Ethnic Collectivism as a methodology of political control isn't really a new thing.

I have trouble remembering historical dates, so I was assuming that that kind of depopulation effort wasn't a big thing since ww1 cooled down. But maybe part of that cool down process was depopulation; Germany got fucked hard by the end of that war, but other nations must have had some problems to fix.

Irritating, I'm still trying to work backwards, so I need to have better understanding of ww2 before I get into ww1 too hard. Some of our current bullshit is helping me grasp some things, at least. I respect the economic lens approach you seem to be able to use, but it's a little dense for me to dig through right now. Thinking it might serve well to help cut out some of the sensationalism.

British Liberal

Ughh, so it was this label that had the regional variants. I was just assuming a definition of "pushing the boundaries of what's accepted" since I see it often treated as the opposite of conservatism's "maintain status quo". I don't think I'll be able to remember it if it's this complicated.

Pretty much Spok and Picard.

I think that's fine for role models. They each present a variety of traits to aspire towards.

Closest I got was various fictional characters that I would rather be. It did not take a deep analysis to realize how depressing that was, nor how there was no trait to aspire towards. I was ultimately just desiring less suffering - I didn't have a clue how to achieve that didn't involve death.

I think there might be some fundamental mindset necessary for the development of role models, even on the basis of sound judgement. Desperation really hinders the ability to make good choices. Other kids were learning how to function in society while I was learning how to survive at home - it didn't seem safe to devote resources to societal integration when I had to make plans for when would be the most secure time to sleep.

Though, I'm confused why you would think you couldn't have made a different choice. You can always make a different choice.

Sounds naive to me, even now. I'm not theistic, but I do follow my own form of soft determinism. Not every choice, but some choices are false choices. Like getting a multiple choice test question where the options are A, B, and C - but the correct answer is E. Likewise, a human cannot be expected to make a choice that does not appear to be an option to them (even if it's possible, it's unrealistic to expect it).

An example, since I'm having a bad day. There was a short period of time where I could have gotten help from a relative before they died. The possibility was not unknown to me, but there was not even a glimmer of hope from it at the time because they'd been making a bad impression on me, I was too demoralized to muster any motivation, and I was being coerced beyond my understanding to not complain. So I think about it, playing "what if" and realize that it wasn't actually possible under those circumstances. Any one thing being different might have permitted the path. It's painful to think about even so, because I realized too late how much that relative actually cared.

I technically chose to do nothing, though, and I do believe I had some wiggle room to at least try to make some small things better. Looking back now, of course I see all the flaws in my choices, but it all seemed like the best choices available back then. For me to have chosen anything else would have been me choosing a sub-optimal strategy intentionally. Since I think that's illogical, I consider it a non-choice; you're given choices A, B, and C, and B sounds better than A and C, so of course you're going to choose B.

In summary, I think free will doesn't actually exist, but for all intents and purposes it should be treated as real because to do otherwise leads to some really decrepit philosophies like nihilism. (Similarly, I use a form of agnosticism where I believe that religion is disrespectful without a personal sign from god - because there not being a sign given to you personally is indication that all existing deities actively desire you to live without knowledge of them.) I'm open to refutation, but I'm already working on it myself by bothering to examine my past choices in any capacity.

Perhaps there's a semantic problem in there as well. Assumptions about causality. If a bad thing happens, how many involved choices can fault be placed upon? How many points of blame should a single person receive when making multiple choices leading up to a bad thing? Not that it's wrong or useless to place fault in either way. Part of taking responsibility should be the seperation of your own responsibility from the responsibility of others.

The entire Left-Right dichotomy is false. That's why I keep saying Left & Anti-Left. There is no "Right". The Right is simply: that which opposes the Left's current policies.

I like that. I can imagine some normie counters to it, but they aren't difficult to deal with. I think it's a lot more helpful as framing to say anti-left because a bystander that doesn't know better is going to assume that "the right" has its own qualifying set of principles that don't change (which I guess is part of the point of it being used so much by the left).