Look, I get it. I can be pretty extreme, and pretty inflammatory, on some issues, at times. Which is odd, really, when you consider that I'm probably fairly close to a political "moderate", as compared to some of you.
I care far too much about certain things. Perhaps I value individual freedom more than you do. Fine. Perhaps I have less to lose than you do. Fine. Perhaps I trust the government less than you, and trust the cops, and courts, less than you do. Also fine.
But, with all that in mind, I must say that I'm finding some of the comments and posts, from some of you here, in recent days and the last couple of weeks, really do come across like some sort of... Controlled demoralisation, or something.
"Obey the law, bruh". "Think of your family, bruh". "Your job is more important than your freedom!". "They mean well!". "The pendulum always swings. It'll all be ok in the long term!". "Think of the collective good, dude!" "At least you're safe!" "You don't want a criminal record, bruh!"
I see all of this shit, and more, all over posts on this "community", now. And I really never thought I would see that, from here. Just the... Sheer amount of fear porn, and of "We should obey the government" is really quite... Disconcerting. And some of it is even coming from those of you who I normally find myself agreeing with, at least partly...
So here's my request: this isn't Reddit. Stop being so damn afraid of your respective governments. Stop being afraid to step on official toes, and to work outside the fucking law, in particular the emergency powers that these megalomaniacs have given themselves. Stop telling others to be afraid, or "You really don't wanna do that, bro". Sure, call out violence. Do not do that shit. But telling people to comply, and to just... Suck it up, and play along? You're better than that, or at least, you should be.
Sure, we need to be smart about this, and disobey in ways that are effective, and necessary. But to think the law will protect you, or that you should just play along, to keep the status quo, because you "value your job" so much? Well, I'm sorry, but that just ain't gonna cut it for some of us, anymore.
I actually missed this autism a bit.
Autism aka aut; form autos (self) and -ism (suggestion by another towards consent to ignore self). To consent to believe any suggested -ism implies using free will of choice to submit to the free will of choice of those who suggest meaning in exchange for consent to believe it.
Autism represents a deliberate contradiction in terms; suggest to a) corrupt comprehension of those who consent to it; b) as a sleight of hand for those with eyes to see and c) as a vetting process to test who falls for the temptation and who doesn't.
Haha, I deserve this.
I can't really follow the thought process, though. I understand the words and phrases, but the arranged ideas aren't making sense.
Let me go out on a limb and say that I am not seriously diagnosing you with autism, it's just lazy shorthand that means you're not well-integrated into expected norms.
You consented to words and phrases others suggested to you as meaning, and now I rearranged those words and phrases by my free will of choice; which contradict your consented to meanings aka your beliefs.
Consenting by free will of choice to believe or not believe the suggested meanings of others (suggested by their free will of choice) does not represent you comprehending what you're perceiving.
Choice cannot understand this world if it chooses among the suggested choices of others. Choice represents a response to balance; a balance caused by movement. We represent form (life) within flow (inception towards death). We are in-between predefined natural opposites (a beginning aka inception and an end aka death).
Nature does not use words to define what nature means, it moves all within; which our senses perceive as inspiration to react to by choice. Doing so (adaptation to perceived inspiration) grows our comprehension (understanding) about what we perceive.
Our other choice is ignorance to do that, and that caused parasites to suggest us words as meaning for nature, in exchange for our consent to believe them; while ignoring nature as the only source. They use suggestion of temptation; while acting as a parasite in-between perception and comprehension; which is where our free will of choice operates. Nature (flow/form) operates as offer/consent, hence us representing choice in reaction to balance (balance offers; choice reacts). The parasites deceive us to ignore balance for...choice suggests; choice consents.
Suggestions domesticates free will of choice into submitting to the choices of others.
Sensing represents perception, and since you read what I wrote; you perceived it aka sensed it. What's lacking is comprehension (understanding of perceived). To grow comprehension; one needs to adapt to what the perceived inspires one to react to.
Try to resist viewing what you read as true or false information (aka reasoning about suggested information). Instead try to adapt to it by means of implication (if/then) and keep doing. Why? Because if/then implies consequences of reaction within movement, so you start learning/teaching yourself to adapt to movement instead of to affixed meanings (true or false) of suggested words.
Example..."grass is green". Wait a bit and grass turns to hey aka it moves its meaning. That's why nature doesn't brand anything; because it constantly changes; but our choice allows us to ignore this; which others exploit ruthlessly. No other life-form requires "grass" to be called "grass" to be able to perceive; react to and comprehend its function within movement; they instead instinctively adapt to movement; to constant change.
We never question why teaching a dog word based commands to follow is called domestication; while educating each other to consent to believe words suggested by others is called being civilized...
Today I will engage you philosophically.
I can overlook some of your minor writing errors, but you really need to watch for grammatical conflicts like this. You've basically asserted that Choice itself is capable of choosing; this makes choice into a causal loop that discards the actual origin. Since this specific error is isolated here, I am calling it a mistake. Only an agent of will can make a choice (I don't think this agent must necessarily have freedom).
Ignorance is a quality of the absence of knowledge, not an absence of choice. One can have knowledge without having chosen anything, even if denying the gift of choice makes one an insect.
Parasites? A parasite takes for its own gain without granting a benefit to host in exchange. Why must your "parasite" here never be a symbiote? Perhaps the agent of will is lazy or suicidal for a moment and feels glad for suggestions...if you maintain that this subjective symbiote is an objective parasite, then I ask why an agent of will must be concerned with the objective? A life can only be borne of experience, and all experience is inherently subjective - so to focus on the objective is to focus on the unlivable, the void, the other.
In so many smoke signals you call out "Think freely! Think for yourself!" Riddles should be reserved for the times and ideas that are strongly resisted. Yes, we're all here, betraying this ideal of choice you hold aloft, but do you think us so feeble that we cannot stand simply because we seek out discourse and opinion and - dare I say - suggestion?
The only thing to despise and rebuke is if an agent of will surrenders their will, for there is no guarantee that they can retrieve it. In so doing, they may as well be called an agent of the void, but more often they may twist into the dreaded agent of the master (because they surrender their will to the will of another). ...I like to think none of us are doing that, but it is hard to say for sure.
I question the focus on nature as well. Nature is respectable, of course. Nature perserveres with its mystery forces throughout all hardship. Nature forged our gifts in its brutality yet embraces us in its apathy. But as agents of will, we have our own internal natures that grant us the power (the will) to lash out against the agents of the wilds and to shield us from the churning of the planet organ (the external, classical Nature). Our internal nature also permits us to bring ruin to ourselves, so even if you were speaking of internal nature, I would say to bear caution.
As a generality, I agree. But consider: there really are agents of will who -desire- to degrade themselves by surrendering to outside wills. It's a riddle of society and civilization. Should master/slave relations be abided? Should we throw both away as rubbish? Perhaps only the eager slave is detestable and the master acting out of pity or utility.
My personal angle is that there is a deeper corruption in the idea of society. That, despite being "social animals", we should treat such a compulsion with disdain in a flex of our muscular wills. But then maybe the inclination to "solve" such problems should be dismissed, as it is merely another aspect of our (internal) nature that seeks to bubble up through the cracks in our foundations and permeate our very wills.
I'll also reach into the esoteric and suggest that dogs don't actually respond to the stimuli of our words. We train them to respond to our wills. If your dog responds to "biscuit", it will likely respond the same to "discus" - this is taken as evidence that our stimuli-response systems are superior to a dog's, but then why would this dog respond to "solar flare" when I say it with the same intent and will as if I were saying "biscuit"? I posit that the will of command is like an arm reaching out and grasping towards the target, and that dogs only need training to learn the shape of human will (which must surely have a different shape than the will of a dog, as our internal natures differ). Similarly, our systems of training/education for society prime the agent of will to more readily surrender to suggestion; at this I think we would both sneer.
I'll add another reason in order to make a point: because it is robust to have many strong tools.
The average agent of will be glad to attain robustness. It will enable their wills to act more efficiently, to engage at different angles. It amplifies the power of the will in application - and, being the power of will, it is truly a power to aspire towards.
I will not condemn the agent of will who chooses to live narrowly and sharply, as he may accomplish great feats. But even this agent of purpose (his will is narrow to achieve this purpose or dream at all costs) would do well to have a few backup tools. When I say tool, of course, I mean figurative internal tools by which the agent of will may procure, shape, transform, and enact impulses (for lack of a better term - I mean the base particle that fills our machine wills).
Surely it's a bot, surely??
The only time I've ever seen ramblings like this in real life has been homeless crazies, on the street/living in parks... And they generally seem to have like, schizophrenic or something like that, rather than autism, per se...
Though I don't know, honestly. FWOC's ramblings are so utterly incoherent that if it is a real person... I'm not sure what "keyboard diagnose" to give them. Except that they are mad. Utterly, utterly mad, ahaha... :'-D
I'd love to know their karma score, though, I have to say... Seriously, I've never seen a comment of theirs with a positive net score, so they must be nearly at a record, negative-wise, on here!
In all likelihoods...I hope it is a bot, because it overheats my brain trying to put myself in a mindset necessary to make their comments. It's more fun to treat them like a person, anyway.
Actually, I heard that .win has some kind of system that suspends/bans you if you get too many downvotes, so maybe that's why they stopped posting for a few months? I can understand why they get constant downvotes.
It's weird stuff, but like a little breeze after some of the trolls we get. I am really eager to see a troll get caught in an argument with them.