one which was posited by a colleague and good friend
+New set
+1. there is valid concern for racism in the Southern parts of the United States
+2. This is a path towards creating a countr ywith no state
+So let's look at these one aat a time
+in the case of concern for racism in the south
+this doesn't specify a nuanced position concerning certain aspects of racism, the movement to abolish it, whether these methods are caspable of achieving the aims
+what other aims are being achieved,  orpossible achieved
+what is the cariability in teh likelihood of any of these aims being achieved, and how do they affec ton eanother
+I mean we can go on and on about these things and find more stuff to scrutinize over, and we might not necessarily be becoming more scrupulous in the analysis, in the case of paying particularly more attention to increasingly esoteric or xconfined ways of thinking about an interaction or the effects of a decision
+in the case of enacting changes which might resolve racism, what are we really considering here
+1. Forced education
+2. The removal of state provided security; or
+2. a) the transformation of state security into a new type of entity which is capable of giving particular care to one classification of human over another
+3.
+Admission of guilt
+the admission of guilt is cmoplex, because it can be communicated in different ways tto different minds or wauys of thinking
+it can be translated to mean a bit of something else
+so I think the example that I gave Ross was that in one case you have the radical black feminist who's asking to have the entire system destroyed
+burned to the ground, religiously even, and then allowing black people to take control of the new civilization, which will allow for a better society which doesn't have the same corruption which came from whiteness
+that's pretty insane, and anyone who goes along with it is obviously racist beacuse they want to see a racial dominance hierarchy
+in any case, we have far more salient versions of the argument, which arenot asking for the same thing at all, but are in the same spirit, and can be used to gather more support for a range of ideas which are ill defined
+in the case of demnding something radical, we're only asking them toa gree that the mechanics of the system which exists, incur the possibility of enacting phenomena which demonstrate an abuse of power by authority figures
+if this can happen at all, it's easy to see, because we know that there are human elements at playt, and a human's behaviour is not considered as beign reliable unless you are that human
+humans can only trust their own experience, because it's the only thing that's real
+even if they believe that humans, including themselves, are able to fall victim to the possibility of believing in the illusory, or failing to apply logical reasoning to a given issue or problem, they still can easily maintain  the perception that they might still be best able to detect when this is happening, since they are actively considering the possibility of it at all
+you can't really get around that, because yoy necessarily expect that of anyone who is able to mitigate their bias or propensity to think in the illusory
+this always brings us back around full circle
+we either have a divine being, which if not divine, is just like anyone you or me and subject to the same pitfalls of being just a human, or you have the belief that you would rather have yourself be in control
+and since being in control, at that point, means you need to be in control of yourself
+we're pretty much still also arguing for the idea that anyone can be in control of thermselves
+you can't believe in having someone who is in control of the society unless you also believe that person is in control of themselves
+because they wouldn't be able to enact or cause or create anything that you would have already been aligned to
+any positive expectation that you would have of this person gaining control, would necessarily require you to believe that ahead of time, and thus his ability to enact it requires some element of planning or understanding, at least in sofar that you are able to deduxce that they have a mindset which naturally allows them to make the decision you would prefer
+but even then, this assumes that their mindset has a sort of consistency at all, because you wouldn't have been able to make  a prediction about their ability or reasoning otherwise
+thus you are, again considering that they must be able to make those decisions because they are in control of themselves
+so you must also be arguing for the idea that someone is in control of themselves, and thus people are able to be in control of themselves
+if they can't be in control of themselves, then no one can ever be expected to be in control of anything at all, especially not all of us
+so again if the problem is having authority figures at all, we're still can't come to make ourselves believe that a new system would have any sort of authority figure that would be able to be free of corruption
+unless that figure was a divine one, and not a human
+if that's the case, then we're off the neverneverland and there's no coming back
+so again, are we asking for no authority? no we're not, we need to be asking for a transformation of authority, and we only know where that would go
+exit
+what were we talking about before
+we know that it had something to do with disagreement
+the reasons we have conflicts and the reasons we abide by our different view
+externalizing our enemies, externalizing evil
+externalizing the parts of ourselves that we are ashamed of
+neglecting the reality of human behaviour
+choosing not to pay attention to the types of emotions which are produced by those who perform the actions necessary to the position which you wish to support
+it might be because one has many aspects of the action to focus upon, and some of those could take time
+or it might be that there are mutliple emotions which are possible
+but which ones are plausible?
+if you imagine yourself in that moment, in the body, taking action and taking aim at a particular goal
+what is the goal in destroying anything?
+does it ever feel joyful, or liberating?
+is it ever a catharsis or a transcendance? how does that happen with removing statues
+the statues stand for something that you are against
+something which you must defeat
+even if it's something from the past that you aren't able to accept
+or something from the past that you don't think deserves recognition
+what sort of recognition?
+the recognition of it having passed? of its occurrence?
+it's not necessarily a recognition in the sense that we must praise it
+the statue itself, however, does seem to be a sort of praise
+a form of praise
+we can't really get around that, because work was performed and maintenance was required.. this didn't happen b accident, any it didn't happen for nothing
+so with that in mind, it's true that these statues, as all statues, are recognizing the good parts in tha tsense that it was worth spending ther esources
+but that doesn't mean that it's the only thing we could recognize
+because if we decide to go the path of removing anything which causes enough fofence, given enough time, it's likely that most things could cause offense, and that our standards as to what constitutes an intolerable offense will change
+so, knowing these things, do we wish to accept a future where all things are eventually removed and destroyed?
+all art? all music? anything icon or emblem, anyhting which inspires through the history and acts of any particular person
+could we have statues that are meant to offend, which will never be taken down unless they didn't cause ENOUGH offense?
+what would be better, to have to worry about which statues are offensive enough, and possibly just ban the use of statues altogether, or to have statues which rae only erected because they cause enough offense to do so
+that's an interesting idea, and that might even be wortwhile as an experiment someplace, like a hotel or a town
+in any case, it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that given the complexity of social interaction and community, and enough time for the necessary changes to have taken place, all art and all statues might be worthy of being removed, or might be believed to be worthy of being removed, because of any number of areas of analysis
+so if we aren't also okay with the idea of banning all statues, then it doesn't seem like the position to remove statues
+especially in the case that the statues aren't offending you, but might be offending others
+so we might get to a place where we can't have any statues or any tributes fo any kind
+and possibly no art
+is that a future we all want? would we be willing to make that switch right now, and give up things which we consider artful, beauthat these transactions are multilayered and require a few iteration in order to get right
+and I think that those ierations, unless they are brutal, should, at least in a system of reason, inspire the actual work we need to get free again
+exit

new/the_important_element_ProblemSolving.md

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+this is a brain vomit
+thi sis how we try to get the words out as quickly as possible
+are they just random words
+or are they the fragments from different thoughts in my mind
+why do I feven feel the need to express them
+well taht's sort of easy, we can think about why humans are social beings, or why any animal might benefit from interacting with another
+it's easy to want to get together and be together and think together and look together and observe and behold together and get acknowledgment from one another together forever oh it's so lovely don't you agree
+sometimes we just need to keep speaking our mind until we understand what it is we're trying to say
+and this is a perfect opportunity, because you've all been longing to express yourselves, so why not just go ahead and do it and see what comes out?
+often we're waiting for the right idea to utter, because then we can make a commitment to say "thi sis what I think"
+but you think so much more than just what you say
+than just the thingsthat you say, I think that htey were saying there are mutliple streams of consciousness or subconscious streams of self dialogue which are undergoing at any one time of the day, while someone is awake and conscious
+this is insane, and you have to wonder what those streams sound like, and whether or not they're eeven coherent
+are they just random words? what's the speed of communication, transfer rate of the information, is it considered information by volume, or based on the meaning of what's being transported?
+is it being transported? just internally between mechanisms of the mind and the body?
+or is it only considered transmission if it goes across something which meets a certain standard tos ay it's a complete transportation or transmission
+we could talk about systems theory and how they have at ransport
+and then say any systems in the human body that we can infur as having a delination of some sort, that if anything transfers between them, we can measure that as a transmission
+well that works I guesss we can agree on that and keep going forward
+here is a typing test:
+December 17, 1903, is the birth date of all airplanes. Orville and Wilbur Wright started building gliders in 1900. In 1903, they built a motor and propeller for their glider. Orville made the first flight, which lasted 12 seconds, and flew 120 feet. Wilbur's flight was 852 feet in 59 seconds. These first flights in 1903 were just the start of the revolution of planes. By the year 1909, Bleriot had crossed the English channel. By hte year 1912, a two-piece plywood fuselage was built for greater strength. By the 1930s, the all-metal fuselage was tried, and it soon appeared in DC3s. From the Wrights' 1903 motor and prop came the engines for the 1950 turbojet that generated at least 19,600 pounds of thrust. The big Boeing 747 has four engines with 50,000 pounds of thrust each. The future holds an advanced super-sonic jet with a saving of almost 40 percent in fuel usage.
+The master of business administration degree orirginated in the 20th century the early 20th century when the country industrialized and companies sought scientific approaches to management. The core courses in an MBA program cover various areas of business such as accounting, applied statistics, business communication, business ethics, business law, finance, managerial economics, management, entrepreneurship, marketing and operations in a manner most relevant to management analysis and startegy. Most programs also include elective courses and concentrations for further study in a particula area, for example accounting, finance, and marketing. MBA programs in the United States typically require completing about sixty credits, nearly twice the number of credits typically required for degrees that cover some of the same material such as Master of Economics, Master of Finance, Master of Accountancy, Master of Science in Marketing nad Master of Science in Maangement, the MBA is a terminal degree nad a professional degree. Acrreditation bodies specifically for MBA programs ensure consistency and quality of education. Business schools in many countries offer programs tailored to full-time, part-time, executive (abridged coursework typically occurring on nights or weekends) and ddistance learning students, many with specialized concentrations.
+how often is it that we assume there is a problem of intention, and that the intention is brought about hby a certain element in the system
+it might be a fragment of information, or it might be a procedure which is kept alive because of a lack of information
+of course, it's never cut so perfectly square as all that, but in theory, and especially in social theory, nothing never really needs to align perfectly, there just has to be ana rgument tha tsomething is an important factor, and then you can easily design a system where it is, in fact, the only factor, or the most important factor, regardless of whether or not its effect is even more than negligible, or able to be measured at all, in the real world
+nevertheless, a system is created to describe the effect of that factor and then a proposal on how it shoul db emitigated, influenced, modified, or removed, is put forward and the assumption is that, even if it's not the most important factor, ti was =important enough for us to spend our time groveling over it, so certainly if it's at least in the interest of improving the status quo, let us take seriously this proposal and have a discussion about why it might be or might not be the best solution to the problem at hand
+nevermind that it might be completely absrud to even be spending the time considering it, because in real life it might create 1000 new problems which we don't really need to account for in our littel thought experiment
+nevertheless, we have decided that we can fix people's intentions, or that intentions don't even matter, and that we can say that people are actually supporting the use of the implements such as theey exist, out of sheer ignorance and an inability to orient oneself to aparticularly important perspective, atleast inso far that it can reveal the true nature of what transactions are being performed, nad that, though we can't necessarily hold them guilty for their intentions, we can inform them of what it is they are suporting, by intention or not, and now that they have been warned, we can assert that they are guilty of supporting something which we all should understand as being wrong, and tahat the intent, if it needs to be inferred at all, can be found right there
+working against the solution which we know is at least important enough to consider, and that we are considering solving a particular problem means that we have are seeking justice and good
+those who, after being informed of the effects of their actions, continue to wish to perform the actions which are discordant with our stated solution, are now a threat to progress and might be, even worse, harbouring ill intent
+they cannot be trusted
+exit

new/why_we_do_it.md

@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+so this is a perfect example fo when you just don't even know what you want to talk aabout
+or what you're eeven thinking about, and how your thoughts might be affecting your perception
+or how they might be informing and occupying your self talk, the extr astreams of thought and subconscious streams of ideas that might be lurking around and seeping into your conscious actions without you realizing it
+it's good to take this into consideration given the complexity of the human experience and the complexity in being able to perceive and control it
+that is to say, if we are truly meant to be in control , if one is to assume that a control exists when one has control over all faculties, implements, capabilities, processes and mannerisms
+you fucking twat
+exit
+here we go
+I just need to be able to type owrds as fast as possible again
+it was so useful to be able to go through something and just type it out at the speed of light, without having to think or search for words, but just be able to have a conscious stream a stream of consciousness outputting from my being at the speed of thought
+it's very liberating to be able to formulate your ideas and reach conclusions
+to be able to connect ideas by filling in the spaces between them, the dark and uncovered and unrevealed parts of tyour thinking that you take for granted as having reasonable ends, reasonable representations that could be unveiled if you wanted to discover them, or spend the time to unveil them
+well that's why it has to be done, because those expectations that your ideas are , in fact, reasonable, need to be fulfilled only by doing the work and comnig to thsoe conclusions
+producing the semantic detail for the idea and then allowing it to flourish into a fully formed system of thinking, or conception of an issue at hand
+exit

politics/gov_does_not_think.md

@@ -20,4 +20,31 @@ Did the government realize that splitting families might be a consequence of put
 ### Abolish the what?
 Yes, even politicians themselves are calling for the abolishment of all sorts of things, so long as it happens to be uttered on social media and enough people are able to connect with the idea for some reason or another. In most cases, the ideas themselves are never even proven with any clarity, just with an assumption that since this declaration has been made, it must follow that you understand that its implications symbolize the benefit for one "side" or the other, and that you must participate and make your selection clear, in tandem with your tribal affilitation of course. There's no scrutiny or development/refinement of understanding of the matter. There are no shared insights through the discourse themselves, they almost follow such a simplistic and predictable approach that one can't help but, again, retract themselves from the exchange, and making many lazier in their intellect, though in some cases more hostile and belligerent.
 
-What then - how do we go from here? Do we abolish the abolitionists? How do we do that, exactly, when there are good reasons to abolish some things sometimes - aren't there? Likely the rotten state that might result from the movement itself as this time; I'm sure a few years of having them decide what a society maintains will cause for the impregnation of foundation-level components that will necessarily need to be removed in order for humanity to flourish once again. This will be a form of abolition, I suppose, though often these things are acted upon a more obvious which might not cause it to be a movement of any kind, but just a clean-up of sorts wherein there isn't the same type of coercion or use of force which might have been associated with the simple fact of having that component be present at all. The language, of course, sounds like the radicals which are speaking of removing components which are the actual foundation of thought in this sphere, and saying tha tthey must be removed because it is painful for them to be present and their removal is simply the resolving of the pain and concluding of the suffering. But this is less abstract than that, I mean we can literally get into why the components, or elements that are corrupt and implanted in the foundation of our society, are causing real damage that can be measured empirically, and that their removal is not somet traumatic conflict-causing process, but a simple discontinuity in the use of those components - that's what I'm getting at, that these basic ideas about use of force and reducing someone to their properties for which they have no control over, are awful ideas and that the discontinuity of use necessarily causes an improvement in the human condition, the quality of life, the reduction in unnecessary pain and suffering, and so forth
+What then - how do we go from here? Do we abolish the abolitionists? How do we do that, exactly, when there are good reasons to abolish some things sometimes - aren't there? Likely the rotten state that might result from the movement itself as this time; I'm sure a few years of having them decide what a society maintains will cause for the impregnation of foundation-level components that will necessarily need to be removed in order for humanity to flourish once again. This will be a form of abolition, I suppose, though often these things are acted upon a more obvious which might not cause it to be a movement of any kind, but just a clean-up of sorts wherein there isn't the same type of coercion or use of force which might have been associated with the simple fact of having that component be present at all. The language, of course, sounds like the radicals which are speaking of removing components which are the actual foundation of thought in this sphere, and saying tha tthey must be removed because it is painful for them to be present and their removal is simply the resolving of the pain and concluding of the suffering. But this is less abstract than that, I mean we can literally get into why the components, or elements that are corrupt and implanted in the foundation of our society, are causing real damage that can be measured empirically, and that their removal is not somet traumatic conflict-causing process, but a simple discontinuity in the use of those components - that's what I'm getting at, that these basic ideas about use of force and reducing someone to their properties for which they have no control over, are awful ideas and that the discontinuity of use necessarily causes an improvement in the human condition, the quality of life, the reduction in unnecessary pain and suffering, and so forth
+
+So how is it that different people are conceiving the issue of defunding the police differently? In some cases they truly think that enacting a few modest changes which slightly divert some excess expenditures towards more useful and socially conscious uses will be a welcome move, something which improves the quality of society and reduces the need for violent interactions with the police. Surely, if everyone is of sounder mind, and has better facilties and services to serve them in a manner which is more particular to their needs, then there will be less crime, fewer health problems, fewer emergencies, and so forth. It sounds like a great idea, and why not? We could do the following:
+
+1. Police have too much excess funding, because of inefficiencies
+2. Police have too much funding specifically geared towards militarization - that is, equipment which would normally be associated with the army, and thus used for inflicting massive damage, or surveilling the enemy.
+
+It's easy to conclude that, because it is the case that inefficiencies can exist, and that there is certainly a such thing as "too much force", that those two points would suffice to lead one to conclude that there is money available which would be best used for a cause which, at the surface, has better optics and also fulfills the need of addressing some of the socially conscious issues of today. Fulfilling in the sense that, it can be argued to be sought in the name of today's socially conscious issues. Simply having somethign to do which is relevant can be very attractive for just about anyone, but especially someone who thinks political and is trying to aim for the approval of many. Short term strategy, but at least it's an inclination towards action - proactive change, starting with.. who? Me? Did I think of these ideas myself, or am I simply pushing them along because I know what ideas are politically salient at this point in time. Surely, knowing that it's the right idea is an indication that it is something popular, and thus appealing to someone with a political outlook, or even a socially manipulative one.
+
+Well, why not? Let's look at the issues specifically
+
+### Excess Funding
+
+We look at the police today, and we see that they are out of shape, often overweight, probably not having to perform recurring fitness exams or risk being thrown off the force. At the very least, receiving physicals which bear no weight on whether or not they shoudl be allowed to continue as a police officer.
+
+The image of the doughnut eating pig is forever in everyone's minds, and so it's easy to become manic with glee as we look at the issue in greater detail. Money might be available for me which has always been there, but I was too blind to see. It's almost like I'm doing the work of making sure money is better allocated in society, and the image of a fat cop is the only evidence I really need to come to the conclusion that it's a worthwhile target, and get suddenly it's worth championing.
+
+But do we really know if there are excesses? And, furthermore, do we know if there might be expenstes for which there is an excess? Is the excess an expenditure, or is it something for which other expenses are incurred? We do that at the moment.
+
+### Government Sanctioned Seggregation
+
+They introduce new practices, to support the use of PPE (personal protective equipment), but then they also need to mitigate these practices or the recommendations of this practices, to coincide with woke culture. The new practice is enforced, mandatory, use of masks, except by people of colour.
+
+Now, of course one can easily argue that there are mostly white people in this small county, and that it's mostly a symbolic gesture meant to be in keeping current with heightened sensitivities resulting from George Floyd's death, and the initiatives which have been erupting or catalyzed in his honour. Reacting to this in this way is probably the result of a few factors:
+
+1. Avoid harm. We need to demonstrate that we aren't racists, or that we are at least actively anti-racist, by proving that we, at the community level, are able to come together and make concessions, alter our way of life, for the benefit of people of colour. This, at least in principle, might reduce the chance that we will be the targets of retaliation and outbursts of anger, coming from the groups which are popularly understood as having been falling victim to societal inequities. How convenient that this also;
+2. Signal to one another. Reveal something striking, intellectually astute, and resonating from a higher class of privilege, for if you are occupying a space designated to those of higher status, then you are likely less at risk to many sorts of mortal threats which plague those below you. While you are occupying this space, you are protected by a veil of divinity, you are above humanity, helping to lift the rest of its members up to a higher standing, approaching your own. In doing this, you are performing a transcendental act which fulfills Universal Being. This means that you are part of something divine and infinite, and since it exists seemingly forever, then why can't you?
+