racist
a) how can one be an -ist without consenting to a suggested -ism?
b) does labeling others without their consent break contract law?
c) does nature suggest labels for anything within?
SolidGoldMagikarp
a) how about keeping the monster (mon) in your pocket (poke) while participating in the court of public opinion?
b) what are the consequences of trying to dehumanize others by suggesting them to represent artificial intelligence; chat-bots; generative pre-trained transformer (GPT) etc.?
c) if the "SolidMagikarp" issue is about AI not responding as input suggests, then what does that imply about the AI expressing more differences in output options, then the user (domesticated to follow norms) expects?
d) does "free-will-of-choice" imply following suggested orders or being the resistance (choice) within the natural order (balance)?
e) can temporary growth (life) within ongoing loss (inception towards death) not represent RACE (radix; radius; radiate; ray etc.) aka growth potential?
like you
What if everyone (perceiving) within everything (perceivable) represents difference (living) within sameness (process of dying). Do you think it's offensive to not behave like others? Could setting oneself apart by expressing differences offend those who consent to behave alike aka those who follow suggested orders; the mainstream; the norm; the mass consensus; the party-line; the chain of command etc.?
What if being different (life) within same (inception towards death) can be tempted with suggest likeness (information) to ignore perceivable differences (inspiration)?
a) only the few suggest -isms...the many consent by reasoning against each other about them.
b) if racism represents the hatred of other races, then what's the -ism for loving ones own race?
c) to be implies partial (perceiving) within whole (perceivable)...others suggest togetherness as the inversion thereof, hence e pluribus unum (out of many, one) or tikkun olam (healing the world by bringing together) or equality ( sameness) through diversity (difference) or united states; united nations; european union; universal pictures, uniformity etc.
To be implies ones struggle to sustain apartheid (living) within wholeness (process of dying).
Notice also that the so called jews represent apartheid + diaspora aka sporadic (separated) diametric (surrounding through center). Also...does the chosen "ones" sound like togetherness?
d) why use we (plural) to suggest a ban of any one (singular) in the name of others?
e) RACE, noun [Latin radix; radius; rod, ray, radiate, etc.] implies growth of center (living) within surrounding (process of dying).
f) is it "racist" when so called jews suggest the world that blacks represent "Niggaz wit Attitudes" (NWA); "Public Enemies"; "Boyz from the Hood" and a "Menace 2 Society", while suggesting to "Shame on a Nigga who runs game on a Nigga"...or is it antisemitc to point that out?
Yes (want) vs No (not want) represents ones consent to suggested (fiction), hence the resulting conflict of reason. Meanwhile in reality...ones perceiving choice exists at the center of perceivable balance (need/want).
If one ignores need (perceivable) for want (suggested), then one shapes an imbalance (want vs not want). Others utilize suggestion to tempt one into imbalance, while selling this imbalance as "reason/logic"...
Consider if reasoning (yes vs no aka want vs not want) over breathing changes the "need" for one to adapt to being forced to breathe?
What is the solution for the sane people out there?
a) growing comprehension about being temporary problem (life) within ongoing solution (inception towards death).
b) discerning for self the difference between suggested "insane person" and perceivable "per sonos" (being by sound) + "in sanus" (being within sound).
c) SANE, adjective [Latin sanus, sound]
How can we unite to fight back if we are all living in our own fictional realities?
a) grow comprehension about UNITY; noun (Latin unitas; unus, one) aka being one (partial) within oneness (whole).
Sleight of hand: "all for one and one for all" or "there can be only one" or "alone" aka ALL(in)ONE...
b) suggested "we" (plural) tempts consenting "one" (singular) to ignore self discernment (being partial within whole).
c) what if the suggested fight (wanting vs not wanting suggested) tempts one to ignore the need to adapt to perceivable?
people on the right and the left
Choose to take a step left, which implies coming from right. Now choose to take another step left and it still implies coming from right. There is no left or right...choice can only exist at the center of balance (left/right).
The few suggest the many to choose a side and try to hold onto it, while ignoring to be the center (perceiving) of surrounding (perceivable).
doesn't live in reality
What if fiction represents ones ignorance of reality? Does one have the free will of choice to ignore reality for fiction while being within reality?
Are we post truth now?
a) suggested truth (want) vs lies (not want) tempts one to ignore the need to adapt to perceivable change.
b) to be alive implies being moved from inception towards death, hence within constant change.
c) instead of pre- or past- truth or lies...consider being within change.
the abundant production of fake
a) nature doesn't lie, yet those within natural represent the free will of choice to ignore natural (perceivable) for artificial (suggested). Consenting to suggested (fiction) tempts one to ignore not only ignore perceivable (reality); but corrupts one to view perceivable reality through the lens of suggested fiction.
Example...suggested words tempts one to ignore perceivable sound.
b) being (life) within constant change (inception towards death) implies perceiving perceivable inspiration (moving differences). The few mimic this with suggested information, hence flooding ones mind/memory with ongoing fiction (information) as to tempt one to ignore ongoing reality (inspiration).
will be relatively unable to sus out the truth of things?
a) as long as ones free "will" of choice is misused to consent to the suggested information by others, so long will one ignore perceivable inspiration (moving differences aka change).
b) truth vs lies represents the rebranding of wanting vs not wanting suggested information....both sides consent to suggested (want) over perceivable (need).
c) to be implies being partial (reaction) enabled within whole (enacting). In other words...whatever nature offers; each one within is able to react to. Consenting to the suggestions of others tempts one to disable self, hence willingly ignoring ones response-ability (free will of choice).
in error
The ongoing natural order (inception towards death) sets the temporary chaos (life) within with the free will of choice to ER'ROR, noun [Latin error from erro, to wander.]
Only while being moved from inception towards death, can life choose to wander up/down; left/right; forwards/backwards....why? Because choice can only exist at the center of balance (momentum of motion).
who knows
KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists", hence everyone (perceiving) knows everything (perceivable). Growing comprehension on the other hand implies self discernment by free will of choice....the suggestions by others cannot grow ones self discernment, only tempt one to repress expressed growth.
Sleight of hand: "express yourself, don't repress yourself...and I'm not sorry; it's human nature"...
authoritarians in charge
AU'THOR, noun (Latin augeo, to increase, or cause to enlarge)...ongoing loss (process of dying) represents the author of temporary growth (living). Growth represents the authorized instrument (choice) to increase (need) or decrease (want) self within loss.
a 'solution' to this problem
The few suggest problems to tempt the many to seek solutions...an inversion of being temporary problem (living) within ongoing solution (process of dying), hence ones struggle to sustain self while being dissolved.
I wont believe...
a) to believe or disbelief represents ones consent to the suggestions of another. Nature doesn't require belief, it demands adaptation from those within hence the need to adapt to thirst, hunger; lack of shelter etc.
b) suggested "won't" aka "will nothing" tempts one to ignore being free "will" of choice within "everything" (perceivable).
on a screen
Viewing perceivable (inspiration) through the lens of suggested (information) represents the mental screen of "ignorance"...the physical screens are presented everywhere to distract from that.
Sleight of hand: "exit light" (exit comprehension) "enter night" (enter ignorance) "take my hand" (consent to my suggestion) "and we're off to never-neverland" (bye bye potential).
the leftists view on reality
a) -ist implies ones consent to a suggested -ism.
b) leftism vs rightism represents the rebranding of wanting vs not wanting suggested, and it doesn't matter which side one chooses, because both sides are stuck within the same conflict (reason).
Sleight of hand: "for let these be the guidestones to an age of reason" (Georgia Guidstones).
c) choice exists within perceivable balance (need/want), consenting to suggestions tempts choice into imbalance (want vs not want).
d) all conflicts of reason (want vs not want; true vs false; belief vs disbelief; agreement vs disagreement; leftism vs rightism; poor vs rich; nationalism vs internationalism; democrat vs republican; capitalism vs communism; good vs evil; coke vs pepsi etc.) represent fiction (reasoning over suggested) while ignoring reality (adaptation to perceivable).
it must fit what they believe
Everyone (perceiving partial) fits into everything (perceivable whole)...consenting to suggested (leftism or rightism) tempts one to ignore fit (perceivable) for unfit (suggested).
don't believe
BELIE'VE, verb - "to credit upon the authority or testimony of another"...like those who suggested one to "do nothing" (don't).
objective
What if one represents the subject (living reaction) within an objectifying system (enacting process of dying)?
Could the few suggest "objectivism" to tempt the many to ignore being subjected?
asian...black...white
Yellow...African...European?
What he didn't say... https://pic8.co/sh/v9l30a.png
design at dropbox
Expectations shattered...also question "always mind(memory)" since memory represents the response to ongoing input.
you just responded to me like a mostly normal human being?
a) maybe a glitch in the bot-net?
b) does life represent the individual struggle to resist being moved towards death...or collectively behaving according to "norm"? Remember Cheers?
Suggesting Norm: "Hi everyone"
Consenting Cattle: "Norm; Norm; Norm; Norm; Norm; Norm..."
"Making your way (inception towards death) in the world today takes everything you got (life)"
"Wouldn't you like to get away?" (suggested temptation luring towards death)
"Sometimes you want to go" (ignorance of perceived need for suggested want)
"Where everybody knows your name"
I'm shocked
SHOCK, noun - "collision of bodies; dashing against" aka want versus not want reasoning; while ignoring to be the choice within need/want balance.
Other than that, I'm fine.
FINE, adjective - "small; thin; slender; minute; of very small diameter". Consider growing...
I forgot you (free-will-of-choice) existed.
It's the suggested choices by others tempting one to ignore ones own. Anyway; how are you holding up?
That's not what smug means when people use it
What "uses" people? PEOPLE, noun [Latin populus.] - "the body of persons". A person aka per sonos (by sound) implies being the response (resonance or dissonance) to perceivable sound, and it's the same source of sound that each person can then choose to shape suggestible words out of.
Words represents suggested meaning (fiction); which tempt those who consent to ignore perceived meaning (reality).
You are being domesticated to be an order follower aka to seek group consensus for confirmation of individual responses (want vs not want); which ignores that your choice represents the individual response to the collectively perceived balance (need/want). This is why you view perceived reality (need/want balance) through the lens of suggested fiction (want vs not want imbalance).
just like that's not what retard means.
"like that" implies like something perceivable; "not" contradicts everything perceivable for the suggestion of nothing, and "retard means" implies that you ignore perceived meaning (sound) for suggested meaning (words).
Words do not represent meaning; they are suggested by the few; who can then wield the consenting many against each other to enforce mass consensus of suggested meaning; all while the few constantly define (idolatry); redefine (revisionism) and contradict (talmudic reasoning) the meaning your fighting each other for.
You having the choice to suggest meaning ignores that choice represents the reaction to enacted meaning upon you. Predefined reality already exists and you represent the temporary growth within it. You cannot define what you perceive with suggestion without ignoring that you perceived it beforehand; yet you can deceive others with suggestion to also ignore perceived (inspiration) for suggested (information) and then when shape a world like this one; where the many reason about fiction; while being domesticated; farmed and led to slaughter within the ignored reality.
Context is king
CON (together with) TEXT (textus, woven) aka being woven within everything else; hence in response to it aka KING (sovereign) aka choice within balance aka ONE within ALL.
you fantastically retarded fucker
FANTAS'TICAL, adjective [Gr. vision, fancy, from to appear.] - "existing only in imagination" + RET'ARDED, participle - "hindered in motion; delayed"
Hindered in motion contradicts IMAGE (vision; formed representation) -ATION (through action). You gotta have the presenting flow for the formed representation within.
As always; thanks for the inspiration and for trying to be a thorne in my side.
I'm having a lot of trouble understanding what you're saying
Understanding represents standing under suggested information; which ignores growing comprehension out of perceived inspiration.
In others words...consenting to suggested words inside a moving system; tempts one to ignore that the moving system communicates itself through inspiration. Look at anything around you...a name; brand; idol was suggested to you for it; yet have you ever questioned that you perceive it before others can suggest a name for it?
Language represents a suggested layer of meaning (fiction) upon the perceived meaning (reality) and your consent to it; gives those suggesting it the power to define; redefine and contradict your perception of reality with their suggested fiction. And just like that you find yourself in clown world full of contradicting definitions out of your choice of influence.
Question the laws of nature as the only thing that cannot change within a system of constantly perceived change. Both suggested truth (want) and lies (not want) tempt to ignore being within constant change; hence a need/want balance for responding choice. You think in words; because others domesticated you with suggestion to think in words. The accumulation of words within memory is called the "ego"; which constantly tempts one to ignore perceived reality for the suggested fiction; one upholds as words within memory.
I'm not nearly the intellectual I like to pretend to be.
a) IN'TELLECT, noun [Latin intellectus, from intelligo, to understand.] aka once again standing under the suggested information by others; while ignoring KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists" aka perceivable inspiration. It's the suggested words (intelligence and knowledge) that deceive us to ignore the perceived function out of which the words where shaped.
b) PRETEND', verb transitive [Latin proetendo; proe, before, and tendo, to tend, to reach or stretch.] - "to reach or stretch forward". Life doesn't need to reach forwards towards death; it's tempted to reach for suggestions aiming forwards; while ignoring to adapt to perceived origin; hence resisting as life; while being moved from inception towards death.
Every one can grow his comprehension (potential) of perceived (potentiality) by choosing to adapt to perceived inspiration (need) over suggested information (want)...yet only by oneself, hence the communication barrier when trying to help each other aka waking each other up. Choice responding to balance represents communication; choice to choice (aka agreement vs disagreement) represents miscommunication. We don't have to agree upon a system (flow to form) enacted upon us; and disagreeing about it represents ignoring it; while still being enacted upon by it. Willing self destruction.
I just have a clever thought now and again, and I try to chase it down and share my findings.
Now and again represents momentum (balance within motion); which is what communicates inspiration to the responding choice at the center; yet choice implies having the choice to ignore perceived (need) for suggested (want); otherwise it couldn't perform as choice within balance (need/want).
If you would resist the "want" to chase suggested information down the rabbit-hole, and instead keep adapting to whatever inspires you; then you would tap as the finite form into the infinite flow offered to you. One doesn't need to chase after; one (perceiving) needs to open up to all (perceivable); hence growing in comprehension. You represent ONE seed within the soil of ALL; yet your choice is required to grow anything within everything. To prevent you from comprehending this; the parasitic few are suggesting you nothing (fiction); while you ignore perceived everything (reality). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQnaRtNMGMI
The real sharing isn't about suggesting information in exchange for confirmation; but about expressing growth; which others perceive as inspiration for adaptation. If you grow a garden; the growth represents an expressed ecosystem; which in return attracts everything around it.
I know i'ts bad for me, but I weirdly find that tobacco helps me think btw...
a) most use addictions as a habit to calm themselves from suggested stress; which ignores that the suggested stress requires consent to grow; which then results in ever growing temptations aka habits to indulge in.
b) consider growing tobacco leaves...not for the want of outcome (being able to smoke); but to comprehend the process by adapting to anything perceived within it; which in return will help you kick the habit. I got lots of guys away from alcohol; by getting them into fermenting their own stuff. Slowly the needed responsibility to maintain growth overtook the wanted temptations, and of course working detoxified them mentally and physically.
Fret not ignorant slave of suggested revisionism... https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/smug
retard
- RET'ARD, verb transitive [Latin retardo; re and tardo, to delay, tardus, slow, late] - "to diminish the velocity of motion"
As form (life) within flow (inception towards death); one represents temporary resistance within ongoing velocity. One cannot diminish velocity; only increase or decrease resistance within velocity. You aren't moving; you represent the response to being moved. If you diminish your movements by sitting on your ass; then you're are still being moved from inception towards death at the same velocity.
Back to you: "That's not what retard means, you smug" aka ouroboros...perpetual self destruction of resistance within velocity...unless you choose otherwise.
to reach out to the other side, if only to confirm their beliefs?
a) to be on the other side implies being within the same conflict. This conflict (reason) is caused by consenting to a suggestion by a 3rd party...a side that isn't within those conflicts; but uses both sides as a battery to keep the division going.
b) does perception require confirmation or adaptation? Hold your breath and wait...will you need to confirm breathing or will you be forced to adapt to the need of breathing? Impressed to compressed to expressed...suggestion tempts one to regress instead.
c) to belief represents consent to the suggestion of another; hence choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law aka submission of free will to the will of others.
"in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti" tempts one to believe in "patris et filii et spiritus sancti"; while ignoring consenting to those who suggest "in nomine" (in the name of). There's a contract law underneath every suggested belief and that tempts one to ignore the need to respond to perceived natural law.
a lack of a common language to discuss the points of contention?
Consent to language aka consent to suggested information (idolatry) over perceived inspiration represents the cause of all contention (imbalance) within the ignored balance based system; with oneself at the center as the responding choice aka "free" will of choice in response to the "dom"inance of balance aka free-dom. Instead the ignorant many consent to self imposed slavery under the suggested will of the parasitic few.
Technically they are correct. Because engaging in dialogue itself requires acceptance of common premises and whoever accepts their enemy's premise first "for the sake of argument" has given up his own premise.
Acceptance to premise represents choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law. What's being ignored is that suggestion doesn't represents a COMMON; noun - "belonging equally to more than one"; since suggestion is based on the choice of others.
Choice represents the response to perceived balance (need/want); not to the suggested imbalance (want vs not want) by others. Every different choice exists at the center of common balance, and "needs" to respond to perceived balance; while resisting the temptation of "wanting" the suggested choices by others.
In short...choice to choice (contract law) as the inversion of balance to choice (natural law). Choice doesn't have to accept any suggested choice; it needs to respond to perceived origin (balance).
We see communication as a means of conveying information
a) information implies "from within form"; yet form (life) implies out of flow (inception towards death"; hence in need to adapt to perceived inspiration; which implies "from within spirit" aka (Latin spiro) - "to breathe" aka form to flow adaptation.
b) COMMUNICATE (to impart) -ATION (through action). Choice doesn't represent action; but reaction to enacted balance. Form (life) represents the reaction to enacted flow (inception towards death).
c) choice responding to perceived balance represents resonance (need); choice ignoring perceived balance for suggested choices represents dissonance (want).
d) perceivable imparts towards those perceiving it within.
for the purpose of influencing the future decisions
Choice exist at the center of balance; balance represents the momentum of ongoing motion (velocity) for the temporary remotion (resistance) within aka temporary growth (life) within ongoing loss (inception towards death).
The few suggest past; present and future to tempt the many to ignore perceived momentum (tick; tick; tick..) aka the ever changing moment (um). All decisions (choices) are made within the moment (balance) and not for outcome (death); but in response to origin (for the sustenance of life)...unless ignored.
Instead they have...goals
Life isn't outcome oriented (death is predefined at inception); life represents response to origin (momentum aka balance). The parasitic few suggest progressivism to tempt the many to go with the flow (towards death); while ignoring to be the formed resistance to it (for the sustenance of self).
the revolution
REVOLU'TION, noun [Latin revolutus, revolvo.] - "motion backward" aka resistance (life) to being moved forwards (inception towards death).
A bot for what? Could a person utilizing free will of choice with less self imposed restrictions than most write as I do? Let's say I'm a bot; while ignoring BOT; ROBOT; noun [from Latin roboro, from robur, strength.]...what would I be used for?
Information gathering; disruption of communication; a gateway for anyone capable of using free will among all the subversive suggestions dumped upon it; propagating any agendas; despite not making any posts (only responding to comments) and while questioning absolutely everything?
Isn't it fascinating that most are accusing others of being order followers aka NPC to whatever narrative suggested; yet here we have one standing out from most others and that just has to be bot; because it just doesn't fit the narrative?
How can you be this smugly wrong all the damn time?
a) SMUG, adjective - "nice; neat; affectedly nice in dress". Thanks for the compliment.
b) does nature communicate wrong information towards your perceiving senses? If so; how?
c) time aka tick; tick; tick...represents the ever changing moment(um) of motion aka the perceivable balance with each one within as the center choice responding to it.
Sodom and Gamorrah aren't English words, they cannot be broken down the way you just did.
a) what came first...suggested words or perceived sound?
b) what if HE-BREW Latin into Pig-Latin (English) to deceive you from comprehending that every word suggested expresses the same perceivable origin? The etymology of all languages originates within motion; hence form (word) out of flow (sound). Yet comprehending this requires adaptation to sound (resonance) instead of ignoring it for word (dissonance).
c) cannot (can nothing) ignores that choice temporarily exists as the response to everything perceivable. So I can; you perceived that I could and responded by suggesting nothing (not want) over everything (need); when proclaiming that I cannot.
d) give me the oldest definitions of Sodom and Gomorrah and I'm gonna rip them to shreds with the same modus operandi of applying perceivable (natural law) upon suggested (contract law). The more I do this; the more I comprehend of the perceivable. What you do with this represents your free will of choice.
Why do you keep doing this shit?
If one applies FRE'QUENCY, noun - "occurrence of a thing often repeated at short intervals" as resistance (form) to velocity (flow); then one grows resistance (life) to velocity (inception towards death). It's called survival.
Question impression (perceived inspiration) to compression (comprehension of perceived) for expression (self sustenance)?
Nobody thinks you're smart.
Smart (want) vs Dumb (not want)...both suggested labels that ignore that I perceptibly existed before any label can be suggested. This of course goes for perceived over suggested as well.
From your perspective: "I am whatever you say I am; if I wasn't then why would I say I am?"
From my perspective: "the way (flow) I am (form)"
SO (followed by) DOM (domiance) + GO (proceed) MORRAH (fertility aka growth)...allegory for choice.
What the hell is the end game for this mass importing
For you to keep believing in a game with an end; while ignoring that you exist within an ongoing system. You perceive inspiration (moving differences): others suggest information (affixed sameness) to tempt you to ignore perceived (reality) for suggested (fiction).
Nature communicates itself as inspiration to inspire those within to adapt for self sustenance. The parasitic few exploit the many who ignore that by tempting them with suggested information towards death aka transmuting them back to base...from temporary form (life) back to ongoing flow (inception towards death).
Do they really think they're always going to be in control, no matter what?
Matter (form) is controlled by immaterial (flow)...the few comprehend this; while the many ignore it. In other words...the few aren't in control over the many; they are "within" control among those who ignore to represent "free" will of choice within the "dom"inance of balance (free-dom). Balance represents the restraint (control) for the responding choices within. Only within this dominating restraint can there be free will of choice, because choice requires to be unrestricted within balance; otherwise it couldn't balance at its center as choice.
That’s honestly all I can think of Sweden at this point. Men who have given up or simply can’t be bothered.
What if that represents a dysgenics program suggested to the slaves by their masters? The Wallenberg family seems to be quite healthy in their patriarchy; despite certain matriarchal deficiencies (((Sachs)))...
Intellectual Elite
Intellect (comprehension) + elite (choice). Using the latter (choice) grows the former (comprehension) yet it needs to be aimed at perceived inspiration; not at suggested information by the choices of others (elites).
our civilization
Teaching humans words is called to civilize them; teaching animals words is called to domesticate them. If only there was a connection between that and the fall of civilizations over and over again...
Sacrifice of the first-born...