Aldo6

I'm whatever, I guess...

Public Key

npub1v3k05y7z23cllpt5uc2m6927v0llxalejg9tryjukgumpaedt2rsgzchdk

NIP-05 Address

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsxgm86z0p9gu0ls46wv9daz40x8llnwlueyz43jfwtywds7uk44pcpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0ds8unpea

Publishing to

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Author Public Key

npub1v3k05y7z23cllpt5uc2m6927v0llxalejg9tryjukgumpaedt2rsgzchdk

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-03-24 22:56:03 UTC

- reply

I don't want to keep this current System hooked up to a life-support machine.
Even if I liked the System (I don't, but let's consider the hypothetical), would I support it in its current vegetative state? No.
If you could somehow talk to someone who has been turned into a vegetable with no chance of regaining consciousness and try to convince them to continue "living" (in a purely mathematical/scientific sense) as they are, do you think even they would choose to continue?
No.
Things must be left or let to die. It is the natural way of things. Either stop artificially prolonging the "life" in question, or allow said "life" to naturally self-destruct.
You may call it "accelerationism", but I see it as mercy; as true empathy and as true affirmation of agency. The System's time is up. It made its choices. The only thing holding it back from death is, ironically, us and our nostalgia for and fear of it.

2026-03-23 23:23:11 UTC

I don't know if anyone else is seeing this, but there appears to be an increase in Antis calling for people to be arrested for having stock NN photos of "minors" on their HDs. You see this now when people get arrested for lolisho, and the prosecution points out they had NN irl photos as well, as if that's somehow "CSAM"/"CP" or something one can also be charged with.
These people believe that the simple act of having a photo of a "minor" in a bikini or whatever is grounds for arrest under "possession" laws or at the very least grounds for a search warrant.
You know what?
Good. Great, even.
The only way things will change is if people stop following unjust laws, and the only way that will happen is when there is clear overreach.
Things will have to get worse (and more ridiculous!) before they get better.
Pain is the greatest teacher.
#AgreeingwithAntisforthewrongreasons

2026-03-20 12:26:30 UTC

- reply

Also, daily reminder that the admin of "MAP""support" considers Yee a "predator"...
Just goes to show you where the priorities lie...

2026-03-20 12:25:41 UTC

"Yee was listed among the "worst of the worst criminal aliens arrested by ICE" on a new website US authorities launched in December."
"Worst of the worst"...
What a fucking joke.
Exchanging nudes makes you one of the "worst of the worst"...
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj40xekver1o

2026-03-17 22:12:56 UTC

Once again, it is truly unbelievable how cooked Iran is atm.
Let's just do a quick recap of some of the main events from the past few days (or even hours):
Today the Israelis assassinated that one guy that showed up at the Quds Parade, and the Iranians responded to that by denying his death via posting a screenshot of a "handwritten" letter from him where he essentially praises the IRGC (*eye roll*). Only later in the day did the Iranian government finally admit that he was killed. The IRGC at this point controls everything in Iran, but they can't say that because then the whole democratic veneer of their System would be exposed.
Also, the new Supreme Leader has not been seen or even heard once since his new appointment. All that has happened was another "written statement" was read out on state news, and cardboard cutouts of him were shown at demonstrations. I mean, come on...What the fuck is wrong with these guys?
Simultaneous to all this, the Gulf states are now through backchannels and private conversations telling Trump to hammer Iran until they are totally "neutralized". MBS in particular appears to be livid at the Iranians. Understandable, given what has happened. Outwardly (i.e. to Western liberal media) the Gulf states want to present an image of being more critical of America and Israel's actions, but I guess Iran just finally went too far and now the gloves are coming off.
Then you have Hezbollah, which initiated the fighting on the Lebanese front by proudly stating they were firing missiles and drones at Israel because of the Supreme Leader's killing and to "defend the honor of Iran", then went back on that and recently declared that they were fighting "for Lebanese sovereignty", even though they deny the sovereignty of the elected Lebanese government, a government of which they are literally part, and which has demanded that they hand over their weapons and focus exclusively on local politics. This of course suits Israel best most of all, as now they have justification to continue bombing Lebanon and advancing even further. This has caused Hezbollah to lose huge amounts of support (what little they had left over after Syria) in Lebanon, from not just the non-Shia (who were always critical of Hezbollah), but specifically from the Shia community itself. Hezbollah has no idea what to do, and now they're saying they're in an "existential war". Oops.
Then you have Hamas, whose political office (run by Khaled Mashal, a man consistently critical of Iranian designs in the region) issued a statement calling on Iran to stop attacking "brotherly" Gulf states. Iran never responded to this.
The Houthis continue to act-up, but for the moment appear to be hesitating on whether to join the fight or not. Iran has hinted that they will "activate" them, but the Houthis were never as beholden to Iran as Westerners or seemingly even the Iranian government thought or think. The Houthis have a similar relationship with Iran to Hamas. Both retain an independent character.
And there is so much more to this...

2026-03-17 11:12:18 UTC

- reply

that makes sense, if you accept if reality is subjective.
The Sun was considered a God at one point, now it is considered a star. The Sun remains, but the subjective interpretation and/or most popular perspective about it has shifted.

2026-03-16 11:14:56 UTC

- reply

even "objective truth" changes over time, ergo there is no "one truth".
There are only competing perspectives regarding how specific data should be interpreted.

2026-03-16 11:13:36 UTC

- reply

Nietzsche literally described himself as an "anti-anti-Semite". He ended his friendship with Wagner over it.
His philosophy was cherry-picked by his sister and the Nazis in order to suit their agenda, with disastrous results. Nietzsche said in his works that the worst people who read his works would be those who simply took the aspects they liked but ignored the whole; those who believed Nietzsche's philosophy promoted "order".
He would have despised the Nazis as crude, and filled to the brim with resentment, two things his philosophy was strongly against.

2026-03-15 11:34:21 UTC

- reply

Nietzsche.

2026-03-14 12:59:24 UTC

- reply

I know that hahaha
Czechs get around.
Why are you taking this post so seriously?

2026-03-14 12:57:33 UTC

- reply

not everyone is descended from Bohemian nobility...

2026-03-14 12:55:18 UTC

Maybe my perspective makes more sense when one considers that I am descended from landed Bohemian nobility.
Last Christmas I asked Dad if we still technically had access to the old family estate, and he said we did, but he hadn't visited it in decades.

2026-03-11 20:20:50 UTC

- reply

Based
Nietzschean
Ubermensch!
https://gimmeloli.cc/files/e8d49bec-2d63-4f79-9f4c-bcb103a50db6.png

2026-03-11 16:12:26 UTC

- reply

"There are no facts, only interpretations" - Friedrich Nietzsche.

2026-03-09 19:16:21 UTC

You can never eliminate suffering. Stop trying. Your "Utopia" will never come.
All you can do is grow stronger so the suffering matters less and less.
L i f e
I s
S u f f e r i n g
Stop being weak!

2026-03-08 23:17:18 UTC

- reply

internet Communists try not to be a meme challenge (impossible).

2026-03-08 23:08:29 UTC

- reply

> after 1937 it stopped
BwahahahahahahHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Holy fucking shit...
"Look at any socialist country nowadays and they have way less political deaths than C(r)apitalist (TM) countries"
Dude, what in the fuck...Are you serious right now?

2026-03-08 22:55:12 UTC

- reply

Booth had accomplices and was an avowed Confederate. That is also the allegation re: Nikolayev (i.e. that he was not acting alone, or was acting as a sort of patsy). Hitler committed suicide, he wasn't assassinated.
Anyways, I guess, if all these deaths were due to incompetence, then it's just more evidence that Communism kinda sucks balls, because they were never able to be "competent" enough to stop their important people from just dying in strange ways...

2026-03-08 22:47:01 UTC

- reply

oh, sorry then, I wonder how many times "it was incompetence" was used after a political/important figure ended up dead.

2026-03-08 22:28:39 UTC

- reply

"It was all just a coincidence"
"It was incompetence"
I wonder how many times this was said in response to deaths of political/important figures while the Soviet Union existed...
Hrm.......I wonder...

2026-03-08 22:26:04 UTC

- reply

you can easily look up the correspondances between Stalin and Yezhov, like, they're a known thing...
I get the feeling that your interactions here are just an attempt to whitewash Stalin and blame everything on everyone else, even though he was the guy in charge of......Everyone else...
Command responsibility.

2026-03-08 22:17:34 UTC

- reply

so one moment it's the NKVD, the next moment it's not the NKVD, they were just incompetent, but then it's back to "it was the NKVD" again...
Bruh...
Anyways, the point of my post is that the Leningrad Affair was a real thing, Stalin was a parnoid lunatic, and the central Moscow authorities in general hated the fact that the local administrators of Leningrad may have been better than them.

2026-03-08 22:13:10 UTC

- reply

the correspondances between Stalin and Yezhov?

2026-03-08 22:12:56 UTC

- reply

"the NKVD yes, but Stalin not really"
So were the NKVD involved, or not?
Why did the NKVD remove the majority of Kirov's guards right before his assassination? Who gave that order?

2026-03-08 22:08:23 UTC

- reply

the 1936 correspondances between Stalin and the then head of the NKVD shows that Stalin had detailed knowledge of all (or at least the vast majoroty of) the NKVD's actions, often signing off on specific "kill lists" that were then passed-down to lower level officers and their men. He would often leave personal written comments on these lists like "torture them in this way" etc...
Of course, these sort of correspondances don't exist from 1934, but it is not outside of the realm of possibility that, given his desire to involve himself in the "blood and guts work" of the NKVD from '36 onwards, he would have acted similarly in 1934 when he was at the top of the totem pole.

2026-03-08 22:02:10 UTC

- reply

"Ooopsie, sorry I just killed you, simple clerical error haha I'm such a Gemini" - NKVD agent after meeting his "cleansing" quota.

2026-03-08 21:58:38 UTC

- reply

in the best case, this therefore shows that the NKVD was an instrument of centralized state terror that couldn't even be controlled. In the worst case it shows that the NKVD was an instrument of centralized state terror that was controlled by the top.

2026-03-08 21:54:24 UTC

- reply

are you really going to sit there and say it was the NKVD acting independently while Stalin was the head honcho who literally gave them their marching orders (often verbally)?

2026-03-08 21:47:14 UTC

- reply

the first source is about Kirov's execution/assassination. Kirov was a Leningrader who Stalin had trouble controlling.
The point of the reference to Kirov was to point out a pattern of Stalin viewing Leningraders with suspicion because of their apparent independent nature.
Anyways, the Leningrad Affair was a real thing, as people were executed/imprisoned (and subsequently exonerated) because of it.

2026-03-08 21:39:06 UTC

Remembering that time during and after the Siege of Leningrad where Stalin sought to downplay the struggle there because he was worried Leningraders were fostering a sense of superiority over and independence from the inept central Moscow authorities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leningrad_affair

2026-03-07 15:50:07 UTC

- reply

My problem with Communism: "Scientific", objectivist (one truth), Dogmatic, purity-driven, engages in no true Scotsman fallacy when it doesn't turn out the way the theory planned. Utopian. Too rigid.
My problem with Anarchism: Believes all structures are inherently bad. Wants a society without a System to base itself around. Not only Utopian, but fundamentally weak. Brittle.
My problem with C(r)apitalism (TM): Consumerism becomes an end in of itself, materialism dictates everything (mirror image of Communism), slop product, no higher purpose for people to pursue; aimless; nihilistic.

2026-03-07 14:22:35 UTC

- reply

the truth hurts...
Neither "right", nor "left", but pro-Sexuality. Only pro-Sexuality.
https://gimmeloli.cc/files/997bcdf9-3101-43ce-a5d2-bcd1d9cd96bb.png

2026-03-02 10:47:52 UTC

- reply

the subconscious is what rules the mind, not the conscious. It controls the vast, vast majority of human behaviour. Never, never dismiss the subconscious. You do so at your own peril.
It is not a "baseless assertion", it is literally a psychological phenomena that has been studied and analyzed by psychologists for at least a century. Where else do you think the extreme homophobe who eventually gets outed as a homosexual comes from?

2026-03-02 01:11:30 UTC

- reply

everyone, everyone, is capable of violence. Everyone has that shadow in them. To deny it is to run away from acknowledging, mastering and incorporating one's own shadow. This is Jungian.
The people who say "I would never do X" almost always have secret thoughts or desires about doing X.
The subconscious (or autoconscious) is still there, even if one is not conscious of it.

2026-03-01 23:35:07 UTC

- reply

my apologies, I made an error in my other comment. I meant to say that saying there isn't a connection is just as bad as saying there is a direct causal connection.
The point is what goes on in the psyche is the same. The person experiences the same sort of rush.
A person who jacks/fingers it to lolisho porn is not in a total psychological vacuum, just as a person playing GTA is not in a total psychological vacuum.
The point is that said person can recognize the difference between watching/playing a video game and engaging in a real life action, even if the psychology behind both is the same.
A person who likes BDSM porn, for example, doesn't go around raping/assaulting people irl, but the point is that they still get hard/wet over the thought of rape/SA.

2026-03-01 22:51:21 UTC

- reply

my version:
https://gimmeloli.cc/files/4b7df9e7-de6c-4717-81f7-5db3242abe10.jpg

2026-02-26 22:31:30 UTC

- reply

this implies that "health" is the mitigation of bad.
My version of "health" is not the mitigation of the "bad", but overcoming and/or growing through or in spite of pain/suffering/"the bad".
A person who drinks but does not become an alcoholic.
A person who eats fat but does not become fat.
A person who eats meat but is not a "carnivore".
A person who stays up late for an actual reason, instead of just because.

2026-02-26 22:11:19 UTC

- reply

Grr......"Morally valid"....Eughhh....
I respectfully disagree...
To be healthy (in body and mind) is to be "moral". Any "morality" that does not place an emphasis on physical and mental health (short and long-term) is inherently suspect.

2026-02-26 21:47:24 UTC

- reply

hate in perpetuity is not healthy.
Better to eventually let it go. It is the ultimate act of overcoming the past.

2026-02-21 20:08:48 UTC

- reply

the natural result of #believeallvictims is that liars claim to be victims, and then get believed. Any attempt to challenge them is seen as "rape apologism" etc... Liars get to direct a hysterical mob. A terrifying prospect, but one that is very real and being enacted before our very eyes.
Liars have, through their selfishness and pettiness, rendered the word "victim" meaningless which, ironically, is actually a good thing on the whole.
Without the "victim" as the core, which is something that is central to our society, we will be forced to create new values.
#Agreeingwithantisforthewrongreasons

2026-02-21 19:33:25 UTC

- reply

It's ridiculous, because these people reveal the confluence between the extreme exploitative and unethical practices of C(r)apitalism (TM) and the inherently two-faced "Victim industry", yet all these Twitter leftists/rightists are utterly blind to it.

2026-02-21 19:24:56 UTC

- reply

I mean, I guess I can respect her Sigma grindset, but come on.... xD

2026-02-21 19:21:34 UTC

One of Epstein's alleged victims (Juliette Rose Bryant) has now started-up crypto called "Survivor Coin".
This is 100% real.
If you can't see this grift for what it is at this point, then you have an IQ lower than room temp.
https://gimmeloli.cc/files/dda7cc11-8e16-472e-b0da-5ebda4694e29.png

2026-02-19 18:21:48 UTC

- reply

they were not "forced into" a situation, they were told exactly what they were expected to do, were paid for it, they then did it, were paid again, and then when everything blew up they claim it was "not consensual".
Get the story right.

2026-02-19 18:17:17 UTC

- reply

this makes no sense, because you agreed to be paid for doing the very thing they are paying you for.
What else were they paid for then? Just hanging around? Get outta here!

2026-02-19 18:10:36 UTC

- reply

> "Without consent"
> "Even if the recipient was paid"
That makes no sense. You can't agree to be paid for sex and then complain that you have to have sex.

2026-02-19 18:08:31 UTC

- reply

no, clearly not, because then in that case it is retrospective rape i.e. "I agree to sex, but then I regretted it after".
This is the reasoning of #metoo which got many innocent people thrown in jail.

2026-02-19 18:01:46 UTC

- reply

if you can show me evidence, aside from "I don't believe" (which isn't evidence), then yes, obviously, if they didn't consent to it at the time then it was coerced.

2026-02-19 17:50:52 UTC

- reply

how was this not consensual, seeing as they agreed to have sex and to be paid for it?
You're essentially arguing for "retrospective rape" (i.e. "I was raped, but I didn't know it, thanks for telling me"), which is extremely shaky and implicitly if not explicitly anti-MAP.

2026-02-19 17:48:32 UTC

- reply

it's akin to wanting weed to be legalized but still wanting people to be sent to jail for smoking it.

2026-02-19 17:47:47 UTC

- reply

my argument is that the "rape" and "abuse" charges are not rooted in reality.
There is no evidence of actual "rape", aside from statuatory rape which isn't rape. And even in those cases, it was because the "minors" in question lied about their ages!
You're essentially saying "I'm pro-sex work and lowering the AoC, but against people paying people for sex and "minors" engaging in sex-work because it involves "rape" and "abuse"".
How can you not see this?
You are suffering cognitive dissonance.

2026-02-19 17:44:37 UTC

- reply

what is it about then?
"Rape" and "abuse"?
Where?
This is the same argument the System uses to be against prostitution and especially lowering the age of consent!
How can you possibly not see that?!?!

2026-02-19 17:43:19 UTC

- reply

your entire reasoning here is System (i.e. Anti) derived!
It is rooted in the infantilization of "minors" and the disgust at sex-work.

2026-02-19 17:41:57 UTC

- reply

oh my fucking God!!!
The hysteria! It is palpable!
"Sex slaves" that could come and go as they pleased?
"Sex slaves" that were paid millions?
"Rape" and "abuse" that was transactional and consensual?
Your knowledge of "the files" comes from Twitter bot armies, it seems like.

2026-02-19 17:36:32 UTC

- reply

define "take advantage of".
He "took advantage of" people by......Establishing contacts with them and then paying them (literally millions of bucks) to have sex with him and others (i.e. prostitution).
"Sexual abuse", "rape" etc...
This was prostitution.
You can't on the one hand argue to lower the age of consent and legalize/decriminalize prostitution and then criticize people for engaging in prostitution with people literally one year below the state age of consent.
Epstein didn't "rape" or "abuse" anyone. That is literally System-programmed hysteria, and it is sad that you still subscribe to it.

2026-02-19 17:30:03 UTC

- reply

how does that make any sense at all, seeing as he was arrested for that (once it became known, even though the context of the arrest was he had sex with a 16 or 17 year old)?
You are clutching at straws because you still subscribe to the mainstream opinion of Epstein.
If he was such a dark, manipulative person, why did he send all these "coded" emails via a gmail account?
I'm growing tired of MAPs who refuse to defend other alleged or proven MAPs essentially because they are/were wealthy. This only harms the "cause" of MAPs.
You can't pick and choose. The System paints all MAPs (real or alleged) with a broad brush.

2026-02-19 17:20:07 UTC

- reply

how did Epstein "flourish" because of criminalization of sex between adults and minors?
This makes no sense.

2026-02-15 19:19:18 UTC

Vegan?
Carnivore?
Nah
I'm on that Epstein Diet.
https://gimmeloli.cc/files/6a561dfb-d25f-4392-a0aa-ed07c3abe8ed.png

2026-02-06 13:58:21 UTC

- reply

calling someone "evil" is an admission of defeat...

2026-02-06 13:56:58 UTC

- reply

they are subjective concepts tho.
Reality is subjective. Our interpretation(s) of reality ("facts") are therefore also subjective.

2026-02-06 13:53:07 UTC

- reply

so your whole position is that you are a nihilist who doesn't want to create new meaning in the world but doesn't want to call themselves a passive nihilist, who claims anyone who does want to create new meaning and who recognizes the infinite possibility is "delusional", and who believes that the world/time/life is finite and everything will end permanently eventually, who then says that "facts" and "reality" (subjective concepts) are on their side because they.....What....Can't change or haven't changed (grown) over time?
And 𝘐'𝘮 the delusional one?

2026-02-06 13:49:22 UTC

- reply

why is it that everyone I argue with on here always ends with a defensive tantrum about "facts and reality"?
You are rooted in the very "facts" and "reality" that constantly changes, evolves, and grows. The "facts" and "reality" of one day becomes the "lies" and "limited thinking" of another.

2026-02-06 13:46:28 UTC

- reply

I can take what you said and rediret it right back at you by saying that I pity you for believing that there will be a definitive "end".
Which is more worthy of one's pity, to argue that eventually there will be nothing at all (which ironically is something, but that's beside the point), or to argue that, no matter what, there will always be something alive out there? One is fatalism, the other is optimistic pessimism.

2026-02-06 13:40:56 UTC

- reply

everything will just "end" simultaneously? Which is more ridiculous a proposition, that everything dies until only a cell is left, or that everything dies simultaneously (a universe death)?
To me, they are both ridiculous and rooted in the same faulty thinking.
Time 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 linear tho. Einstein would take issue with your thesis.
A universe ending (whether on the macro or micro level) is not "the end", but again, a new beginning. There is no "end point" on the line that we can see or discern. That's the point. The "line" (if there is one) is endless and follows a path of its own, it doesn't travel in an efficient pre-planned straight direction.

2026-02-06 13:34:04 UTC

- reply

the relationship between life and death is symbiotic. You cannot possibly believe that, sometime in the future, there will be only a single microbe or cell left in the entire universe, and that this microbe/cell will eventually die and then there will be nothing.
This way of thinking is based on everything following a linear plan/path. Life does anything but.

2026-02-06 13:30:52 UTC

- reply

death is not the end of life, but the start or renewal of life.

2026-02-06 13:29:24 UTC

- reply

when a star explodes (or, rather implodes), life doesn't end. We are born from dead star-matter ourselves. We are cosmic.
You limit your appreciation of life by believing there is an "end".

2026-02-06 13:27:05 UTC

- reply

things die, and in their death they create new life, which grows and then dies, and the process repeats.
Life is literally infinite. The struggle is infinite. Growth is infinite.

2026-02-06 13:25:18 UTC

- reply

enjoying life to the full means accepting the struggle that is life, which means growing, even if inadvertently; even if unconsciously.
Life is struggle.

2026-02-06 13:22:53 UTC

- reply

so what do you want then, to just stand there and wait to die?

2026-02-06 13:21:32 UTC

- reply

you say you can't understand what I'm talking about, but how, it is very easy to understand. So easy that it becomes intuitive.
You either live in perpetual safety with no risks, or you have the possibility of infinite growth with included risks.
Come on, it's basic.

2026-02-06 13:19:09 UTC

- reply

it's a question. It's related to psychology and philosophy. It's a simple question, all things considered. You don't have to 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 what I'm talking about, just to answer the question sincerely.

2026-02-06 13:15:24 UTC

- reply

Hello, Vincent...
https://gimmeloli.cc/files/7f7d17e7-7546-48ec-8c2b-d8b426a60d2c.png

2026-02-06 13:00:21 UTC

- reply

"Life has no meaning" is true, but that's the point, you make your own meaning.
Nietzsche, Camus etc... they all made this point.
You escape (or, rather, use) nihilism by creating something out of nothing. It is philosophical alchemy. If life is a blank canvas, then become the painter.
Do you mean to say you are an active nihilist rather than a passive one?

2026-02-06 12:54:39 UTC

- reply

straight nihilism sucks, bro....
Like.....Uh......I don't know what else to say haha

2026-02-06 11:43:11 UTC

- reply

if you can't choose between and want both, then you are akin to a nihilist; you are afraid of yourself.

2026-02-05 23:30:20 UTC

- reply

I'm sorry to say, if you accept that then you are a "Last Man"... :(
"The snake which cannot cast its skin (or perhaps only casts a part of it off) has to die"

2026-02-05 23:17:06 UTC

- reply

Everything lives and dies. You mistake "infinite" for "perpetual". When I say "infinite" I mean living, dying, and then in that death feeding the new and so on and so on and so on, so that life itself goes on and continues to adapt and grow. Nuclear best represents this.
Life itself follows your cancer analogy.
And why not? Cancer is a part of life.
Do the animals that predate other animals to extinction consider the food for their future children? No. They just do. If they run out, then that is grounds for adaptation. They either adapt to the new struggle, or they die. Such is life.
The growth 𝘪𝘴 the purpose.
> "Only one with planning and purpose can thrive"
This again reveals your low estimation of the potential of humanity. Everything must be planned out, and given a (man-made, unnatural) "purpose" by someone.
Humanity, and life, is at its best when it is unconstrained. The fact that you think otherwise again shows misanthropy.
Wanting to predict or plan things out almost always ends in a failure of sorts, because life is chaotic and unpredictable.

2026-02-05 22:37:06 UTC

- reply

nuclear energy is infinite growth. We've reached the limit of the "finite", not the infinite.
I'm of the latter, and not the former.
Growth is the meaning of life. Planned growth is trying to control the natural chaos of life. It is misanthropy disguised as "empathy".

2026-02-05 22:26:23 UTC

- reply

you're like an Ixian from Dune, my guy (sorry for the obscure-ish reference)...
The "extinction" you want to avoid is brought about precisely by not wanting to try now, in spite of the "impossibility". Stagnation is death.

2026-02-05 22:20:51 UTC

- reply

hahahaha, isn't that curious, hahaha
Maybe they 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 be broken, perhaps?
How many times in history have "the (existing) laws of physics" been broken, I wonder...

2026-02-05 22:16:48 UTC

- reply

the third option is trying to find a "middle ground", utterly failing, and then dying, cursing the fact that one lacked the courage to choose.

2026-02-05 22:10:40 UTC

- reply

how can you know about the infinite if the infinite is literally by definition unknowable and unquantifiable?

2026-02-05 21:07:12 UTC

- reply

how can you say that "infinite growth is impossible"?
You can't know that, you don't know that.
Perpetual safety is the death of life. Growth has a risk, but the reward is infinite possibility.
I would take infinite possibility and accept the risk over perpetual safety with no chance for growth.
Live in a cell, or live outside in the wild.

2026-02-05 20:56:50 UTC

- reply

perpetual safety is the death of the dream.
To dream of means to acknowledge that you want to grow.

2026-02-05 20:54:01 UTC

You can only have one, as one cancels out the other.
Make your choice.
Infinite growth, or perpetual safety.
Your choice in this reflects your own psychology.

2026-02-02 01:27:23 UTC

- reply

you say it is not coherent, but in my previous comment I say personal experience is integral.
I then say that "the truth" is that reality is subjective and therefore perspectival epistemic constructs are our window into that "truth".
I see no incoherence here...

2026-02-02 01:14:22 UTC

- reply

thing is, to me, "𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘵𝘩" is itself a perspectival "epistemic construct"...
The only "truth" is that reality is subjective.

2026-02-02 00:54:27 UTC

- reply

nah, no worries, I meant to reply in that way just to generate some laughs, I just like using that clip every now and again haha
Point is I just don't see how "personal experience is worse than useless". I think it is integral. There is the body, but then there is the experience that truly brings it alive. The experience is what helps people understand.
Without "personal experience" what would be the point, in anything, aside from just numbers, predictive models, equations etc...?

2026-02-02 00:37:20 UTC

- reply

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWeSwxOtwD4

2026-02-02 00:21:13 UTC

- reply

OK, I may be wrong in this, but it seems like what you're arguing for then is to cut a big pie ("objectivity"/"Empiricism"/"Epistemology") into hundreds of small slices, each an "average" based on the specific subjective contexts in question (i.e. hot place or cold place etc...) and then to work within those confines while ignoring the other averages that don't apply.
What does that look like?
Subjectivist epistemology?
Empirical subjectivism?
Why not just say perspectivism haha

2026-02-01 23:59:59 UTC

- reply

either way, relying on the average to dictate response is hamstringing in of itself, because it doesn't account for nor recognize the merits of the outlier.
You use the term "error bar" in a strictly measureable sense, as if it is an "error" to be an outlier. It is not an error. You just equate being greater than average with being worse than average.
To be too hot or too cold is bad, yes. But one can adapt to those things. What then? You have to account for the subjective variation. A person who lives in Siberia would die if they took their lifestyle to the Arabian desert, and vice-versa.

2026-02-01 23:53:41 UTC

- reply

I want people to be above average.
I want them to be so above average that they literally 𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘴𝘦 the average by their mere existence.
To be in the clouds, so that people on the ground know that it is possible for one to reside in the clouds.

2026-02-01 23:49:12 UTC

- reply

ahhhhhhh, why did you have to mention the word "average", noooooooooooooooooooooooo ahhhhhhh
Mediocrity, the bane of Nietzscheanism!!!!
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

2026-02-01 23:45:25 UTC

- reply

"you can never know enough" is what I personally live by.

2026-02-01 23:34:08 UTC

- reply

something can not be "uncertain" and "objective". The only "objective" "truth" then is that everything is constantly in flux.
Indeed.
My one disagreement with pure subjectivists is the notion that every idea is equal. Some ideas/theories are less equal than others, just as in nature.
I understand now, Nietzsche's pivot to "perspectivism".
Still, his perspectivism has more in common with subjectivism than objectivism.

2026-02-01 23:31:38 UTC

- reply

I'm not using the wrong definition. Both of those definitions apply when I say "Dogmatic". I see no issue here.
You are relying on pre-existing "frameworks" to critique my understanding, yet one only learns things that they don't already know.
You are like the Kant to my Nietzsche haha
Science vs. intuition.

2026-02-01 23:28:43 UTC

- reply

the reliability of science is a subjective truth, yes. This does not conflict with my view that subjective experience is more valuable, it reinforces it.
I'm not saying you specifically live by that standard, I was making a generalized statement for emphasis. I believe the subjective ever-changing nature of reality wins out over "objective truth".

2026-02-01 23:23:09 UTC

- reply

both pure empiricism and "rationalism" are falsities.
"Empiricism" leads to Dogma. "Rationalism" is based on the accepted psychology/philosophy of the day and therefore can itself change (i.e. it eventually becomes irrational).

2026-02-01 23:21:07 UTC

- reply

nah, I'd argue that is considering something an unassailable "truth".
This is exactly why Nietzsche hated Kant!
Kantian "logic" creates new "Priests", obsessed with the "objective truth".
I'd argue that, in a purely qualitative way, subjective experience is more my thing.
Quantitative data and objectivism/empiricism has its purpose and use, but subjectivism is what keeps people waking up every morning.
We are not predictable robots! We all make and live by our own truths.