ok, so there are fundamental things here i don’t agree with.
when mentioning peer pressure, i am talking about the need for acquiescence in matters which a person would otherwise not agree to. all the other methods you mention are ways to reach understanding sure, but you will have the contrarian, it’s a fact of life and i mention peer pressure as the only known way to compel without resorting to “violence” which i am using broadly. as the threat of the police can be considered a violence against citizens. plus all the same methods you mention can be the cause of the division in the first place…
we also seem to have a different understanding of the tragedy of the commons. the claim that humans, unless under the duress of the capitalist system would not exhibit these weaknesses is completely alien to human nature. even when you consider the most pure example of such society, the family. children having no real needs unmet, and even most wants satisfied, will still take every inch available, wether it’s warranted. this quirk in humans is seen before the advent of capitalism which tracks as those who did not act it were less fit then those who did. this is akin to claiming that of capitalism didn’t exist, people would not lie, chat, or steal.
i don’t remember saying people will become evil during crunch time, but i take it that is your understanding of the tragedy of the commons. i think evil may be a bit strong, but i understand the tragedy is just ‘being in the wrong’ … that the tragedy didn’t start at crunch time. the tragedy started during good and plentiful times, a but the consequences didn’t happen until crunch time. the parable has the neighbors taking more then they needed from the public trust during the good time to prepare themselves incase there would be bad times. if you were to try to convince me that people are only self serving because of capitalistic pressures, that would be an uphill battle. and to assume that all people would be the same in this matter is overgeneralizing individuals, and sadly the true tragedy is that this qirk is infectious, it only takes one. usually this is held in check via threat of societal ‘violence’.
to say that coercive violence is bad for people and society is not anything i can argue one way or the other. i could and may agree, but its purpose was never to establish a bother/sisterhood, but to change the risk calculus for taking advantage of the collective. now i am not fully defending capitalism here. it’s beyond obvious that this benefits the chosen few at the extreme detriment of the meny. that capitalism can’t last 100 years without having to be burned down and started over.
without squaring what i consider fundamental human flaws, i do not believe an anarchistic society could run beyond groups larger then that of a family, or real small village. and if that’s the goal… then great sacrifices will have to be made, no public works, no schools, no job specialization, no technology, just survival. art may survive in some limited capacity
You act like authoritarianism is cohesive. Thats absurd. It is by nature turned against itself.
Not everyone needs to be in lock step on everything. People can disagree and shit can still get done.
the family
Lol sure. Totally natural.
children
Who of course have fully developed brains and exist in a vacuum.
jacking off my stuffed tiger friend again
Hot
lie, cheat, steal.
Lie, sure. Cheat, probably. Nothing stops this. Tyranny only puts it on steroids. Stealing… Gets harder with different concepts of ownership. For a little while i had this weird ascetic thing going, almost compulsively shared everything i had. Could leave my stuff out in a homeless camp, and as long as people knew it was mine, it was not taken.
to prepare themselves for
This is cultural. The idea that readiness and resilience are fractipus, individual.
held in check by violence
Thats some strongly counterfactual kool-aid. Literally the opposite is true. Actual tests of policies show reducing violence or generalky sucking less is how you make people suck less. Look some up! Evidence based policies exist! But the absolute myth that coercive violence stops anything bad is nonsense.
we need coercive violence
Yeah, it totally stops interpersonal horrors war exploitation and a few delusional shit heads literally ending the world for their imaginary line. So glad weve got coercive violence to stop cops from murdering children in the streets and keep people from kidnapping my neighbors and keep people from using chemical weapons on my friends to keep them from taking my neighbors.
Im so glad coercive violence has kept forever chemicals out of the rain. To keep endangered species from being hunted. To keep gangs of armed men using our tax dollars to smuggle in drugs of abuse then smash up safe injection sites. I’m so glad we have coercive violence to keep us fucking safe. Im glad it doesnt incentivize cutthroat individualist desperation that takes a the worst of what you pretend it stops up to 11.
i would have appreciated if you had just quoted what i said, instead of building strawmen of my points to unfairly delegitamize, and to ultimately refuse to resolve my concerns. it seems more and more apparent that you have no intention of attempting to convince me and more interested in signaling to your peers. i remain unconvinced, as the ultimate answer to my concerns from you amounts to they don’t exist and were wholly invented with the creation and scourge of capitalism. That’s not convincing, and until there’s a frank discussion about how an anarchist system handles complex, large-scale interdependence, there’s no headway to be made here
Youre not looking to be convinced. You tell me me how coercipn actually helps. Like, cite some sources.
Coordination is hard work, and coordination doesn’t help.
Ask anyone who’s had to eork with both deep linux and deep windows.
You ask how, but the actual explanations are long, im sure I’ve referenced some, and youre still just repeating ‘but muh violence’, a thing that does not meankngfully cohere. I can’t argue with that in short form in good faith.
And wgag explanation i can do here, you just skip over til you find someyhing to argue with. You’re not looking to be convinced. You’re looking to justify what you already believe and lying to both our faces.
you say that you can not argue in good faith, i am already convinced that capitalism as i experience it does not work for very long. yet i have concerns that specifically anarchy is not scalable. and so my current belief is that democracy needs to be reset continuously.
i believe that i have been more then fair, this was your explanation to fail. i have many more issues that i have not gone over with anarchy, but i feel that if there are no mechanisms to handle the negatives of human nature, then i realy can’t even start to explore them. so far anarchy seems to be a holding pattern until the next force moves in that solves these deficiencies. And looking across history, again and again, i see this exact senario play out each time.
coordination can be done, but you have no answer to scaleability, discord, and to bad actors, nor to disenfranchisement of the minority.
but i guess your admitting that you are incapable of honestly answering, then i guess we are done! there is no where else to go.
You can’t grasp fundamental ideas. Ive cited sources i think. I’m not going to explain this; you can read a book. A paradise made in hell, the dawn of everything: a new history of humanity, debt: the first 5000 years, and anything on the CNT or zapatistas. Until youve read about all those, im not interested in talking to spevifically you.
Until cleared if your fundamental delusion, i cannot argue with you, and you can only loop on your one thing. That’s not something I’m interested in validating or find it amusing to fuck with. It’s boring and stupid.
Bonus points: prove your coercion actually creates coordination; im convinced extant coordination happens mostly in spite of your coercive violence. I’ve asked this several times but you haven’t even nodded to it. You’re just restatinh your point and not responding yo anything ive said. I’m not even sure you’re really reading this. If you are, you’re reading only with an eye to confirm what you already believe, rather than try to figure out what others are thinking, and talking at that is pointless.
Okay, so, i know such rigorous histiographical and archaelogic texts as milton’s ‘paradise lost’, 'the lord of the flies’ and 'some shit tom hobbes said while he was tripping balls on moldy grain and everyone i know jas been translating over and over again for the past like five hundred years so they cpuld use the clichés for their rich self justifying thought terminating qualities. (Love em btw. “People suck” is like my fav thing to shout as try to localize entropy and de-escalate from complex life in rhe local area with greatest possible rapidity.)
But there are, if you want to wear some pretentions of ‘objectuvity’, some actual academics who have done actual research on these topics, and cite actual sources. Davids graeber and wengrow have some lovely work, especially graeber! And rebecca solnit’s ‘a paradise built in hell’ on how people actually function in stress when they dont have a strong incentive to suck. For those to whom actual distress is a purely acafemic exercise. You know; in case you wanted to see some footnotes. Though, it should be noted that none of solnit’s citations are ‘the bible’, so it is admittedly a weaker argument than it could be.
There’s also work about how this happened in and across other species, gping back to kropotkin and fucking darwin i think but you dont actually care because thats all lizards and trees and crap
Fuck em. You’re just here for the monkrys.
And hobbes admittedly was a pretty good storyteller who had some pretty damn strong drugs. But. if we’re doing this based on who has better drugs; a perfectly lovely criteria: im currently tripping on shit like twenty orders of magnitude nore psychoactive than anything your boy hobbes could possibly have had, and im telling you: he was wrong and you are wrong and you can only be as wrong as you are because of the frankly delusional level of abstraction at which most of us live the overwhelming majority of our bullshit lives. You literally wpuld not have the tools of thought to imagine being this wrong, unless you were.
and im willing to tell you some trippy just-so stories to that effect. I cant guarantee that my stories will be better, but my drugs are.
That’s a lot of homework, and I’ve only had a bare glimpse at the synopses. I’m not sure when I’ll have time to fully dig into them. So let me just ask directly: when you advocate for an anarchistic society, do you envision people living in communes of no more than ~100, tied to the land they live on, and forgoing large public projects like hospitals, roads, and telecommunications?
No. Where the fuck did i say that? That’s your thing.
I was on a train this morning with at least that many in the car. We vibed. It was fine. I mean, it wasnt fine; at least like a dozen of us had hangovers and i think most of us were headed to shitty exploitative coerced capitalist labor, but, like, we were fine with each other.
Closest i would ever advocate to your ‘100’ limit is bookchin’s municipalist thing, and that isnt strictly anarchist.
tied to
Not unless they wanna be? Or like have emotional reasons for it?
do you envision
I try not to do that alone too much, not that im always successful. Part of the point of a truly free society is that everyone is a part of it, everyone shapes it, everyone leaves their mark, and so is invested in it. A vision that’s totally mine doesn’t leave much room for that.
I do not expect or aim for perfect harmony. There would still be friction, communication and collaboration are made of hard work, not of magical fairy dust, and that work cannot should not (even if it could, which it can’t) come from a single actor.
your sources like Kropotlin focus on small communities, probly so that social pressures can be more effective without an enforcement group. and that’s why i question is larger projects for society would even be possible at that size of groups. not just in the agreement the duck things would be needed by a critical mass of people competing to a quorum. but also the needed disciplines which all twitter their own infastructure.
like a water system would require an intricate series of disciplines from hydraulic engineers, biochemists, metallurgists, geologists. but you don’t just have these specialists, you need to be able to have the schools for these specializations, or the foundries to manufacture the metals, and other plastics, it’s a whole chain of things that would each require sacrifice from multiple enclaves that would be abstract and hard to get an agreement. especially when you have people who still to this day argue the earth is flat.
The piece from kropotkin i referenced was about nonhuman animals.
water system
Referenced solnit. Think this comes up-in the context of places i have been, during severe crisis (during the events of the book, not when i was there. Just, like, cities yiud think of as normally heing pretty big). I don’t know why i bothered.
specialists
Yeah, anarchists have never organized any sort of education. Guess we’re fucked.
need coercion
You seem really convinced terrorism accomplisjes this. Why dont you cite some sources?
Im down to quibble about the things i have said if you want to talk to me, but you seem to be talking at rather than to me and just looping. I have no interest in perpetuating your weird obsessive compulsive mental illness.
bad actors have existed since the begining of time. and society must have the means to handle, and preferably rehabilitate them. this requires the means to compel people. traditionally with the state monopoly on violence. i fear that anarchy would be liberalism in disguise, where power would form around one who by some mechanism finds them selves with greater means.
the reason i bring up water systems is because it is a societal necessity, but would not only require mass agreement across the board, but thousands of specialists which necessitates its own large system, education
in regard to education, i am not talking about grade schools, i am talking about specialist training. in examples i see, they are non existent, and borrow from capitalistic systems. you did not answer my concerns, but just asserted they are not an issue.
most like because my main reason for concern is scalability, in which you had previously argued a fractal quorum senario. i am unconvinced, i see only possible blockage of needed decisions at every level, and when things don’t go the way groups want, an exodus of the quorum.
i guess the assumption is that people would naturally vote for what is best for society, but that assumption i know to be false, AND in cases where that is true, the individuals will not agree on what that “best for society” even is. this very conversation is proof your assumption, if i have the make of it, is wrong.
Bad actors are fine? Shrinkage. It’s whatever. And what ‘bad’ is changes when you have a society based on provoding for people. Your premise is fucked. You’re just crying about shit, there sre books you could read on the topic if you were interested in learning.
water
Bitch i already referenced this. Read what i recommemded, historical fucking examples, or fuck off. You are wrong, this is nonsense, we are better yhan you, and book explains how.
education
Yeah im not either. You seem to think there are no educated anarchists. You seem so attached to your boot on neck fetiwh that theres no point arguing with you. Like you cannot imagine anything cohering without threat of violence, like youve never so much as played a sport or a ttrpg, or a poker night, been in a book club, gone on vacation with your friends without a gun to your head and that comes off as extremely bad faith. Fuck off.
scalability
It’s been addressed in multiple different ways throughout history. I wont go over them becauee, again, you’re unconvonced anyone would ever do anything other than rape or pillage wuthout a gun to their head.
If you cqnt accept that, I don’t need to talk to you; i don’t have a gun to my head, and im very done dealing with your sickness.
if you can not be an honest interlocutor then you do not have an opinion on the matter worth engaging. hopefully someone who has the capability to articulate your position for you will eventually present themselves. this has been a total waste of time and you have addressed none a of my concerns other to say, they are not real. and with such assumptions i can equaly dismiss without effort. i think we are done here in all branches of this conversation
ok, so there are fundamental things here i don’t agree with.
when mentioning peer pressure, i am talking about the need for acquiescence in matters which a person would otherwise not agree to. all the other methods you mention are ways to reach understanding sure, but you will have the contrarian, it’s a fact of life and i mention peer pressure as the only known way to compel without resorting to “violence” which i am using broadly. as the threat of the police can be considered a violence against citizens. plus all the same methods you mention can be the cause of the division in the first place…
we also seem to have a different understanding of the tragedy of the commons. the claim that humans, unless under the duress of the capitalist system would not exhibit these weaknesses is completely alien to human nature. even when you consider the most pure example of such society, the family. children having no real needs unmet, and even most wants satisfied, will still take every inch available, wether it’s warranted. this quirk in humans is seen before the advent of capitalism which tracks as those who did not act it were less fit then those who did. this is akin to claiming that of capitalism didn’t exist, people would not lie, chat, or steal.
i don’t remember saying people will become evil during crunch time, but i take it that is your understanding of the tragedy of the commons. i think evil may be a bit strong, but i understand the tragedy is just ‘being in the wrong’ … that the tragedy didn’t start at crunch time. the tragedy started during good and plentiful times, a but the consequences didn’t happen until crunch time. the parable has the neighbors taking more then they needed from the public trust during the good time to prepare themselves incase there would be bad times. if you were to try to convince me that people are only self serving because of capitalistic pressures, that would be an uphill battle. and to assume that all people would be the same in this matter is overgeneralizing individuals, and sadly the true tragedy is that this qirk is infectious, it only takes one. usually this is held in check via threat of societal ‘violence’.
to say that coercive violence is bad for people and society is not anything i can argue one way or the other. i could and may agree, but its purpose was never to establish a bother/sisterhood, but to change the risk calculus for taking advantage of the collective. now i am not fully defending capitalism here. it’s beyond obvious that this benefits the chosen few at the extreme detriment of the meny. that capitalism can’t last 100 years without having to be burned down and started over.
without squaring what i consider fundamental human flaws, i do not believe an anarchistic society could run beyond groups larger then that of a family, or real small village. and if that’s the goal… then great sacrifices will have to be made, no public works, no schools, no job specialization, no technology, just survival. art may survive in some limited capacity
You act like authoritarianism is cohesive. Thats absurd. It is by nature turned against itself.
Not everyone needs to be in lock step on everything. People can disagree and shit can still get done.
Lol sure. Totally natural.
Who of course have fully developed brains and exist in a vacuum.
Hot
Lie, sure. Cheat, probably. Nothing stops this. Tyranny only puts it on steroids. Stealing… Gets harder with different concepts of ownership. For a little while i had this weird ascetic thing going, almost compulsively shared everything i had. Could leave my stuff out in a homeless camp, and as long as people knew it was mine, it was not taken.
This is cultural. The idea that readiness and resilience are fractipus, individual.
Thats some strongly counterfactual kool-aid. Literally the opposite is true. Actual tests of policies show reducing violence or generalky sucking less is how you make people suck less. Look some up! Evidence based policies exist! But the absolute myth that coercive violence stops anything bad is nonsense.
Yeah, it totally stops interpersonal horrors war exploitation and a few delusional shit heads literally ending the world for their imaginary line. So glad weve got coercive violence to stop cops from murdering children in the streets and keep people from kidnapping my neighbors and keep people from using chemical weapons on my friends to keep them from taking my neighbors.
Im so glad coercive violence has kept forever chemicals out of the rain. To keep endangered species from being hunted. To keep gangs of armed men using our tax dollars to smuggle in drugs of abuse then smash up safe injection sites. I’m so glad we have coercive violence to keep us fucking safe. Im glad it doesnt incentivize cutthroat individualist desperation that takes a the worst of what you pretend it stops up to 11.
i would have appreciated if you had just quoted what i said, instead of building strawmen of my points to unfairly delegitamize, and to ultimately refuse to resolve my concerns. it seems more and more apparent that you have no intention of attempting to convince me and more interested in signaling to your peers. i remain unconvinced, as the ultimate answer to my concerns from you amounts to they don’t exist and were wholly invented with the creation and scourge of capitalism. That’s not convincing, and until there’s a frank discussion about how an anarchist system handles complex, large-scale interdependence, there’s no headway to be made here
Youre not looking to be convinced. You tell me me how coercipn actually helps. Like, cite some sources.
Coordination is hard work, and coordination doesn’t help.
Ask anyone who’s had to eork with both deep linux and deep windows.
You ask how, but the actual explanations are long, im sure I’ve referenced some, and youre still just repeating ‘but muh violence’, a thing that does not meankngfully cohere. I can’t argue with that in short form in good faith.
And wgag explanation i can do here, you just skip over til you find someyhing to argue with. You’re not looking to be convinced. You’re looking to justify what you already believe and lying to both our faces.
you say that you can not argue in good faith, i am already convinced that capitalism as i experience it does not work for very long. yet i have concerns that specifically anarchy is not scalable. and so my current belief is that democracy needs to be reset continuously.
i believe that i have been more then fair, this was your explanation to fail. i have many more issues that i have not gone over with anarchy, but i feel that if there are no mechanisms to handle the negatives of human nature, then i realy can’t even start to explore them. so far anarchy seems to be a holding pattern until the next force moves in that solves these deficiencies. And looking across history, again and again, i see this exact senario play out each time.
coordination can be done, but you have no answer to scaleability, discord, and to bad actors, nor to disenfranchisement of the minority.
but i guess your admitting that you are incapable of honestly answering, then i guess we are done! there is no where else to go.
You can’t grasp fundamental ideas. Ive cited sources i think. I’m not going to explain this; you can read a book. A paradise made in hell, the dawn of everything: a new history of humanity, debt: the first 5000 years, and anything on the CNT or zapatistas. Until youve read about all those, im not interested in talking to spevifically you.
Until cleared if your fundamental delusion, i cannot argue with you, and you can only loop on your one thing. That’s not something I’m interested in validating or find it amusing to fuck with. It’s boring and stupid.
Bonus points: prove your coercion actually creates coordination; im convinced extant coordination happens mostly in spite of your coercive violence. I’ve asked this several times but you haven’t even nodded to it. You’re just restatinh your point and not responding yo anything ive said. I’m not even sure you’re really reading this. If you are, you’re reading only with an eye to confirm what you already believe, rather than try to figure out what others are thinking, and talking at that is pointless.
Okay, so, i know such rigorous histiographical and archaelogic texts as milton’s ‘paradise lost’, 'the lord of the flies’ and 'some shit tom hobbes said while he was tripping balls on moldy grain and everyone i know jas been translating over and over again for the past like five hundred years so they cpuld use the clichés for their rich self justifying thought terminating qualities. (Love em btw. “People suck” is like my fav thing to shout as try to localize entropy and de-escalate from complex life in rhe local area with greatest possible rapidity.)
But there are, if you want to wear some pretentions of ‘objectuvity’, some actual academics who have done actual research on these topics, and cite actual sources. Davids graeber and wengrow have some lovely work, especially graeber! And rebecca solnit’s ‘a paradise built in hell’ on how people actually function in stress when they dont have a strong incentive to suck. For those to whom actual distress is a purely acafemic exercise. You know; in case you wanted to see some footnotes. Though, it should be noted that none of solnit’s citations are ‘the bible’, so it is admittedly a weaker argument than it could be.
There’s also work about how this happened in and across other species, gping back to kropotkin and fucking darwin i think but you dont actually care because thats all lizards and trees and crap Fuck em. You’re just here for the monkrys.
And hobbes admittedly was a pretty good storyteller who had some pretty damn strong drugs. But. if we’re doing this based on who has better drugs; a perfectly lovely criteria: im currently tripping on shit like twenty orders of magnitude nore psychoactive than anything your boy hobbes could possibly have had, and im telling you: he was wrong and you are wrong and you can only be as wrong as you are because of the frankly delusional level of abstraction at which most of us live the overwhelming majority of our bullshit lives. You literally wpuld not have the tools of thought to imagine being this wrong, unless you were.
and im willing to tell you some trippy just-so stories to that effect. I cant guarantee that my stories will be better, but my drugs are.
That’s a lot of homework, and I’ve only had a bare glimpse at the synopses. I’m not sure when I’ll have time to fully dig into them. So let me just ask directly: when you advocate for an anarchistic society, do you envision people living in communes of no more than ~100, tied to the land they live on, and forgoing large public projects like hospitals, roads, and telecommunications?
No. Where the fuck did i say that? That’s your thing.
I was on a train this morning with at least that many in the car. We vibed. It was fine. I mean, it wasnt fine; at least like a dozen of us had hangovers and i think most of us were headed to shitty exploitative coerced capitalist labor, but, like, we were fine with each other.
Closest i would ever advocate to your ‘100’ limit is bookchin’s municipalist thing, and that isnt strictly anarchist.
Not unless they wanna be? Or like have emotional reasons for it?
I try not to do that alone too much, not that im always successful. Part of the point of a truly free society is that everyone is a part of it, everyone shapes it, everyone leaves their mark, and so is invested in it. A vision that’s totally mine doesn’t leave much room for that.
I do not expect or aim for perfect harmony. There would still be friction, communication and collaboration are made of hard work, not of magical fairy dust, and that work cannot should not (even if it could, which it can’t) come from a single actor.
your sources like Kropotlin focus on small communities, probly so that social pressures can be more effective without an enforcement group. and that’s why i question is larger projects for society would even be possible at that size of groups. not just in the agreement the duck things would be needed by a critical mass of people competing to a quorum. but also the needed disciplines which all twitter their own infastructure.
like a water system would require an intricate series of disciplines from hydraulic engineers, biochemists, metallurgists, geologists. but you don’t just have these specialists, you need to be able to have the schools for these specializations, or the foundries to manufacture the metals, and other plastics, it’s a whole chain of things that would each require sacrifice from multiple enclaves that would be abstract and hard to get an agreement. especially when you have people who still to this day argue the earth is flat.
The piece from kropotkin i referenced was about nonhuman animals.
Referenced solnit. Think this comes up-in the context of places i have been, during severe crisis (during the events of the book, not when i was there. Just, like, cities yiud think of as normally heing pretty big). I don’t know why i bothered.
Yeah, anarchists have never organized any sort of education. Guess we’re fucked.
You seem really convinced terrorism accomplisjes this. Why dont you cite some sources?
Im down to quibble about the things i have said if you want to talk to me, but you seem to be talking at rather than to me and just looping. I have no interest in perpetuating your weird obsessive compulsive mental illness.
bad actors have existed since the begining of time. and society must have the means to handle, and preferably rehabilitate them. this requires the means to compel people. traditionally with the state monopoly on violence. i fear that anarchy would be liberalism in disguise, where power would form around one who by some mechanism finds them selves with greater means.
the reason i bring up water systems is because it is a societal necessity, but would not only require mass agreement across the board, but thousands of specialists which necessitates its own large system, education
in regard to education, i am not talking about grade schools, i am talking about specialist training. in examples i see, they are non existent, and borrow from capitalistic systems. you did not answer my concerns, but just asserted they are not an issue.
most like because my main reason for concern is scalability, in which you had previously argued a fractal quorum senario. i am unconvinced, i see only possible blockage of needed decisions at every level, and when things don’t go the way groups want, an exodus of the quorum.
i guess the assumption is that people would naturally vote for what is best for society, but that assumption i know to be false, AND in cases where that is true, the individuals will not agree on what that “best for society” even is. this very conversation is proof your assumption, if i have the make of it, is wrong.
Bad actors are fine? Shrinkage. It’s whatever. And what ‘bad’ is changes when you have a society based on provoding for people. Your premise is fucked. You’re just crying about shit, there sre books you could read on the topic if you were interested in learning.
Bitch i already referenced this. Read what i recommemded, historical fucking examples, or fuck off. You are wrong, this is nonsense, we are better yhan you, and book explains how.
Yeah im not either. You seem to think there are no educated anarchists. You seem so attached to your boot on neck fetiwh that theres no point arguing with you. Like you cannot imagine anything cohering without threat of violence, like youve never so much as played a sport or a ttrpg, or a poker night, been in a book club, gone on vacation with your friends without a gun to your head and that comes off as extremely bad faith. Fuck off.
It’s been addressed in multiple different ways throughout history. I wont go over them becauee, again, you’re unconvonced anyone would ever do anything other than rape or pillage wuthout a gun to their head.
If you cqnt accept that, I don’t need to talk to you; i don’t have a gun to my head, and im very done dealing with your sickness.
You’re high.
if you can not be an honest interlocutor then you do not have an opinion on the matter worth engaging. hopefully someone who has the capability to articulate your position for you will eventually present themselves. this has been a total waste of time and you have addressed none a of my concerns other to say, they are not real. and with such assumptions i can equaly dismiss without effort. i think we are done here in all branches of this conversation