append YT and misc projects

destruction/peterson.md

@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+What if I told you there was a man who, more or less, spent his whole life studying the nature of human thought? Let's say he sought the teachings of the presumed wisest men in society, throughout the history of all human existence, and sought to understand them. What if, every time he was met with any idea, he fought with all his intellectual might to destroy that idea, in order to find out what aspects of that idea were inherently flawed? Perhaps he did that with such a multitude of ideas, that only the truest aspects of all the ideas remained of what he studied. Perhaps he did this for over 50 years. What if he then cast aside the Ideological Dross, and synthesized the remaining Purity of Truth into a coherent set of principles, the forging of which was in service of providing an explanation to our existence in order to better us and give us hope? Surely if you lack wisdom, and if you're attempting to seek as much truth as possible, if you're going to Mankind for that understanding, what better place to go than the writings of such a man?
+
+What if I told you that man was Jordan Peterson?
+
+Would you reject the possibility, given your preexisting perception of who that man is, or would you seek the requisite information to discover if that could possibly be true?
+
+I have found the teachings of Man to be quite a potent and destructive thing. But never have I been supplied such a comprehensive view of existence than before Nico's dismissive comments of Peterson drove me to see what the man was all about, and whether or not he was credible. Many times have I been meet with the disparagement of someone whom I had not fully understood, but whose value and insight I wasn't quite willing to cast aside. It seems a common theme with me, that when this happens, I ravenously rush towards discovering the requisite information to see if the disparaging assessment held validity, or if, perhaps, there was something missing from the disparager's risk assessment that tainted their view. In the case of Peterson, I must conclude that he and his positions have been woefully maligned by all who have done so.
+
+He may have a funny voice, he may speak in seemingly silly terms of Big Rats and Small Rats, of Lobsters and Primates. He may say things that make us uncomfortable or angry at times, and we may not yet agree with his understanding of the truth. I don't believe anyone has the ability to be perfect. But again, I've yet to see such a comprehensive view of existence, and the human cognition to boot, ever before in my short time on this earth. I'm glad he's been disparaged, for if he had not been, his insight would have been invisible to me for God knows how long. This manner of thinking is clearly religious. But are we not all religious?
+
+Start with his lectures on Maps of Meaning, or on his comprehensive analyses of religion, or on his 12 Rules of Life. It matters not. What matters is this: if you do not know what he believes, you cannot know if he is or isn't worth listening to, because you haven't. Any who seek to discern truth must do this. And it is my hope that you do as well.
+
+---
+
+Philosophy sounds exaggeratory to the uninitiated. I think his language bothers you because he uses the words in broad, abstract ways that don't fit into your understanding. In other words, the rules of his language are different than the rules of yours, and thus you may interpret his arguments differently because your definitions don't match. This is basically the definition of a miscommunication, which are intrinsically frustrating. If you understood the functions, you would realize it actually is barebones logic, and that's how philosophy works at the most basic level. If it sounds like a theory, that's because it IS. Every single interpretation of reality is a theory, because phiolosophically speaking, there is nothing that can truly ever be known. That's not to say each interpretation is equally valid, far from it. It's to say that your interpretation of reality, in the form of an argument or a case you're making, must assume premises to be true in order to be sound. Whether or not they're valid depends on if you agree to all the premises. Starting metaphysically is the most comprehensive way to make the case, and this is why the communication takes the form that it does.
+
+The fantastic thing about that video is that it removes all the requisite context to comprehend what he's actually saying in the clips. It lacks all previous context to whichever statement was dishonestly plucked from its original home, then pauses before he continues to make the case in order to adequately shit on him for his wording, because the words he uses are again, metaphysical.
+
+A neuroscientist is a medical scientist who studies the nervous system, including the brain, spinal cord, and nerve cells. Peterson has done this, and uses it in his teachings constantly. He's always talking about the hippocampus, the prefrontal cortex, the hypothalamus, and beyond. An understanding of neuroscience is ESSENTIAL to an understanding of psychology, in the same way an understanding of computer hardware is ESSENTIAL to an understanding of the software that is designed to run on it. Just because he doesn't have a PHD in neuroscience, doesn't mean it wasn't a significant portion of his university studies, and it definitely doesn't mean that he hasn't studied it since then, given that science increases every minute that we labor to increase our understanding. If he didn't study and increase his knowledge to be as up-to-date and comprehensive as possible, he would be a pretty shitty professor indeed, and trust me, I know a shitty professor when I listen to one. So yes, he's a damn neuroscientist, and anybody who listens to him and knows the definition of a neuroscientist, knows it to be true. The same argument directly applies to his understanding of evoloutionary biology; he's studied it significantly due to its importance to his field, and integrates it into his teachings in an extremely cogent way. Unless your definition of a Neuroscientist or an Evolutionary Biologist is that you went to some university and got a fucking degree for that exact discipline, so in that case, to hell with anyone who claims to be a professional Musician or a Composer without having a doctorate from an Ivy league school. To hell with Jon Bellion, Kanye, Kendrick, and J Cole, who graduated magna cum laude in Communications so he clearly doesn't count either. This line of reasoning that the Experts™ can be trusted by virtue of them being Experts™ is so fucking religious it's insane. It's a dishonest, emotional tactic used to silence credited people when they say things that make tyrants upset.
+
+Nobody has to be an expert in anything to comment on it of course, but simultaneously, the value of their interpretation and/or arguments should be based off of whether or not what they were saying stands to reason, is not self-contradictory (a sound argument) and if the premises are true (a valid argument). For example, I watched a Joe Rogan episode where him and Peterson spoke, and in that episode they spoke broadly on psychology and neuroscience for most of the episode. Later, Peterson spoke about how a carnivore diet of simply meats and greens, no carbs, had had a profound effect on his and his daughter's life. Before he began, he paused the dialogue to say, in no uncertain terms to the audience, that he was now exiting the realm of his expertise as a Psychologist, and entering the realm of an uninitiated citizen scientist. I also recall him making a similar remark in one of his lectures when he merely mentioned astrophysicists, he basically brought it up so he could be clear that he knew nothing about it. So that pretty clearly demonstrates an acknowledgement that he may be speaking in pseudoscientific, non-holistic terms on certain topics outside the realm of his expertise. Did Peterson say this before he spoke in the clip about climate change, climatology, and public policy? Well, who the hell knows? The dishonest host didn't give us that. How convenient that he doesn't have to present any contradictory evidence to his narrative. He couldn't poison the well so effectively that way. It's rich to say that Peterson was being obtuse in that clip with his usage of the word "everything," when the host himself is so damn obtuse that he thinks nobody who isn't credentialed gets to speak on a certain topic. Should he should shut the fuck up too, then? Or can we drop the dishonest charade and take people's arguments a priori? This is effectively a fancy way to do ad hominem. I don't have to prove his argument wrong, I can just point to the fact that he doesn't have a degree on that topic! Alright, so where's your degree? Yet I don't hear a single leftist or liberal object to when an astrophysicist like Neil Degrasse Tyson runs his mouth on climatology and public policy. Because they don't disagree with his judgements, they see no need to discredit him based on his mismatched credentials. Forget that he effectively agrees with Aristotle's Dictatorship of the Wise, and loves the idea of the creation of a State called Rationalia, potentially to be created on another planet; see the Cult of Rationality during the French Revolution and see how that went. All of the elite and political class do this; see Billie Eilish and Woody Harrelson pushing radical climate action as well. This is a cheap trick of a religious dogma, and moral people would do well to recognize it, and abandon it. The idea that some ill-defined group of Experts™ gets to decide all matters of public policy based off of their so-called expertise, and more importantly, that they get to be the arbiters of all truth, is a dogmatic, religious principle. Such principles based on a dogmatic, religious faith in mankind, are destined to lead to institutional oppression. Especially when the argument is "well the Experts™ have a lot of things to say on what we should do!" Yes, they certainly do, and they're shit ideas. Fuck the frackers, fuck the workers who labor for oil, fuck the peasants who would go bankrupt if they had to pay $10.50/gal for gas and can't afford a prius or tesla. Our Moral Betters™ and our Experts™ say it's time for climate action! We don't have to balance public policy with any other needs! Oh but I'm not a climatologist, am I? So I guess I shouldn't vote for people who disagree with them either, perhaps I shouldn't have the right to vote at all if I disagree with them. Do they believe this? Well, maybe if they took their arugments to their logical conclusion. They wouldn't argue this way if they actually had intellectual discourse with others, and they wouldn't need to be dishonest.
+
+So a Psychologist can't talk about "trans issues" either? Why not? There's no scientific inquiry to be made from his field of expertise on the subject? Or is this because people don't like what he has to say about the topic, given his field of expertise?
+
+In essence, everyone should be able to speak on whatever topic they please. There's a responsibility in doing so, in that there are people who disagree who are going to voice their disagreement. If all they do is counter speech with dissentful speech, there's no problem. But the side for which you are arguing for wants to legislate to punish you, through force of law, which inevitably will be backed up with the government gun, for the language you use. Other than his psychological analysis, the only reason he's ever spoken on "trans issues" is because of such totalitarian law as Canada's Gender Identity Rights Bill C16. And for the same reason, he's famous; people were outraged, and that outrage drove a lot of people to hear what he was saying.
+
+If you think he's sexist, I don't know what to tell you other than that you haven't listened to him. Is it sexist to say there are biological differences between men and women, intrinsic to our design, and that we therefore function in drastically different ways? Is it sexist to call online incels pathetic for their behavior? Is it sexist to say that a man who sees no responsibility in becoming a protector of those less fortunate, strong, or willing to release their inner monster, is weak? Is it sexist to make the case that women are a significant contributor towards the reason that primates evolved to be able to see as clearly as we do? Is it sexist to say that women are also the reason that our species has become as intelligent as we are? I don't think you've labored enough in order to claim that you understand his philosophy of life, if you still think he's somehow sexist.
+
+The next argument you make is interesting, that even if he somehow held the key to the meaning of life, and that were true, that you still wouldn't care? This seems like a very bitter and incomplete thought. If the meaning to life exists anywhere, would discovering and obtaining it not the only thing that matters?! Isn't that what we're all searching for, is meaning?? Now, I don't think he's cracked the code, I think he's taken the best crack at it of anyone in my somewhat vast array of knowledge. I don't think there's anything to lose, taking a deep dive into such philosophy. If you come out and it's completely worthless, at least now you can say exactly why you're convinced as such. If you come out and it's got a preponderance of truth to it, then you've still profited! So how can you know it's false if you haven't absorbed more of it? My theory is that because you were younger when you considered yourself a fan of his, you didn't fully grasp it, and now you assume that the snippets you see of him back up the negativity bias you've developed. Isn't it worth another shot?
+
+How can you simultaneously say that his reasoning is so profound that it becomes grandiose, exaggeratory, and frustrating, but also that his advice is too simple to be of any value? This seems to me to be a very flawed conception of his philosophy. You recall in previous voice memos I've spoken about the rich leper who was told by Jesus to wash in the river Jordan? Before we do great things, we must first do simple things; we have to start the first place we possibly can, otherwise we never start. So when he's simple he's too simple, but when he's complex he's too complex?
+
+So in terms of getting back to dry land, you think that Tate would be a better shipmate than Peterson? Tate is a broken clock and has no self-awareness. He says correct things on accident and most the time he couldn't tell you why. He says straight up evil things on a daily basis, and beyond that, you and I know that there's no question that he's a sexist. That's not even in the same ballpark as Peterson even by your standard, yet you'd jump out the boat without a life preserver if it were captained by Peterson, but if it were captained by Tate you'd stay?
+
+You say they "go in" on his character? It sounds like you're describing a character assassination. That's not a good thing. It's maligning and misrepresentation at its finest, intended to destroy him. It's anti-intellectual, non-holistic, psuedoscientific, religiously dogmatic, and frankly totalitarian. The only thing that differentiates someone who thinks like them, and a tyrant, is the willpower and competence with which to create an organizational structure behind their ideology.
+
+So when you see someone you dislike, you go to other people who dislike them in order to figure out what the arguments against them are, so you can build for yourself a better explanation for why you dislike them? Healthy skepticism is a necessity of life, but I think you have to be careful with that; this tends to feed confirmation bias. I think you need to synthesize all the information you can, and make as cogent arguments as possible against whatever you're listening to. If something doesn't sound right to me, I tend to pause and think about it, a lot of the time, out loud. I'll do this whenever something seems non-holistic; I pause and ask myself, or others, why that's wrong. It's easy to look at a pre-edited, synthesized collection of clips in context and someone's commentaries on them. It's far more difficult to actually discern the truth for yourself, but it's damn worth it. You have to go to the source, if you want to know whether or not it is true, not a cherrypicking of the source. If it involves all of the source, or at least, enough to make sense of what's actually being said without commentary cutting in to obscure the original intent of the messaging, only then can you have a rational judgement of it. Otherwise, it's entirely subjective and intangible, which is the worst aspect of that video as far as I can see.
+
+I want to emphasize that I knew what I was asking for when I sent you my position. I enjoy the process of rational discernment, I enjoy discourse, so the fact you disagree is not at all disatisfactory to me. If at all I am disatisfied, it's when I think the explanations for the conclusions are lacking, which is why I spent all the time typing this out. I believe, as you do, that we're both valuable, and we don't want either of us to be led astray by lies masquerading as truth. It's hard to tell the difference, thus the disagreement, thus the dialogue. We're both exploring to make sure our understanding is true, because neither of us can know what only the other has witnessed. This is why I sent my witness to you. It can be uncomfortable to disagree, but I don't hold your frustration against you when I'd be blind if I couldn't see it in myself. If we're frustrated, it's not with each other. We're frustrated that we're being confronted with a lack of common understanding, and that's human.
+
+I think your system for role models is headed in the right direction; it's based on truth, not on people. When people say things you believe to be untrue, you reject those ideas. This is correct; you're not worshipping a person and believing everything they say, you're taking their statements at face value and discerning whether or not you think they are true given your understanding thus far. I think Peterson would fit into your system better than you know, and I believe you're sorely mistaken when you say he has nothing of value to offer you. Maybe he became senile since 2017, I don't know, that's just what I'm listening to right now. But I think there's much wisdom in his words and for whatever it's worth, I want to offer a secondary opinion in that I think he's worth giving another try, perhaps from the beginning, as I did. If you can separate the wheat from the chaff with Kanye, who is far more contradictory and convoluted, I have no doubt you could do it with Peterson. I have my poddies lined up with people I disagree with on the daily and I do the same thing with them as I do with anyone.
+
+Again, I don't believe in role models in the sense that we should look up to the people for who they are, I think we should look up to the praiseworthy things people did while also being able to criticize what they didn't do well. Which I think we agree on, the issue is that the term 'Role Model' suffers from semantic overload, in that it means many things to many people, so we have to redefine the term to ensure we're both referring to the same thing. The term 'nitpick' also suffers from this. We both look up to Kanye for his creative endeavors, for his success, for his willpower and his charisma. We both are sane, so we're able to see that he's quite the antihero; quite a flawed man, to an extreme extent. We love him in spite of his flaws, we don't hate him in spite of his corruption.
+
+I, of course, respect your rationale; there's much truth supporting it. I may do a poddy on the video just so I can know with a greater degree of certainty why I disagree as I discern and carve up a greater rationalization. Perhaps you could join me on it, though that could cause us to turn a 2 hour video into a 15 hour battle of intellect, and I wish to be as respectful of your time as I am protective of mine. Which surely begs the question as to whether or not the discussion was worth it for both of us? I suppose that remains to be seen.

destruction/peterson2.md

@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+I want to start with an emphasis that I respect you and that this is an intellectual pursuit. If you want to tts this to help you read it, I kinda encourage that given my own ADHD. I just want to make sure there's no pressure on you to respond in short order because to demand that would be rude considering the length. Regard this as a letter to a friend displaying my perspective and not some sort of thesis to try to destroy your way of thinking. I wish to be a friend, not a tyrant, so no pressure.
+
+Philosophy sounds exaggeratory to the uninitiated. I think his language bothers you because he uses the words in broad, abstract ways that don't fit into your understanding. In other words, the rules of his language are different than the rules of yours, and thus you may interpret his arguments differently because your definitions don't match. This is basically the definition of a miscommunication, which are intrinsically frustrating. If you understood the functions, you would realize it actually is barebones logic, and that's how philosophy works at the most basic level. If it sounds like a theory, that's because it IS. Every single interpretation of reality is a theory, because phiolosophically speaking, there is nothing that can truly ever be known. That's not to say each interpretation is equally valid, far from it. It's to say that your interpretation of reality, in the form of an argument or a case you're making, must assume premises to be true in order to be sound. Whether or not they're valid depends on if you agree to all the premises. Starting metaphysically is the most comprehensive way to make the case, and this is why the communication takes the form that it does.
+
+The fantastic thing about that video is that it removes all the requisite context to comprehend what he's actually saying in the clips. It lacks all previous context to whichever statement was dishonestly plucked from its original home, then pauses before he continues to make the case in order to adequately shit on him for his wording, because the words he uses are again, metaphysical.
+
+A neuroscientist is a medical scientist who studies the nervous system, including the brain, spinal cord, and nerve cells. Peterson has done this, and uses it in his teachings constantly. He's always talking about the hippocampus, the prefrontal cortex, the hypothalamus, and beyond. An understanding of neuroscience is ESSENTIAL to an understanding of psychology, in the same way an understanding of computer hardware is ESSENTIAL to an understanding of the software that is designed to run on it. Just because he doesn't have a PHD in neuroscience, doesn't mean it wasn't a significant portion of his university studies, and it definitely doesn't mean that he hasn't studied it since then, given that science increases every minute that we labor to increase our understanding. If he didn't study and increase his knowledge to be as up-to-date and comprehensive as possible, he would be a pretty shitty professor indeed, and trust me, I know a shitty professor when I listen to one. So yes, he's a damn neuroscientist, and anybody who listens to him and knows the definition of a neuroscientist, knows it to be true. The same argument directly applies to his understanding of evoloutionary biology; he's studied it significantly due to its importance to his field, and integrates it into his teachings in an extremely cogent way. Unless your definition of a Neuroscientist or an Evolutionary Biologist is that you went to some university and got a fucking degree for that exact discipline, so in that case, to hell with anyone who claims to be a professional Musician or a Composer without having a doctorate from an Ivy league school. To hell with Jon Bellion, Kanye, Kendrick, and J Cole, who graduated magna cum laude in Communications so he clearly doesn't count either. This line of reasoning that the Experts™ can be trusted by virtue of them being Experts™ is so fucking religious it's insane. It's a dishonest, emotional tactic used to silence credited people when they say things that make tyrants upset.
+
+Nobody has to be an expert in anything to comment on it of course, but simultaneously, the value of their interpretation and/or arguments should be based off of whether or not what they were saying stands to reason, is not self-contradictory (a sound argument) and if the premises are true (a valid argument). For example, I watched a Joe Rogan episode where him and Peterson spoke, and in that episode they spoke broadly on psychology and neuroscience for most of the episode. Later, Peterson spoke about how a carnivore diet of simply meats and greens, no carbs, had had a profound effect on his and his daughter's life. Before he began, he paused the dialogue to say, in no uncertain terms to the audience, that he was now exiting the realm of his expertise as a Psychologist, and entering the realm of an uninitiated citizen scientist. I also recall him making a similar remark in one of his lectures when he merely mentioned astrophysicists, he basically brought it up so he could be clear that he knew nothing about it. So that pretty clearly demonstrates an acknowledgement that he may be speaking in pseudoscientific, non-holistic terms on certain topics outside the realm of his expertise. Did Peterson say this before he spoke in the clip about climate change, climatology, and public policy? Well, who the hell knows? The dishonest host didn't give us that. How convenient that he doesn't have to present any contradictory evidence to his narrative. He couldn't poison the well so effectively that way. It's rich to say that Peterson was being obtuse in that clip with his usage of the word "everything," when the host himself is so damn obtuse that he thinks nobody who isn't credentialed gets to speak on a certain topic. Should he should shut the fuck up too, then? Or can we drop the dishonest charade and take people's arguments a priori? This is effectively a fancy way to do ad hominem. I don't have to prove his argument wrong, I can just point to the fact that he doesn't have a degree on that topic! Alright, so where's your degree? Yet I don't hear a single leftist or liberal object to when an astrophysicist like Neil Degrasse Tyson runs his mouth on climatology and public policy. Because they don't disagree with his judgements, they see no need to discredit him based on his mismatched credentials. Forget that he effectively agrees with Aristotle's Dictatorship of the Wise, and loves the idea of the creation of a State called Rationalia, potentially to be created on another planet; see the Cult of Rationality during the French Revolution and see how that went. All of the elite and political class do this; see Billie Eilish and Woody Harrelson pushing radical climate action as well. This is a cheap trick of a religious dogma, and moral people would do well to recognize it, and abandon it. The idea that some ill-defined group of Experts™ gets to decide all matters of public policy based off of their so-called expertise, and more importantly, that they get to be the arbiters of all truth, is a dogmatic, religious principle. Such principles based on a dogmatic, religious faith in mankind, are destined to lead to institutional oppression. Especially when the argument is "well the Experts™ have a lot of things to say on what we should do!" Yes, they certainly do, and they're shit ideas. Fuck the frackers, fuck the workers who labor for oil, fuck the peasants who would go bankrupt if they had to pay $10.50/gal for gas and can't afford a prius or tesla. Our Moral Betters™ and our Experts™ say it's time for climate action! We don't have to balance public policy with any other needs! Oh but I'm not a climatologist, am I? So I guess I shouldn't vote for people who disagree with them either, perhaps I shouldn't have the right to vote at all if I disagree with them. Do they believe this? Well, maybe if they took their arugments to their logical conclusion. They wouldn't argue this way if they actually had intellectual discourse with others, and they wouldn't need to be dishonest.
+
+So a Psychologist can't talk about "trans issues" either? Why not? There's no scientific inquiry to be made from his field of expertise on the subject? Or is this because people don't like what he has to say about the topic, given his field of expertise?
+
+In essence, everyone should be able to speak on whatever topic they please. There's a responsibility in doing so, in that there are people who disagree who are going to voice their disagreement. If all they do is counter speech with dissentful speech, there's no problem. But the side for which you are arguing for wants to legislate to punish you, through force of law, which inevitably will be backed up with the government gun, for the language you use. Other than his psychological analysis, the only reason he's ever spoken on "trans issues" is because of such totalitarian law as Canada's Gender Identity Rights Bill C16. And for the same reason, he's famous; people were outraged, and that outrage drove a lot of people to hear what he was saying.
+
+If you think he's sexist, I don't know what to tell you other than that you haven't listened to him. Is it sexist to say there are biological differences between men and women, intrinsic to our design, and that we therefore function in drastically different ways? Is it sexist to call online incels pathetic for their behavior? Is it sexist to say that a man who sees no responsibility in becoming a protector of those less fortunate, strong, or willing to release their inner monster, is weak? Is it sexist to make the case that women are a significant contributor towards the reason that primates evolved to be able to see as clearly as we do? Is it sexist to say that women are also the reason that our species has become as intelligent as we are? I don't think you've labored enough in order to claim that you understand his philosophy of life, if you still think he's somehow sexist.
+
+The next argument you make is interesting, that even if he somehow held the key to the meaning of life, and that were true, that you still wouldn't care? This seems like a very bitter and incomplete thought. If the meaning to life exists anywhere, would discovering and obtaining it not the only thing that matters?! Isn't that what we're all searching for, is meaning?? Now, I don't think he's cracked the code, I think he's taken the best crack at it of anyone in my somewhat vast array of knowledge. I don't think there's anything to lose, taking a deep dive into such philosophy. If you come out and it's completely worthless, at least now you can say exactly why you're convinced as such. If you come out and it's got a preponderance of truth to it, then you've still profited! So how can you know it's false if you haven't absorbed more of it? My theory is that because you were younger when you considered yourself a fan of his, you didn't fully grasp it, and now you assume that the snippets you see of him back up the negativity bias you've developed. Isn't it worth another shot?
+
+How can you simultaneously say that his reasoning is so profound that it becomes grandiose, exaggeratory, and frustrating, but also that his advice is too simple to be of any value? This seems to me to be a very flawed conception of his philosophy. You recall in previous voice memos I've spoken about the rich leper who was told by Jesus to wash in the river Jordan? Before we do great things, we must first do simple things; we have to start the first place we possibly can, otherwise we never start. So when he's simple he's too simple, but when he's complex he's too complex?
+
+So in terms of getting back to dry land, you think that Tate would be a better shipmate than Peterson? Tate is a broken clock and has no self-awareness. He says correct things on accident and most the time he couldn't tell you why. He says straight up evil things on a daily basis, and beyond that, you and I know that there's no question that he's a sexist. That's not even in the same ballpark as Peterson even by your standard, yet you'd jump out the boat without a life preserver if it were captained by Peterson, but if it were captained by Tate you'd stay?
+
+You say they "go in" on his character? It sounds like you're describing a character assassination. That's not a good thing. It's maligning and misrepresentation at its finest, intended to destroy him. It's anti-intellectual, non-holistic, psuedoscientific, religiously dogmatic, and frankly totalitarian. The only thing that differentiates someone who thinks like them, and a tyrant, is the willpower and competence with which to create an organizational structure behind their ideology.
+
+So when you see someone you dislike, you go to other people who dislike them in order to figure out what the arguments against them are, so you can build for yourself a better explanation for why you dislike them? Healthy skepticism is a necessity of life, but I think you have to be careful with that; this tends to feed confirmation bias. I think you need to synthesize all the information you can, and make as cogent arguments as possible against whatever you're listening to. If something doesn't sound right to me, I tend to pause and think about it, a lot of the time, out loud. I'll do this whenever something seems non-holistic; I pause and ask myself, or others, why that's wrong. It's easy to look at a pre-edited, synthesized collection of clips in context and someone's commentaries on them. It's far more difficult to actually discern the truth for yourself, but it's damn worth it. You have to go to the source, if you want to know whether or not it is true, not a cherrypicking of the source. If it involves all of the source, or at least, enough to make sense of what's actually being said without commentary cutting in to obscure the original intent of the messaging, only then can you have a rational judgement of it. Otherwise, it's entirely subjective and intangible, which is the worst aspect of that video as far as I can see.
+
+I want to emphasize that I knew what I was asking for when I sent you my position. I enjoy the process of rational discernment, I enjoy discourse, so the fact you disagree is not at all disatisfactory to me. If at all I am disatisfied, it's when I think the explanations for the conclusions are lacking, which is why I spent all the time typing this out. I believe, as you do, that we're both valuable, and we don't want either of us to be led astray by lies masquerading as truth. It's hard to tell the difference, thus the disagreement, thus the dialogue. We're both exploring to make sure our understanding is true, because neither of us can know what only the other has witnessed. This is why I sent my witness to you. It can be uncomfortable to disagree, but I don't hold your frustration against you when I'd be blind if I couldn't see it in myself. If we're frustrated, it's not with each other. We're frustrated that we're being confronted with a lack of common understanding, and that's human.
+
+I think your system for role models is headed in the right direction; it's based on truth, not on people. When people say things you believe to be untrue, you reject those ideas. This is correct; you're not worshipping a person and believing everything they say, you're taking their statements at face value and discerning whether or not you think they are true given your understanding thus far. I think Peterson would fit into your system better than you know, and I believe you're sorely mistaken when you say he has nothing of value to offer you. Maybe he became senile since 2017, I don't know, that's just what I'm listening to right now. But I think there's much wisdom in his words and for whatever it's worth, I want to offer a secondary opinion in that I think he's worth giving another try, perhaps from the beginning, as I did. If you can separate the wheat from the chaff with Kanye, who is far more contradictory and convoluted, I have no doubt you could do it with Peterson. I have my poddies lined up with people I disagree with on the daily and I do the same thing with them as I do with anyone.
+
+Again, I don't believe in role models in the sense that we should look up to the people for who they are, I think we should look up to the praiseworthy things people did while also being able to criticize what they didn't do well. Which I think we agree on, the issue is that the term 'Role Model' suffers from semantic overload, in that it means many things to many people, so we have to redefine the term to ensure we're both referring to the same thing. The term 'nitpick' also suffers from this. We both look up to Kanye for his creative endeavors, for his success, for his willpower and his charisma. We both are sane, so we're able to see that he's quite the antihero; quite a flawed man, to an extreme extent. We love him in spite of his flaws, we don't hate him in spite of his corruption.
+
+I, of course, respect your rationale; there's much truth supporting it. I may do a poddy on the video just so I can know with a greater degree of certainty why I disagree as I discern and carve up a greater rationalization. Perhaps you could join me on it, though that could cause us to turn a 2 hour video into a 15 hour battle of intellect, and I wish to be as respectful of your time as I am protective of mine. Which surely begs the question as to whether or not the discussion was worth it for both of us? I suppose that remains to be seen.
+
+https://youtu.be/5_yHwzoGILk?si=izBUqfR5ILSU9cSJ&t=5918
+
+Attempting to clarify the meaning of words
+https://youtu.be/MnUfXYGtT5Q?si=a30kL7wdGnBXrLK8&t=3995
+
+the main themes 12 rules for life 2019-07-28 1:29:00 discussing the danger in people who feel the need to worship him and everything he says… humility
+“if the court jester isn’t vicious, then you’re probably not too stupid… that the satire stays lighthearted because then i haven’t made any particularly egregious mistakes”
+if i were in my 20s perhaps it would be going to my head, but being 55 gives me some humility
+pretty sensible person surrounded by sensible people, I’m not gonna lose sight
+
+Territory, Hierarchy, Security, and Fear 2019-11-08
+53:00 we have term limits in place so we can depose hierarchies, 4-8 years with this pack of idiots, then replace them with a new pack of idiots. Nothing changes, but nothing changes for worse! and we tend away from tyrannies.
+1:21:20 asked to say "this is kermit the frog reporting from sesame street" ... "go to hell"
+"what advice would you give to newlyweds?" "fight."
+"'we never fight' that's because you're cowardly."
+"i didn't say debate, because I don't mean debate. I mean fight."
+
+2019-09-01 the world is your oyster
+~1:15:00 talking about his involvement with the climate change bibgas, he really speaks on more than retards give him credit for

destruction/peterson3.md

@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+I want to start with an emphasis that I respect you and that this is an intellectual pursuit. If you want to tts this to help you read it, I kinda encourage that given my own ADHD. I just want to make sure there's no pressure on you to respond in short order because to demand that would be rude considering the length. Regard this as a letter to a friend displaying my perspective and not some sort of thesis to try to destroy your way of thinking. I wish to be a friend, not a tyrant, so no pressure.
+
+Philosophy sounds exaggeratory to the uninitiated. I think his language bothers you because he uses the words in broad, abstract ways that don't fit into your understanding. In other words, the rules of his language are different than the rules of yours, and thus you may interpret his arguments differently because your definitions don't match. This is basically the definition of a miscommunication, which are intrinsically frustrating. If you understood the functions, you would realize it actually is barebones logic, and that's how philosophy works at the most basic level. If it sounds like a theory, that's because it IS. Every single interpretation of reality is a theory, because phiolosophically speaking, there is nothing that can truly ever be known. That's not to say each interpretation is equally valid, far from it. It's to say that your interpretation of reality, in the form of an argument or a case you're making, must assume premises to be true in order to be sound. Whether or not they're valid depends on if you agree to all the premises. Starting metaphysically is the most comprehensive way to make the case, and this is why the communication takes the form that it does.
+
+The fantastic thing about that video is that it removes all the requisite context to comprehend what he's actually saying in the clips. It lacks all previous context to whichever statement was dishonestly plucked from its original home, then pauses before he continues to make the case in order to adequately shit on him for his wording, because the words he uses are again, metaphysical.
+
+A neuroscientist is a medical scientist who studies the nervous system, including the brain, spinal cord, and nerve cells. Peterson has done this, and uses it in his teachings constantly. He's always talking about the hippocampus, the prefrontal cortex, the hypothalamus, and beyond. An understanding of neuroscience is ESSENTIAL to an understanding of psychology, in the same way an understanding of computer hardware is ESSENTIAL to an understanding of the software that is designed to run on it. Just because he doesn't have a PHD in neuroscience, doesn't mean it wasn't a significant portion of his university studies, and it definitely doesn't mean that he hasn't studied it since then, given that science increases every minute that we labor to increase our understanding. If he didn't study and increase his knowledge to be as up-to-date and comprehensive as possible, he would be a pretty shitty professor indeed, and trust me, I know a shitty professor when I listen to one. So yes, he's a damn neuroscientist, and anybody who listens to him and knows the definition of a neuroscientist, knows it to be true. The same argument directly applies to his understanding of evoloutionary biology; he's studied it significantly due to its importance to his field, and integrates it into his teachings in an extremely cogent way. Unless your definition of a Neuroscientist or an Evolutionary Biologist is that you went to some university and got a fucking degree for that exact discipline, so in that case, to hell with anyone who claims to be a professional Musician or a Composer without having a doctorate from an Ivy league school. To hell with Jon Bellion, Kanye, Kendrick, and J Cole, who graduated magna cum laude in Communications so he clearly doesn't count either. This line of reasoning that the Experts™ can be trusted by virtue of them being Experts™ is so fucking religious it's insane. It's a dishonest, emotional tactic used to silence credited people when they say things that make tyrants upset.
+
+Nobody has to be an expert in anything to comment on it of course, but simultaneously, the value of their interpretation and/or arguments should be based off of whether or not what they were saying stands to reason, is not self-contradictory (a sound argument) and if the premises are true (a valid argument). For example, I watched a Joe Rogan episode where him and Peterson spoke, and in that episode they spoke broadly on psychology and neuroscience for most of the episode. Later, Peterson spoke about how a carnivore diet of simply meats and greens, no carbs, had had a profound effect on his and his daughter's life. Before he began, he paused the dialogue to say, in no uncertain terms to the audience, that he was now exiting the realm of his expertise as a Psychologist, and entering the realm of an uninitiated citizen scientist. I also recall him making a similar remark in one of his lectures when he merely mentioned astrophysicists, he basically brought it up so he could be clear that he knew nothing about it. So that pretty clearly demonstrates an acknowledgement that he may be speaking in pseudoscientific, non-holistic terms on certain topics outside the realm of his expertise. Did Peterson say this before he spoke in the clip about climate change, climatology, and public policy? Well, who the hell knows? The dishonest host didn't give us that. How convenient that he doesn't have to present any contradictory evidence to his narrative. He couldn't poison the well so effectively that way. It's rich to say that Peterson was being obtuse in that clip with his usage of the word "everything," when the host himself is so damn obtuse that he thinks nobody who isn't credentialed gets to speak on a certain topic. Should he should shut the fuck up too, then? Or can we drop the dishonest charade and take people's arguments a priori? This is effectively a fancy way to do ad hominem. I don't have to prove his argument wrong, I can just point to the fact that he doesn't have a degree on that topic! Alright, so where's your degree? Yet I don't hear a single leftist or liberal object to when an astrophysicist like Neil Degrasse Tyson runs his mouth on climatology and public policy. Because they don't disagree with his judgements, they see no need to discredit him based on his mismatched credentials. Forget that he effectively agrees with Aristotle's Dictatorship of the Wise, and loves the idea of the creation of a State called Rationalia, potentially to be created on another planet; see the Cult of Rationality during the French Revolution and see how that went. All of the elite and political class do this; see Billie Eilish and Woody Harrelson pushing radical climate action as well. This is a cheap trick of a religious dogma, and moral people would do well to recognize it, and abandon it. The idea that some ill-defined group of Experts™ gets to decide all matters of public policy based off of their so-called expertise, and more importantly, that they get to be the arbiters of all truth, is a dogmatic, religious principle. Such principles based on a dogmatic, religious faith in mankind, are destined to lead to institutional oppression. Especially when the argument is "well the Experts™ have a lot of things to say on what we should do!" Yes, they certainly do, and they're shit ideas. Fuck the frackers, fuck the workers who labor for oil, fuck the peasants who would go bankrupt if they had to pay $10.50/gal for gas and can't afford a prius or tesla. Our Moral Betters™ and our Experts™ say it's time for climate action! We don't have to balance public policy with any other needs! Oh but I'm not a climatologist, am I? So I guess I shouldn't vote for people who disagree with them either, perhaps I shouldn't have the right to vote at all if I disagree with them. Do they believe this? Well, maybe if they took their arugments to their logical conclusion. They wouldn't argue this way if they actually had intellectual discourse with others, and they wouldn't need to be dishonest.
+
+<!--Ultratrepidarianism... The left seems only to value the opinion of people who agree with them. They will only bring up credentials or expertise when it's convenient for them. They won't ever do it with every dumbass actor in hollywood [ricky gervais railing hollywood] mouthing off about every sociopolitical issue, because they AGREE with all those leftist elites. But even then, for some reason, the only "experts" they, and perhaps America at large, seem to care about, are so-called scientific experts. They don't care about religious experts, philosophical experts, humanities experts. https://www.youtube.com/live/Dk6j_M_bge8?si=mP8ZEm8Hr_bUYvDR&t=1515 It's the AMERICAN PEOPLE who are to be the experts on these things, not unelected beauraucrats that have their own interests and know nothing of the individual experiences of anybody but their own. I've never thought about it that way before... By any metrics, Peterson is an expert in the humanities. Philosophy, Anthropology, History, Biology, Psychoanalytics. He's absolutely an expert. The only reason you don't think he should have a say is because you don't like what he has to say. That's fucking it. Stop trying to hide the ball here. All you're trying to do here is discredit him, because you don't like him, because you disagree with him. Though I'm not certain you even know WHY you disagree.-->
+
+So a Psychologist can't talk about "trans issues" either? Why not? There's no scientific inquiry to be made from his field of expertise on the subject? Or is this because people don't like what he has to say about the topic, given his field of expertise?
+
+In essence, everyone should be able to speak on whatever topic they please. There's a responsibility in doing so, in that there are people who disagree who are going to voice their disagreement. If all they do is counter speech with dissentful speech, there's no problem. But the side for which you are arguing for wants to legislate to punish you, through force of law, which inevitably will be backed up with the government gun, for the language you use. Other than his psychological analysis, the only reason he's ever spoken on "trans issues" is because of such totalitarian law as Canada's Gender Identity Rights Bill C16. And for the same reason, he's famous; people were outraged, and that outrage drove a lot of people to hear what he was saying.
+
+If you think he's sexist, I don't know what to tell you other than that you haven't listened to him. Is it sexist to say there are biological differences between men and women, intrinsic to our design, and that we therefore function in drastically different ways? Is it sexist to call online incels pathetic for their behavior? Is it sexist to say that a man who sees no responsibility in becoming a protector of those less fortunate, strong, or willing to release their inner monster, is weak? Is it sexist to make the case that women are a significant contributor towards the reason that primates evolved to be able to see as clearly as we do? Is it sexist to say that women are also the reason that our species has become as intelligent as we are? I don't think you've labored enough in order to claim that you understand his philosophy of life, if you still think he's somehow sexist.
+
+The next argument you make is interesting, that even if he somehow held the key to the meaning of life, and that were true, that you still wouldn't care? This seems like a very bitter and incomplete thought. If the meaning to life exists anywhere, would discovering and obtaining it not the only thing that matters?! Isn't that what we're all searching for, is meaning?? Now, I don't think he's cracked the code, I think he's taken the best crack at it of anyone in my somewhat vast array of knowledge. I don't think there's anything to lose, taking a deep dive into such philosophy. If you come out and it's completely worthless, at least now you can say exactly why you're convinced as such. If you come out and it's got a preponderance of truth to it, then you've still profited! So how can you know it's false if you haven't absorbed more of it? My theory is that because you were younger when you considered yourself a fan of his, you didn't fully grasp it, and now you assume that the snippets you see of him back up the negativity bias you've developed. Isn't it worth another shot?
+
+How can you simultaneously say that his reasoning is so profound that it becomes grandiose, exaggeratory, and frustrating, but also that his advice is too simple to be of any value? This seems to me to be a very flawed conception of his philosophy. You recall in previous voice memos I've spoken about the rich leper who was told by Jesus to wash in the river Jordan? Before we do great things, we must first do simple things; we have to start the first place we possibly can, otherwise we never start. So when he's simple he's too simple, but when he's complex he's too complex?
+
+So in terms of getting back to dry land, you think that Tate would be a better shipmate than Peterson? Tate is a broken clock and has no self-awareness. He says correct things on accident and most the time he couldn't tell you why. He says straight up evil things on a daily basis, and beyond that, you and I know that there's no question that he's a sexist. That's not even in the same ballpark as Peterson even by your standard, yet you'd jump out the boat without a life preserver if it were captained by Peterson, but if it were captained by Tate you'd stay?
+
+You say they "go in" on his character? It sounds like you're describing a character assassination. That's not a good thing. It's maligning and misrepresentation at its finest, intended to destroy him. It's anti-intellectual, non-holistic, psuedoscientific, religiously dogmatic, and frankly totalitarian. The only thing that differentiates someone who thinks like them, and a tyrant, is the willpower and competence with which to create an organizational structure behind their ideology.
+
+So when you see someone you dislike, you go to other people who dislike them in order to figure out what the arguments against them are, so you can build for yourself a better explanation for why you dislike them? Healthy skepticism is a necessity of life, but I think you have to be careful with that; this tends to feed confirmation bias. I think you need to synthesize all the information you can, and make as cogent arguments as possible against whatever you're listening to. If something doesn't sound right to me, I tend to pause and think about it, a lot of the time, out loud. I'll do this whenever something seems non-holistic; I pause and ask myself, or others, why that's wrong. It's easy to look at a pre-edited, synthesized collection of clips in context and someone's commentaries on them. It's far more difficult to actually discern the truth for yourself, but it's damn worth it. You have to go to the source, if you want to know whether or not it is true, not a cherrypicking of the source. If it involves all of the source, or at least, enough to make sense of what's actually being said without commentary cutting in to obscure the original intent of the messaging, only then can you have a rational judgement of it. Otherwise, it's entirely subjective and intangible, which is the worst aspect of that video as far as I can see.
+
+I want to emphasize that I knew what I was asking for when I sent you my position. I enjoy the process of rational discernment, I enjoy discourse, so the fact you disagree is not at all disatisfactory to me. If at all I am disatisfied, it's when I think the explanations for the conclusions are lacking, which is why I spent all the time typing this out. I believe, as you do, that we're both valuable, and we don't want either of us to be led astray by lies masquerading as truth. It's hard to tell the difference, thus the disagreement, thus the dialogue. We're both exploring to make sure our understanding is true, because neither of us can know what only the other has witnessed. This is why I sent my witness to you. It can be uncomfortable to disagree, but I don't hold your frustration against you when I'd be blind if I couldn't see it in myself. If we're frustrated, it's not with each other. We're frustrated that we're being confronted with a lack of common understanding, and that's human.
+
+I think your system for role models is headed in the right direction; it's based on truth, not on people. When people say things you believe to be untrue, you reject those ideas. This is correct; you're not worshipping a person and believing everything they say, you're taking their statements at face value and discerning whether or not you think they are true given your understanding thus far. I think Peterson would fit into your system better than you know, and I believe you're sorely mistaken when you say he has nothing of value to offer you. Maybe he became senile since 2017, I don't know, that's just what I'm listening to right now. But I think there's much wisdom in his words and for whatever it's worth, I want to offer a secondary opinion in that I think he's worth giving another try, perhaps from the beginning, as I did. If you can separate the wheat from the chaff with Kanye, who is far more contradictory and convoluted, I have no doubt you could do it with Peterson. I have my poddies lined up with people I disagree with on the daily and I do the same thing with them as I do with anyone.
+
+Again, I don't believe in role models in the sense that we should look up to the people for who they are, I think we should look up to the praiseworthy things people did while also being able to criticize what they didn't do well. Which I think we agree on, the issue is that the term 'Role Model' suffers from semantic overload, in that it means many things to many people, so we have to redefine the term to ensure we're both referring to the same thing. The term 'nitpick' also suffers from this. We both look up to Kanye for his creative endeavors, for his success, for his willpower and his charisma. We both are sane, so we're able to see that he's quite the antihero; quite a flawed man, to an extreme extent. We love him in spite of his flaws, we don't hate him in spite of his corruption.
+
+I, of course, respect your rationale; there's much truth supporting it. I may do a poddy on the video just so I can know with a greater degree of certainty why I disagree as I discern and carve up a greater rationalization. Perhaps you could join me on it, though that could cause us to turn a 2 hour video into a 15 hour battle of intellect, and I wish to be as respectful of your time as I am protective of mine. Which surely begs the question as to whether or not the discussion was worth it for both of us? I suppose that remains to be seen.
+
+https://youtu.be/5_yHwzoGILk?si=izBUqfR5ILSU9cSJ&t=5918
+
+Attempting to clarify the meaning of words
+https://youtu.be/MnUfXYGtT5Q?si=a30kL7wdGnBXrLK8&t=3995
+
+the main themes 12 rules for life 2019-07-28 1:29:00 discussing the danger in people who feel the need to worship him and everything he says… humility
+“if the court jester isn’t vicious, then you’re probably not too stupid… that the satire stays lighthearted because then i haven’t made any particularly egregious mistakes”
+if i were in my 20s perhaps it would be going to my head, but being 55 gives me some humility
+pretty sensible person surrounded by sensible people, I’m not gonna lose sight
+
+Territory, Hierarchy, Security, and Fear 2019-11-08
+53:00 we have term limits in place so we can depose hierarchies, 4-8 years with this pack of idiots, then replace them with a new pack of idiots. Nothing changes, but nothing changes for worse! and we tend away from tyrannies.
+1:21:20 asked to say "this is kermit the frog reporting from sesame street" ... "go to hell"
+"what advice would you give to newlyweds?" "fight."
+"'we never fight' that's because you're cowardly."
+"i didn't say debate, because I don't mean debate. I mean fight."
+
+2019-09-01 the world is your oyster
+~1:15:00 talking about his involvement with the climate change bibgas, he really speaks on more than retards give him credit for

yt/DraconianDiscourse/DragonsDesk/2025-03-09 Luci's Lament.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+The devil, or anyone who was alive for thousands of years, for that matter, would not be as cynical as she was in this story. Her Cynicism is laid bare by the assumption that all those with fortune and power universally got it through unjust means, by stealing from others. She also assumes that all suffering is the collective responsibility of humanity, and she refuses to put it in individual terms, yet still blames the drunken humans for rejecting her. We are all individuals first, whether we like it or not, and you're not going to convince anyone towards anything but discontent for you if you lay the sins of others at their feet. Responsibility that is everyone's, quickly becomes noone's, then they become forgotten and waved away. No, the collective is not responsible for the moral failures of others. We are each responsible for the moral failures of only ourselves.
+
+No, nobody who lived that long would still be so cynical. Cynicism is the adaptive mechanism of those who were traumatized by malevolence. It takes a lot of time to progress past that attitude, but it's possible, worth it, and perhaps inevitable, especially if you live for eternity. Nobody is capable of creating utopia. Utopia is a conceptual dream- the archetypical heaven where there is no suffering and all is perfect. There is no such thing in material reality, and we are not capable of bringing it about. Whenever we try, we create dystopia. This universe comes with entropy built-in. Every "perfect" thing is flawed, and every "perfect" thing you attempt to create will one day return to the dust from whence it came.
+
+Hell is Chaos, and Heaven is Order. Too much Order for its own sake is Tyranny, too much Chaos for its own sake is Anarchy. Utopian visions such as Luci's in this story, have brought about every genocidal tyranny and corrupt order known to man. Awfully convenient for her and her ilk to blame the failures of Utopians on humanity's selfishness and squandering of their free will. The failures of Utopians are entirely their own, and are caused by their blindness to material reality and to their own ineptitudes. Their devotion to their perfect order creates more suffering than if they had actively tried to cause more suffering. Strive not for perfection, strive for incremental improvement day by day, and you will find yourself in a place of much harmony when you grow old. Strive for perfection first, and harmony will be the same naive, wistful dream as your utopia. The author of this story chose Luci as their avatar by which they could chastise humanity for not realizing their idealistic, utopian vision. So the world is full of suffering. Reality is hell, that much is true. No amount of whining that other people misuse their agency will make that any better. Even if they did everything you believe they ought to, with your perfect moral vision, it would only make things worse than you could ever imagine. Hell is the default state of nature. Any escape from it we get is a damn miracle. If you think the opposite, that Heaven is the default and that we exist outside of it by choice, you will become miserable, you will blame your misery on the agency of others, and you will victimize them all as they continue to frustrate you with their agency. The author of the Social Credit story understood this, the author of this story did not.
+
+Set your own house in order before you criticize the world, much less in such a dismissive manner, and with such unearned moral loftiness.

yt/DraconianDiscourse/DragonsDesk/EFAP versus Job.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+~ 3:39:00 Didn't Rags go to a Catholic school? IIRC he mentioned it previously, but point being, I thought he would know what Fear means in the biblical sense. Those words don't mean the same things they mean today. In the Biblical context, to Fear is to respect, to revere. But if God is capable of taking away everything you worked for in your life, perhaps we should fear him in the modern sense of the word, too...
+
+edit: I thought I was correct; Rags commented on this distinction later. Good boy Rag!
+
+Not to point fingers, but as a matter of fact: it's easier to be casually dismissive of a story when you haven't read the original text. People's simplistic retellings and rationalizations are admittedly frustrating. Far be it from me to defend the poor argumentation and reasoning of many religious people. They can flounder with their poor interpretations; I speak only for myself. It's easy to attack poor argumentation. Your skepticism makes you wiser than those who preach blind faith. But if you are to challenge any school of thought, not in the least one that has transfixed billions of people throughout history, then it serves us right, in seeking the truth, to acknowledge only the greatest possible arguments for said school. There are many people in chat, for example, who abstractly agree with you, but can't necessarily articulate why. In the same way that you wouldn't prefer your position to be represented by them, it's only fair that the Judeo-Christian worldview be given the best arguments from the most charitable lens. Not everyone who claims belief in the Bible have read and comprehended it. But out of those who can articulate their positions well, only those should be chosen to make arguments for and against the veracity of the supposed Truths within it. In other words, don't pick convenient enemies who make poor arguments to be your opposition. There are many a fool on reddit I could find to make poor arguments for atheism. Get in the ring with someone within your intellectual weight class, and let the fools on either side squabble on what level of comprehension they're capable of.
+
+The mythological story of Job is, at its core and at its best, this: no matter what undue suffering comes my way, I will be good. Though Hell came to me, both by acts of nature (God) and acts of others (Sabeans & Chaldeans) and though I may mourn the loss of everything good that was taken from me, I will not allow it to make me become bitter, resentful, and angry. This principle does indeed overlap with stoicism. Job is described as a perfect man in the original text; he is not like you or I. Hell is a state of being that comes upon us when our lives are overtaken by Chaos. Job was in Hell. And it's only fair to put yourself in his shoes and to wonder why he doesn't shake his fist at God for putting him there. But Job refuses to do so. Why? If you take God in a literalistic sense, as a moral actor like you or I, you'd be rightfully upset at him. But within the narrative itself and within its theology, God is the source of all that is; the personification of reality. So when something happens in reality, like a natural disaster, humans are forced to attempt to rationalize that in the only way we know how, by personifying it within a narrative lens. It's why storytelling (if not *good* storytelling) is a Human Universal. Humans need an explanation of reality, a Conceptual Schema, in order to continue to transform Chaos into Order. So how do you continue to live when your Schema is destroyed by Chaos? Job's example is presented as the ideal response; he doesn't blame his problems on the Chaldeans, nor the Sabeans, though they are responsible for some. He doesn't blame the natural disasters on the only person left to blame, nature itself, or God. He mourns, he struggles, he questions why he was ever born, he teeters on the brink of insanity as even his wife encourages him to give up. But he shoulders his burden and carries on. It's wiser to be cynical, skeptical, and untrusting, than to be naive, blind, and foolishly vulnerable to usurpation. It's not as if there is no wisdom to shaking your fist at God when he clearly allowed Hell to be brought about. But it's wiser still, to be courageous; to know that Hell, Chaos, is around the corner, and to have integrated your Shadow to be ready to meet it.
+
+But why would God do such a thing, if God is Good? I'm certain this isn't the first time we've encountered Theodicy. The better question to ask is this: if there were no Evil, could there be any Good? The only case there could be no God, is if there were no Evil. I'm not referring to a material, moral agent when I speak of God. I'm invoking the narrative manifestation of all there is, or perhaps, the hypothetical source of all the Good that there is. If there is Good that can be abstracted, and then condensed into an archetypical moral agent for the purposes of conceptual exploration within a narrative, that is God. So when God "makes drunken bets with Satan" to quote a member of chat, he's making a bet on his champion, Job. God says, he's perfect, which means he won't cease to believe that all that is Good will prevail, even if everything is taken from him. That courageous optimism; knowing Hell, but facing it head-on and not allowing it to win over you, speaks deeply to what it means to be Human. It's not as if this ancient story has stuck around for millenia, for no reason. Only a great fool would be casually dismissive of that. The less primitive wisdom of Cynicism must at least grapple with it.
+
+"'Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all" - Alfred Lord Tennyson

yt/DraconianDiscourse/DragonsDesk/Elitist Klien.md

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+Ethan was unbearable for practically this entire episode. I'm not voting against my own interests. I'm voting against YOURS. Your interests are in voting to steal money from those who have earned it and to give it to me, the poor, so that you can feel soooo good about yourself for being sooo nice! It turns out that there's nothing charitable about that. I'd rather die before I take handouts from politicians. You see, the difference between you and the people in the middle of the country, is that we have to LIVE with the policies that you champion. You don't have to deal with the catastrophe of a lessened police presence, with your multimillionaire mansion and gated community. You don't have to deal with entire communities becoming dependent on government. You don't have to deal with the shrinkflation of colleges, where we have to pay more, some even taking on massive debt, in order to become indoctrinated, brainwashed, and jobless in return. You made it, and you'd rather kick the ladder down than let us make it too. I don't want to be poor, I want to be as rich as I can possibly be, and I want the same for EVERYBODY. Democrats like yourselves NEED the American people to be as poor as possible, so you can swoop in with your savior complex and promise that you'll magically fix all of their problems and make all their dreams come true! I spit in the face of your sanctimonious, masturbatory, performative, paternalistic virtue-signaling. You'll never understand what it's like in the middle of the country, because you're as far removed from us as you could possibly be. Spiritually, ideologically, and morally. You don't want to understand us. You want us to shut up and take the Authoritarian Democrat Boot, promising that the sacrifice of our freedoms, and the sacrifice of the benevolent, woke corporations and billionaires, will fix all of our problems. Excuse me for wanting to take my future into my own hands. The solution to my problems is more ME, not more Government. If you take away my responsibility, you take away my rights. And I'll be damned if I ever willingly hand them over to the likes of you and the corporatists in silicon valley who couldn't tell a Utah Mormon from an Evangelist. You pretend like you have my best interests at heart. Until I defend my rights by keeping my firearms and voting to do so, until I refuse to go along with your attempts to compel speech, until I practice my religious beliefs, especially the ones that go against your utopian vision of the world. The only Church you go to is the Great and Abominable Church. You point and mock from the Great and Spacious Building, and you scoff at me for trying my best to act out a higher ideal, because you think it's useless, the foolish traditions of our fathers. You think you know better than we do about how to enact solutions to our problems. You don't get to spit at us and then give us your table scraps to lick from your dirty palms. We spit right back at you. We'll continue to give you and your ilk the finger with politicians like Trump. He's hardly an admirable figure. But he loves America, and he appreciates our values, culture, and way of life. And you hate him for it. You hate him, because you hate us. And you'll do with us as you did with him, everything and more. So I'm not sorry for not voting for YOUR interests, and no, I won't be cajoled or coerced into voting in all the tyrants you love. If you want to understand us, you wouldn't look down your nose at us. You're an elitist with none of the talent. And thus you'll be forever, unless you can ever dain to extend an olive branch outside your echo chamber.

yt/DraconianDiscourse/DragonsDesk/Elitist Klien_002.md

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Ethan was unbearable for practically this entire episode. I'm not voting against my own interests. I'm voting against YOURS. Your interests are in voting to steal money from those who have earned it and to give it to me, the poor, so that you can feel soooo good about yourself for being sooo nice! It turns out that there's nothing charitable about that. I'd rather die before I take handouts from politicians. You see, the difference between you and the people in the middle of the country, is that we have to LIVE with the policies that you champion. You don't have to deal with the catastrophe of a lessened police presence, with your multimillionaire mansion and gated community. You don't have to deal with entire communities becoming dependent on government. You don't have to deal with the shrinkflation of colleges, where we have to pay more, some even taking on massive debt, in order to become indoctrinated, brainwashed, and jobless in return. You made it, and you'd rather kick the ladder down than let us make it too. I don't want to be poor, I want to be as rich as I can possibly be, and I want the same for EVERYBODY. Democrats like yourselves NEED the American people to be as poor as possible, so you can swoop in with your savior complex and promise that you'll magically fix all of their problems and make all their dreams come true! I spit in the face of your sanctimonious, masturbatory, performative, paternalistic virtue-signaling. You'll never understand what it's like in the middle of the country, because you're as far removed from us as you could possibly be. Spiritually, ideologically, and morally. You don't want to understand us. You want us to shut up and take the Authoritarian Democrat Boot, promising that the sacrifice of our freedoms, and the sacrifice of the benevolent, woke corporations and billionaires, will fix all of our problems. Excuse me for wanting to take my future into my own hands. The solution to my problems is more ME, not more Government. If you take away my responsibility, you take away my rights. And I'll be damned if I ever willingly hand them over to the likes of you and the corporatists in silicon valley who couldn't tell a Utah Mormon from an Evangelist. You pretend like you have my best interests at heart. Until I defend my rights by keeping my firearms and voting to do so, until I refuse to go along with your attempts to compel speech, until I practice my religious beliefs, especially the ones that go against your utopian vision of the world. The only Church you go to is the Great and Abominable Church. You point and mock from the Great and Spacious Building, and you scoff at me for trying my best to act out a higher ideal, because you think it's useless, the foolish traditions of our fathers. You think you know better than we do about how to enact solutions to our problems. You don't get to spit at us and then give us your table scraps to lick from your dirty palms. We spit right back at you. We'll continue to give you and your ilk the finger with politicians like Trump. He's hardly an admirable figure. But he loves America, and he appreciates our values, culture, and way of life. And you hate him for it. You hate him, because you hate us. And you'll do with us as you did with him, everything and more. So I'm not sorry for not voting for YOUR interests, and no, I won't be cajoled or coerced into voting in all the tyrants you love. If you want to understand us, you wouldn't look down your nose at us. You're an elitist with none of the talent. And thus you'll be forever, unless you can ever dain to extend an olive branch outside your echo chamber.
+
+I don't have disdain for rich people for being rich. You want to have a lavish birthday party and hire people to cater and all that? More power to you. But the constant preaching down to the people in the middle of the country juxtaposed with your lifestyle is immensely tone-deaf. I can't afford to vote for *your* interests. I'm interested in getting as rich as you, and earning it. Your interests keep me from doing that. So yes, I vote against your interests. You can afford to toss money to the government so they can waste it and put your state into more and more crippling debt. You can afford to do that so you can make yourself feel better. Government isn't charitable. I can't afford to deal with the layoffs that come with high tax rates. I can't afford the lack of economic growth that big governments guarantee. You can take the hit. I cannot. You could afford the lavish parties, and you would have it so that I could never afford them. I don't want to be on welfare and foodstamps. I want to work and to be paid to do so. I want to contribute, and I sure as hell don't want to be dependent on the political class, the elitists you consider among your rank. I don't want to fight for the table scraps you were "gracious" enough to give to the government after you voted that their gun be turned on you to subsidize my poverty. I don't want my success to be the success of the Government. I want my success to be the success of myself.

yt/The Giant's Father/The Giant's Father.md

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+## A gun, in its most simplistic form, is the transcendent embodiment of all human power channeled into matter via Mankind's ability to create technology.
+
+## Now, obviously a male sees that and they go feral, a Male Marxist sees that and they go doubly feral, given their ideology's central thesis on power, compounding with their biological drive to use it.

yt/Why Furries Need Conservatives.md

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+Why Furries Need Conservatives

yt/Why Furries Need Conservatives_001.md

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Why Furries Need Conservatives
+
+## Well hello. A couple months ago, a certain video came across my twitter feed, and it piqued my interest. In this video, the question was asked: why do furries need conservatives? So I spent a fair bit of time on my podcast exploring the questions, accusations, and mischaracterizations made therein. And I, being one for beating dead horses, see fit now to elaborate on the subject. Both of us seemed to struggle to define what conservatism even is, though I at least was able to name several key characteristics, while the dissenting opinions in the comments seemed to be... far less descriptive... [nazi comments]
+
+## I think the real question that's being asked here, in earnest, encompasses far more than furries. American furries are a microcosm. Their culture is embedded within that of the sociopolitical, geological context within America, so this question, if asked in good faith, requires a step back, a broadening of the horizons, and God willing, some humility from all who seek the answer. The real question being asked here, is Why do Liberals need Conservatives?
+
+## And obviously we must define our terms here, so we're all on the same page. Most people use these terms colloquially, and quite flippantly at that. Many who use them couldn't define them if you asked them to. Some will reveal an operative definition so disappointingly narrow, you'll be forced to question why they're talking about it at all... [conservatives like to conserve things] Others will give such a verbose description that it takes hours of discussion to even broach the topic, and even then, they may not have given you a concrete definition as much as they have named every single belief held by those who brand themselves under the label. Guilty as charged. Perhaps I've taken a break from the podcast for good reason.
+
+## It's clear there is an operational framework required for defining these features, and I think I have just the one. The Meyers-Briggs- just kidding. If we're going to be pseudoscientific, we may as well be as scientific as possible. The five-factor model of personality, otherwise known as the Big Five personality traits. Each trait can have a low score or a high score. For the sake of simplicity, you can view each of these as sliders in a character creation sequence in a bethesda game. Low scores result in the opposite trait becoming dominant. Neutrality can exist between the polar opposite ends of each trait. In my experience, if you have autism, you tend to bounce between the extremes on many, if not all, of these traits, though you may still tend towards a certain comfort zone. Keep in mind that this framework isn't perfect, much like my understanding of it. Thinking scientifically is difficult, and even scientists don't do it well most the time. I use it because it provides a simple explanation of reality by allowing us to categorize the behaviors we observe in ourselves as indicative of certain traits, traits that can be measured by empirical evidence. Each trait is broken down into several facets, and each facet is scoreable based off of an observation of a behavior, particularly as a reaction to a broad range of stimuli. Such measurements have determined that these traits are highly biologically informed, if not outright determined. This is a crucial caviat for understanding the implications of this framework.
+
+## First: Openness, or openness to experience, is synonymous with creativity. [tony stark and peter parker] It is characterized by inventiveness and curiosity. They feel comfortable in a place where the boundaries are free and limitless to their exploration and experimentation. Those who score low in this trait are more consistent and cautious. Broadly, this trait reflects to the ability and interest in processing complex stimuli. There is no correlative link between sex and this trait, though women tend to score higher on the facets of Esthetics and Feelings, while men score higher on the Ideas facet.
+
+## Conscientiousness is synonymous with orderliness. Conscientous people are efficient and organized. They feel comfortable in a place where the boundaries are clearly, tightly drawn, and where everything remains in its proper place. [lego movie lord business irl] Those who score low in this trait are more extravagant and careless. Women score higher in some facets of conscientiousness, such as order, dutifulness, and self-discipline. These findings have not been replicated across cultures, so no correlation has been proven between conscientiousness and sex. Fascinatingly enough, those who score high in this trait are far more likely to react sharply to a stimulus such as a bad smell, a dirty word, or some sort of categorical insult. This facet is called a Novelty Aversion.
+
+## Extraversion is synonymous with sociability. [turk from tarzan?] Extraverts are outgoing and energetic. They feel comfortable where the people are, and they prefer to get to know them. Those who score low in this trait are more solitary and reserved. Males score higher in some facets of this trait, women on others. This one tends to be relatively balanced.
+
+## Agreeableness is synonymous with compassion. Highly agreeable people are quite friendly by disposition, want others to be happy, and want others to like them as well. They tend towards cooperation, social harmony, and the consideration of other's concerns. Those who score high in agreeableness find it difficult to put themselves first, even when they need to. Those who score low in this trait are more critical and judgemental. Female humans consistently score higher for agreeableness, while males are far more likely to be disagreeable, though there are exceptions to every rule, and they are rare. [stoic and valka, astrid and hiccup]
+
+## [piglet] Neuroticism is synonymous with negative emotion. Neurotic people are senstive and nervous by disposition. They feel comfortable nowhere, because everywhere the senses are activated, there are things to worry the conscience about. Those who score low in this trait are more resilient, confident, and damn lucky. Women disproportionately score higher in trait neuroticism, likely in correlation to their far lower risk tolerance in comparison to their male counterparts. Women are disproporationately anxious and have low self-esteem, though men tend to defeat women in anger, or Anger Hostility.
+
+## If you're interested in learning more about the data explored here, I've linked a couple articles in the description. If any of the descriptions I've provided remind you of yourself, perhaps you'll be interested in taking a test. You can purchase one at understandmyself.com or if you're poor and stingy, like me, there are plenty of free tests online.
+
+## These traits are constraining, but not entirely immovable. It is possible to mitigate the downsides of each trait. For example, some highly Agreeable individuals will find it difficult, indeed, they may consider it kryptonite to put their needs before the needs of others. This may hamper their ability to advance in their career path. Such people can take Assertiveness training, which employs a strategy a bit like this: every time your needs are trampled, or you're overlooked, or made to feel lesser than, you will feel resentment welling up inside. The natural inclination of the Agreeable is to quash that resentment. Assertiveness training encourages the Agreeable one to channel that resentment into a form that can put their needs first. Sometimes life itself puts you through Assertiveness training; I, for one, started out incredibly Agreeable, then became progressively more disagreeable as that was taken advantage of, and dismissed. Such is life. Those who cannot learn to stop sacrificing themselves, will be devoured by their own empathy. <!-- too bleak?-->
+
+## So now that I've thoroghly simplified, or perhaps complicated, the sociopolitical landscape, now we can square that with our understanding of the occupants of said landascape.
+
+## This landscape is embedded within the most broad landscape that we all exist in: the narrative landscape. First, everything in the universe can be fundamentally categorized into two groups: that which we know, and that which we do not know. The territory of the Unknown, or Chaos, is vast and expansive, far more than any one of us can ever know. The territory of the Known, or Order, is small, finite, and precious. We, as rationally self-interested beings, intelligent and self-conscious, are designed to make chaos into order. Regardless of our big five trait scores, we all have a part to play within this Order, whether it's in preserving it, or whether it's in disrupting it for its benefit.
+
+## Let's start with conservatives, after all, that's why we're in this mess. The conservative temperament is primarily conscientious, and secondarily disagreeable. I believe the latter is an outgrowth of the former, though it could be vice versa and likely varies per person. Conscientious people prefer rules, order, and categorizations. They are quite novelty-averse, meaning that which is new, or Chaos, causes them to react highly cautiously and distrustfully and on the extreme end, violently. This is why those with a conservative temperament may suffer from out-group homogeneity bias in a more abject way than their liberal counterparts. This bias, for those who don't know, is a human universal. It is the tendency to erronously percieve that one's in-group is more diverse than out-groups. You see, when we're with our in-group, we percieve that group as diverse, because we know each member by name. We each share an abstracted ideal, values, a common conceptual schema, so we may behave similarly to one another, and we have our own culture, customs, inside jokes, and other common behaviors, but we're all individuals and thus we do not think as one. When you neither know nor understand the out-group, it's far easier to dismiss them as monotypic, when that group is just as diverse as the in-group. This is a human universal because again, Chaos is so expansive that we must simplify it into digestible categories in order to efficiently deal with it. Once we bring more light [lion king] upon the Chaos, and bring more of it to Order, the additional information is sufficient to bring even more of it to proper order. But until we can understand each other more deeply, we must categorize each other in order to continue living our lives without getting a headache.
+
+## Those with a conservative temperament are not comfortable where the bondaries are not well-defined. They are not comfortable with Chaos. They see extravagance and carelessness as tantamount to suicide. They aren't completely risk-averse, and can be blinded by disagreeableness, but they're risk-averse enough to maintain Order well enough to make the Order habitable and prosperous. Often, their dedication to Order can reach near-autistic levels. [10 cloverfield lane] Living under such an Order can be oppresive. It will feel especailly oppressive to those high in Openness, who see Order as limitation and confinement. It's not difficult to imagine how this conflict arises. To be efficient and organized, is to be judgemental; when an ideal or aim is set, a judgement is required in assessing whether the mark has been hit or missed. [robin hood? brave?] Pure conscientiousness sees a missed mark, otherwise defined as a Sin, as an objective failure, and will seek to rectify it without delay or shame. Those who score low in conscientiousness don't care when they miss the mark, and hardly even see it worthwhile to aim in the first place. Conscientious individuals can't help but to see missed marks wherever they look, and will often point out their existence to whomever will listen. This makes them critical and judgemental, which is categorically disagreeable. Thus, the Conservative Ethos tends to come off as cold and heartless, and at its most disagreeable, downright disdainful and rude. This, clearly, is when their liberal counterparts are least happy with them.
+
+## The highly conscientious will avoid Chaos at any cost, and prefer to work their entire lives at their maximum capacity. Conscientiousness is likely to be responsible for the vast majority of the global GDP at any given time in history, though this is near impossible to quantify. There are some people where, if you were to air-drop them onto an island with nothing but a hatchet, they would do nothing but chop down trees, build shelters, and work themselves to the bone for the rest of their lives. These are the hyper-conscientious. They often need help with balance in their life, but they have to be told it in the language of Conscientiousness; the work-obsessed CEO can be convinced with the data that productivity significantly increases when breaks are allowed or mandated, and when vacations are taken. So they can stop putting in 16 hour days, if it means that they can get the same amount of work done in 8 hours, because they more mentally organized, prepared, and efficient. A car traveling at low speeds has better mileage. But a car traveling at high speeds will get further faster. So fuel up completely, and spend more time at home, because your wife and children desperately need you there.
+
+## The Liberal Temperament is primarily Open, and secondarily Agreeable. Those who are high in 
+
+They often feel comfortable in a chaos of their own creation, given the beauty thereof, and that is where they often seek to be.
+
+If you find yourself agreeing with one temperament over the other, and cannot see the value in sharing a society with the other, you're missing the entire point.

yt/Why Furries Need Conservatives_002.md

@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+Why Furries Need Conservatives
+
+## Well hello. A couple months ago, a certain video came across my twitter feed, and it piqued my interest. In this video, the question was asked: why do furries need conservatives? So I spent a fair bit of time on my podcast exploring the questions, accusations, and mischaracterizations made therein. And I, being one for beating dead horses, see fit now to elaborate on the subject. Both of us seemed to struggle to define what conservatism even is, though I at least was able to name several key characteristics, while the dissenting opinions in the comments seemed to be... far less descriptive... [nazi comments]
+
+## I think the real question that's being asked here, in earnest, encompasses far more than furries. American furries are a microcosm. Their culture is embedded within that of the sociopolitical, geological context within America, so this question, if asked in good faith, requires a step back, a broadening of the horizons, and God willing, some humility from all who seek the answer. The real question being asked here, is Why do Liberals need Conservatives?
+
+## And obviously we must define our terms here, so we're all on the same page. Most people use these terms colloquially, and quite flippantly at that. Many who use them couldn't define them if you asked them to. Some will reveal an operative definition so disappointingly narrow, you'll be forced to question why they're talking about it at all... [conservatives like to conserve things] Others will give such a verbose description that it takes hours of discussion to even broach the topic, and even then, they may not have given you a concrete definition as much as they have named every single belief held by those who brand themselves under the label. Guilty as charged. Perhaps I've taken a break from the podcast for good reason.
+
+## It's clear there is an operational framework required for defining these features, and I think I have just the one. The Meyers-Briggs- just kidding. If we're going to be pseudoscientific, we may as well be as scientific as possible. The five-factor model of personality, otherwise known as the Big Five personality traits. Each trait can have a low score or a high score. For the sake of simplicity, you can view each of these as sliders in a character creation sequence in a bethesda game. Low scores result in the opposite trait becoming dominant. Neutrality can exist between the polar opposite ends of each trait. In my experience, if you have autism, you tend to bounce between the extremes on many, if not all, of these traits, though you may still tend towards a certain comfort zone. Keep in mind that this framework isn't perfect, much like my understanding of it. Thinking scientifically is difficult, and even scientists don't do it well most the time. I use it because it provides a simple explanation of reality by allowing us to categorize the behaviors we observe in ourselves as indicative of certain traits, traits that can be measured by empirical evidence. Each trait is broken down into several facets, and each facet is scoreable based off of an observation of a behavior, particularly as a reaction to a broad range of stimuli. Such measurements have determined that these traits are highly biologically informed, if not outright determined. This is a crucial caviat for understanding the implications of this framework.
+
+## First: Openness, or openness to experience, is synonymous with creativity. [tony stark and peter parker] It is characterized by inventiveness and curiosity. They feel comfortable in a place where the boundaries are free and limitless to their exploration and experimentation. Those who score low in this trait are more consistent and cautious. Broadly, this trait reflects to the ability and interest in processing complex stimuli. There is no correlative link between sex and this trait, though women tend to score higher on the facets of Esthetics and Feelings, while men score higher on the Ideas facet.
+
+## Conscientiousness is synonymous with orderliness. Conscientous people are efficient and organized. They feel comfortable in a place where the boundaries are clearly, tightly drawn, and where everything remains in its proper place. [lego movie lord business irl] Those who score low in this trait are more extravagant and careless. Women score higher in some facets of conscientiousness, such as order, dutifulness, and self-discipline. These findings have not been replicated across cultures, so no correlation has been proven between conscientiousness and sex. Fascinatingly enough, those who score high in this trait are far more likely to react sharply to a stimulus such as a bad smell, a dirty word, or some sort of categorical insult. This facet is called a Novelty Aversion.
+
+## Extraversion is synonymous with sociability. [turk from tarzan?] Extraverts are outgoing and energetic. They feel comfortable where the people are, and they prefer to get to know them. Those who score low in this trait are more solitary and reserved. Males score higher in some facets of this trait, women on others. This one tends to be relatively balanced.
+
+## Agreeableness is synonymous with compassion. Highly agreeable people are quite friendly by disposition, want others to be happy, and want others to like them as well. They tend towards cooperation, social harmony, and the consideration of other's concerns. Those who score high in agreeableness find it difficult to put themselves first, even when they need to. Those who score low in this trait are more critical and judgemental. Female humans consistently score higher for agreeableness, while males are far more likely to be disagreeable, though there are exceptions to every rule, and they are rare. [stoic and valka, astrid and hiccup]
+
+## [piglet] Neuroticism is synonymous with negative emotion. Neurotic people are senstive and nervous by disposition. They feel comfortable nowhere, because everywhere the senses are activated, there are things to worry the conscience about. Those who score low in this trait are more resilient, confident, and damn lucky. Women disproportionately score higher in trait neuroticism, likely in correlation to their far lower risk tolerance in comparison to their male counterparts. Women are disproporationately anxious and have low self-esteem, though men tend to defeat women in anger, or Anger Hostility.
+
+## If you're interested in learning more about the data explored here, I've linked a couple articles in the description. If any of the descriptions I've provided remind you of yourself, perhaps you'll be interested in taking a test. You can purchase one at understandmyself.com or if you're poor and stingy, like me, there are plenty of free tests online.
+
+## These traits are constraining, but not entirely immovable. It is possible to mitigate the downsides of each trait. For example, some highly Agreeable individuals will find it difficult, indeed, they may consider it kryptonite to put their needs before the needs of others. This may hamper their ability to advance in their career path. Such people can take Assertiveness training, which employs a strategy a bit like this: every time your needs are trampled, or you're overlooked, or made to feel lesser than, you will feel resentment welling up inside. The natural inclination of the Agreeable is to quash that resentment. Assertiveness training encourages the Agreeable one to channel that resentment into a form that can put their needs first. Sometimes life itself puts you through Assertiveness training; I, for one, started out incredibly Agreeable, then became progressively more disagreeable as that was taken advantage of, and dismissed. Such is life. Those who cannot learn to stop sacrificing themselves, will be devoured by their own empathy. <!-- too bleak?-->
+
+## So now that I've thoroghly simplified, or perhaps complicated, the sociopolitical landscape, now we can square that with our understanding of the occupants of said landascape.
+
+## This landscape is embedded within the most broad landscape that we all exist in: the narrative landscape. First, everything in the universe can be fundamentally categorized into two groups: that which we know, and that which we do not know. The territory of the Unknown, or Chaos, is vast and expansive, far more than any one of us can ever know. The territory of the Known, or Order, is small, finite, and precious. We, as rationally self-interested beings, intelligent and self-conscious, are designed to make chaos into order. Regardless of our big five trait scores, we all have a part to play within this Order, whether it's in preserving it, or whether it's in disrupting it for its benefit.
+
+## Let's start with conservatives, after all, that's why we're in this mess. The conservative temperament is primarily conscientious, and secondarily disagreeable. I believe the latter is an outgrowth of the former, though it could be vice versa and likely varies per person. Conscientious people prefer rules, order, and categorizations. They are quite novelty-averse, meaning that which is new, or Chaos, causes them to react highly cautiously and distrustfully and on the extreme end, violently. This is why those with a conservative temperament may suffer from out-group homogeneity bias in a more abject way than their liberal counterparts. This bias, for those who don't know, is a human universal. It is the tendency to erronously percieve that one's in-group is more diverse than out-groups. You see, when we're with our in-group, we percieve that group as diverse, because we know each member by name. We each share an abstracted ideal, values, a common conceptual schema, so we may behave similarly to one another, and we have our own culture, customs, inside jokes, and other common behaviors, but we're all individuals and thus we do not think as one. When you neither know nor understand the out-group, it's far easier to dismiss them as monotypic, when that group is just as diverse as the in-group. This is a human universal because again, Chaos is so expansive that we must simplify it into digestible categories in order to efficiently deal with it. Once we bring more light [lion king] upon the Chaos, and bring more of it to Order, the additional information is sufficient to bring even more of it to proper order. But until we can understand each other more deeply, we must categorize each other in order to continue living our lives without getting a headache.
+
+## Those with a conservative temperament are not comfortable where the bondaries are not well-defined. They are not comfortable with Chaos. They see extravagance and carelessness as tantamount to suicide. They aren't completely risk-averse, and can be blinded by disagreeableness, but they're risk-averse enough to maintain Order well enough to make the Order habitable and prosperous. Often, their dedication to Order can reach near-autistic levels. [10 cloverfield lane] Living under such an Order can be oppresive. It will feel especailly oppressive to those high in Openness, who see Order as limitation and confinement. It's not difficult to imagine how this conflict arises. To be efficient and organized, is to be judgemental; when an ideal or aim is set, a judgement is required in assessing whether the mark has been hit or missed. [robin hood? brave?] Pure conscientiousness sees a missed mark, otherwise defined as a Sin, as an objective failure, and will seek to rectify it without delay or shame. Those who score low in conscientiousness don't care when they miss the mark, and hardly even see it worthwhile to aim in the first place. Conscientious individuals can't help but to see missed marks wherever they look, and will often point out their existence to whomever will listen. This makes them critical and judgemental, which is categorically disagreeable. Thus, the Conservative Ethos tends to come off as cold and heartless, and at its most disagreeable, downright disdainful and rude. This, clearly, is when their liberal counterparts are least happy with them.
+
+## The highly conscientious will avoid Chaos at any cost, and prefer to work their entire lives at their maximum capacity. Conscientiousness is likely to be responsible for the vast majority of the global GDP at any given time in history, though this is near impossible to quantify. There are some people where, if you were to air-drop them onto an island with nothing but a hatchet, they would do nothing but chop down trees, build shelters, and work themselves to the bone for the rest of their lives. These are the hyper-conscientious. They often need help with balance in their life, but they have to be told it in the language of Conscientiousness; the work-obsessed CEO can be convinced with the data that productivity significantly increases when breaks are allowed or mandated, and when vacations are taken. So they can stop putting in 16 hour days, if it means that they can get the same amount of work done in 8 hours, because they more mentally organized, prepared, and efficient. A car traveling at low speeds has better mileage. But a car traveling at high speeds will get further faster. So fuel up completely, and spend more time at home, because your wife and children desperately need you there.
+
+## The Liberal Temperament is primarily Open, and secondarily Agreeable. In this case, I believe there is no correlation between the two; in today's America, there is a growing chasm between the two. Those who are high in Openness prefer adventure, limitless and expansive. They prefer to experiment with their surroundings, innovating and creating, learning and expanding their horizons. [stark and parker] They often feel comfortable in a chaos of their own creation, given the beauty thereof, and that is where they work to be. On the extreme end, they are so destructive of boundaries that the chaos is inevitable for them. [joe hawley] They may find themselves resisting all forms of labels because their identity relies on boundless infinity. [hobie brown] They tend to embrace Chaos and to oppose whatever Order is in place. They find it difficult to understand concepts of dutifulness and self-discipline. Often, they struggle with accusations that they believe they are above the rules, even if they do understand them. They may struggle in school, not because they aren't bright, quite the opposite; because they are too bright to allow themselves to be subject to the hierarchal, orderly nature of organized schooling. Openness is synonymous to intellect, though overall IQ is not necessarily correlated. Several facets of Openness include Esthetic and Feelings, which women score higher on, and Ideas, which men score higher on, on average. They tend to be less novelty-averse; they seek to understand that which is new, rather than assuming it is dangerous. They tend to be resistant to out-group homogeneity bias, more so than their conservative counterparts. Often their disdain for boundaries and rules make them resistant to all types of groupthink, and the groups they gravitate towards are individuals first. Open liberals are the promoters of radical individualism. Groupthink is tiring or even sickening to them, no matter which group is participating in it. This is strictly due to their aversion to categorization. They seek not to be defined by anything, let alone that which they cannot control. They seek not to define others that way, either, because they don't want to limit their options of people they can participate in discussions with, if that means they can learn something new from them. Their love of Chaos, of novelty, can be their downfall in many cases.
+
+## They tend to go all or nothing on their creations. They have no concept of 80-hour work weeks; on the contrary, they tend to spend their entire time exploring the vast expanse of chaos. This does not mean they are useless in a market economy, far from it. They are the generators of all the innovations. They are the movers of the market, and at large, society, from the technology, customs, and conventions of yesterday, to that of tomorrow. The metaphysical frontier exists within the view of their psyche, and they seek to conquer it all, sometimes to such a crushing degree that they're overwhelmed by the existential burden of the knowledge they've gathered. They're entrepreneurial; once they invent something of use to somebody, they create unimaginably successful businesses, or even singlehandedly create brand new markets unimaginable from those of yesterday. [ford, meet the robinsons?] Success is not guaranteed for them, however; their careers tend to be extremely high-risk high-reward. They make extremely risky investments of their time and resources, because they don't really understand how not to. This is why Artists struggle to make money or to get successful businesses off the ground. This is why industries that profit off of creativity are constantly having battles between the Artists, the idea-generators, and the executives who fund their projects. [brad bird vs. the executives @ disney] The Visionaries need to create, and can make a living off of doing it, but in order for that to happen and for their ideas to be publicized, the executives need to fund them, and they need to discipline them so that their work meets deadlines and is not wasteful of budget. The Creatives find this oppressive, but if they're in the industry, they know they need the funding in order to properly realize their ideas, share them with the world, and feed themselves at the same time. So they're willing to compromise their vision slightly rather than to sacrifice the whole like a monkey trap. Often, the limitations set by executives simply become additional creative challenges for them, and the work becomes better as a result. "They're not going to stop our creation" is a cry that pierces the heart of all creatives. [wolf of wall street, Iron Giant behind the scenes] However, this balance is tentative. If the creatives are given too much power, they run out of budget and miss deadlines, and the piece is not completed. If the executives are given too much power and oversight, and micromanage the creators, the creative vision is crushed and becomes barely profitable, meaningless corporate sludge. This is just one example of the balance [daoism] that is required in every facet of life, at every level of analysis.
+
+## Secondarily, Agreeableness. [the wild robot!!] Those who are highly Agreeable tend to desire social cohesion, and seek to consider other's concerns, to care for the needs of others. Agreeableness is synonymous with compassion. On the extreme end, they put others first to the degree that they will sacrifice their own needs to the needs of others, even unto the point of death. They find it difficult to be assertive and to stand up for themselves. The only case they will fight for their own needs, is when their own needs are tied up in the needs of others. They tend to prefer a place that is safe, where the needs of each are able to be cared for without compromise between said needs. Competing needs frustrate them; they desire a state of being where all needs can be met, perhaps except for their own. Balance is incredibly difficult in this state. Their compassion for others is so great, that what hatred they have is directed towards themselves, others who are functionally indistinguishable to themselves, or others who are so different from themselves, that they must be put in the category of predator. Women are disproportionately Agreeable, and thank God for that. If women weren't self-sacrificing and compassionate to such an incredible degree, none of us would be here. Newborns are incredibly taxing to take care of. It takes a lot of compassion-based restraint not to chuck 'em out the window, and if you don't believe that, you haven't gone through the exhaustion of being a parent to a newborn. The evolutionary biologist literature suggests that's why women are so Agreeable; every caretaker that abandoned their child was eradicated from the gene pool. So biology necessitates that parents sacrifice their own wants for that of their children, perhaps to an insane degree. [parents running to console coughing child in middle of night]
+
+## The Compassionate are wont to speak for the disposessed, for those who have no voice. They see the struggles of others as a call to action on their behalf, or perhaps on the behalf of the society that has left them behind. Some of the more conscientious among the compassionate, understand that others may not assist in their efforts to give a leg-up to the disposessed, and they will do it themselves. Some of the less conscientious, will dedicate their efforts to making the issues of the disposessed everybody else's problem, too. Dostoyevsky said, "There is only one way to salvation, and that is to make yourself responsible for all men's sins. As soon as you make yourself responsible in all sincerity for everything and for everyone, you will see at once that this is really so, and that you are in fact to blame for everyone and for all things." The overwhelmingly Agreeable take this principle to heart, though they may only enforce it against society at large, because their personal responsibilities are more pressing than that which is out of their control. Principles are, universally, easier preached than followed. Likewise compassion is easier expressed than enacted. The compassionate, when confronted with a heartbreaking situation, will advocate assistance towards the disposessed, some may donate to their cause. But if they attempted to right every wrong they witnessed, they'd forget to feed themselves. Many on the extreme end, do. [Chris from megapleggs... perhaps Ghandi? may be a bad example] So it must needs be that there is moderation in all things. Those who cannot stand up for themselves; children, those plagued by illness or addiction, the homeless, the mentally ill, the mentally and physically disabled, the disposessed at large, their struggles, challenges, and needs, require eyes, ears, action, and perhaps a mouthpiece on their behalf. For if the compassionate care not for those who cannot care for themselves, who will? Certainly not the disagreeable. The agreeable and the disagreeable, much like the Open and the Conscientious, must be confrontational in negotiating with each other. For when we cease to negotiate, we devolve into War and Chaos, on the individual and the societal level. The Compassionate are destined to knock on the doors of others, shaking down the disagreeable for the funds to care for those who suffer. [scrooge visited by beaker and dr funi] But the more they do so via the long arm of the state and the Government gun, the less willing the disagreeable will become. [are there no poorhouses...?]
+
+## So Agreeableness is incredibly important, and constructive. It can also be incredibly destructive. Pathological Agreeableness is akin to a mother bear. It's great to be within the sphere of her agreeableness. If you're adjacent to her sphere of Agreeableness, watch out; she *will* maul you. Protection of the needs of the in-group above all, necessitates aggression against the out-group. Mama bear does not have time to assess threats. She must assume all out-groupers are threats. When Agreeableness becomes Pathological, nothing but destruction is left in its wake. Archetypically, this is represented by the Devouring Mother, or the Evil Queen. She seeks to imprison the Noble Knight, stripping him of his strength and power, releasing him only when he is too weak and feeble to make any meaningful difference in the world. Neither him nor his strength, courage, nor sacrifice can benefit the Princess if the Evil Queen gets her way.
+
+## Openness and Agreeableness are allied, if not correlated. Those who are Creative and curious, create the means by which the Compassionate can meet the needs of those they have taken under their wing. Openness understands Agreeableness, as Openness seeks to understand all. Openness even understands Conscientiousness, though they may disagree on much, they respect each other. Conscientiousness also assists in creating the means for Compassion to meet needs. But Agreeableness often sees Conscientiousness as the enemy, identifying, and sometimes rightly so, that the Conscientious, and especially their overlap with the Disagreeable, creates the class of the disposessed. So Openness and Agreeableness have a pact to embrace Chaos, until the Chaos is so prevalent that Agreeableness has no more means to care for the disposessed. When resources are low, safety is a privilege, and needs cannot be met, Agreeableness flees to the Order maintained by Conscientiousness, and directs their Mama Bear towards those who disrupted the Order, even within their own ranks. The pathologically compassionate, likewise push the Visionaries away, due to their insistance on the tight boundaries of in-groups and out-groups, and also because too much Chaos is too disruptive to them.
+
+## If you find yourself agreeing with one temperament over the other, and cannot see the value in sharing a society with the other, you're missing the entire point. Liberals start all the successful businesses. Conservatives run them. Look at Tesla, for example. Elon Musk is psychologically Liberal; he's so devoted to exploring the Chaos, that he won't even purchase a home. His ideas break the mold constantly, innovating so intensely that he's practically singlehandedly created the entire electric vehicle market, something we would have thought impossible a decade ago. He's generated many now-ubiquitous ideas and businesses such as PayPal as well. His ideas are incredible and quite profitable, but he fucking sucks at compromising his boundary-breaking limitless ideas with the wisdom of the current Order. In less philosophical terms, his cars are efficient, sleek, and more than adequately serve the basic functions of their design. But they sacrifice safety, function, and convenience for the sake of novelty. For example, the wisdom of conventional controls for windshield wipers are as follows: the operation of the wipers is controlled by a physical lever. All of the parameters are set by additional controls on the lever that differ by make and model. Why is this the case? Because it allows the operation to be executed without taking up additional bandwidth in the prefrontal cortex. In other words, it's subconscious. The windshield wipers can be activated, and the speed adjusted, by muscle memory alone. It hardly has to be activated by the conscience. This allows the conscious to give its undivided attention to the road, which keeps the driver, their passengers, and all other individuals on the road, safe. The visionaries with lesser conscientiousness do not appreciate the utility of this and many other features of both our cars and our societies at large, often because they have never thought about it and have taken such wisdom for granted. The tesla model [IDK] has its wipers activated by touch screen. This requires the driver to take their eyes off the road, and tap the correct option. There is no tactical difference where anything but the eyes can recognize where the option is, and which one has been pressed. Tactical feedback is essential for confirmation of an operation being completed; this is why most people overwhemingly prefer a computer keyboard with a certain amount of feedback. Almost nobody prefers a keyboard with zero feedback. [citation needed] Try texting on your touchscreen smartphone with your eyes closed and without using your peripheral vision. Your thumbs remember the general areas to tap, but without the confirmation of viewing the inputs, you will absolutely make mistakes. Mistakes while texting are trivial. Mistakes while driving can be fatal. Similarly, many other features are locked behind the novelty of voice-activation. I forsee many of these so-called "innovations" will become things of the past, even with the assistance of AI. Communication, though it differs across languages, takes up much more mental bandwidth than subconscious actions, as it should. Speaking commands out loud disengages other bodily processes from the activity. Humans are not designed to be treated as consciousnesses in brains, and brains in bodies. We are consciousnesses intertwined with bodies, and the brain is just the central locus of it all. The brain is inseperable from the nervous system, so it's hardly accurate to say that the brain inhabits the head. The brain *is* the body. Point being, tactical feedback is far from pointless, and we'll be safer if we don't have to look down to command the most basic functions of the death machines we operate on a daily basis.
+
+## Additionally, whatever you think of the visual design of the Cybertruck, the entire thing hardly qualifies as a truck. The Cybertruck is probably Musk's greatest failure to compromise with the conventional wisdom of vehicle design. It competes pitifully with any of the basic functions of all other trucks. The windows boast very little comparative durability due to their lack of structural integrity, a concern they promised would be ironed out. The frame is weak and presents challenges of the lithium ion battery spontaneously combusting after a certain amount of wear and tear. In the event the vehicle does catch on fire, or other emergencies, those who are unfamiliar with the unintuitive design of the exits may not be able to escape, especially if disoriented from an impact. The doors cannot be operated unpowered for multiple reasons, one of which being the need for the windows to slightly open upon exit. When powered, the emergency exit will lower the windows. The emergency latch is unintuitive, but easily accessible on the front doors. Unpowered, the window will not roll down and will become damaged. In the rear doors, you must dig in the bottom of the door to lift a secret compartment, revealing a yellow pullstring that releases the door latch. Powered doors are a neat feature in line with Elon's vision for the future of personal vehicles. This feature will not catch on if the design thereof is not adjusted to address the safety of the operator and passengers. Elon's visions are magnificent and valuable. His achievements with SpaceX are awe-inspiring. It's not to say that going to mars won't present Elon, and humanity at large, significant challenges, but the only way to meet said challenges is with the input of both the Visionary and the Disciplined. It's tough enough to balance this within yourself, tougher still for everyone to be individually balanced enough to cooperate in balancing an entire society.
+
+## If you're high in openness, you love breaking things. If you're highly conscientious, you can't stand the mess. [jbp] There is a moderate amount of the population who scores high on both, though it is somewhat rare. It is immensely difficult to have both, because you find yourself breaking things, then beating yourself up when you suffer the consequences. You understand that self-discipline is a pathway to success, but you find self-discipline taxing. The best balance for this, as far as I'm aware, is to find a job where self-discipline can keep you financially stable, while exploring the Chaos in your free time. Because if you're high in openness, you don't get a choice to not explore the Chaos. If you're high in Conscientiousness, you don't get the choice to not maintain the order. Keeping this in balance, pardon my German, sucks dick. Say you want to compose or even simply play music. You can recognize how the composition fits together, how the instruments are played, and you want nothing else than to triumphantly deliver your performance! But you can hear every wrong note, every incorrect rhythm. You can hear precisely just how off each timbre or tone is. So the openness and conscientiousness clash, and stop dead in their tracks, completely impeded by each other. Momentum in a forward direction is nearly impossible; getting anything done in this state is incredibly difficult. Children and adults alike find it difficult to complete assignments, deadlines, and even basic tasks due to this unending limitation on their conscience. I suspect this is common with those who are neurodivergent, though I have no empirical evidence to present to corroborate it. It's just a hunch.
+
+## Conversely, the primarily Agreeable and the Disagreeable need each other as well. The overwhemingly agreeable don't know how to balance their own needs with the needs of those they have compassion for. The disagreeable, too, cannot find this balance, but they prioritize themselves instead. The Agreeable will go out on a limb wih their compassion. For example, the agreeable will offer compassion to the homeless by direct donations [hulk taco], charitable donations, and advocacy for policies and programs to help them (otherwise known as donation of other people's money). But when there is a poor stranger on their doorstep, they are forced to square their compassion for the generally disposessed with their compassion for the in-group. The in-group always wins. This is demonstrable with further examples. The Agreeable consensus agrees that there must be homeless shelters, and they're willing to sacrifice their own resources, or will seize the resources of others, in order to erect and maintain them. However, the consensus will divide on whose needs take precedence within said shelters. A Compassionate Feminist group will become discompassionate to male-to-female transgender individuals who decide to take up lodging within a women's shelter. Other Agreeables who prioritize Trans people will become combative with the Feminist Agreeables. This results in a Mama Bear War. [drawing of two combative (anthro?) bears, one holding up a feminist flag, the other a trans flag] The Agreeable Feminists will argue that subjective identity does not negate the threat of a biologically male individual entering a woman's space. The Agreeable Trans-Advocates will argue that the manifestation and presentation of said subjective identity opens the male-to-female transgender individual to violence within the male shelter, and there exists no third category of shelter for the transgender individual to go. There is hardly a feasible compromise between these diametrically opposed perspectives, thus a war is practically inevitable. Pathological Agreeableness eats its own when they cannot agree on the hierarchy of compassion. Does the compassion extend to individuals based on their individual needs, or does the compassion extend to groups based on their group needs? And if the latter is true, which group needs take precedence? The group that matters the most to anyone with the slightest degree of agreeableness, is the group that is most similar to you, or the one you personally feel more compassionate for. Universally, this is the group you spend the most time with; your inner circle of friends and family.
+
+## The Agreeable need to become assertive, or more disagreeable, in order to champion the cause of their priority group. So their spokesperson, or protector, must be the most disagreeable among them in order to win in either war or negotiation. This is nested within the other dichotomy, given that negotiation requires both creativity, openness to understanding the opponent's position, and conscientiousness in communicating one's own position. Too much openness, and the communication sounds like lunacy and pie-in-the-sky ideological regurgitation. Too much conscientiousness, and the communication sounds inhuman and unfeeling. Depening on your perspective, one or both of these perspectives will sound idiotic. So every single individual requires balance within themselves, and the groups to which they claim membership also require just as much, if not more balance, in order to function without falling to either side. And believe you me, it doesn't matter which side you fall on when you lose balance. Both sides require a descent, and the fall is harsh.
+
+## Within today's sociopolitical landscape, Openness and Agreeableness have a tight allyship and hegemony, though this allyship is beginning to fray. Liberals tend to be primarily Open, while leftists tend to be primarily Agreeable. The Conscientious disagreeables advocate for the hierarchy, and the Agreeables advocate for the disruption or even destruction of the hierarchy. Openness bounces between whomever allows the most freedom, tending to side against the order that has become an old, outdated, and corrupt tyranny. Neuroticism is also mostly in the middle. This dichotomy, between hierarchy on one side, and the criticism of hierarchy on the other, is classically referred to as the Right and Left, respectively. These definitions are overly simplistic and thus must not be applied so broadly, for the consequence is sociopolitical division and exacerbated polarity. Again, when negotiation ceases without the emergence of a new social contract, the only interaction we have left between us is war. [Klaus] If the left and right cease negotiation, war breaks out, new boundaries are drawn, and a winner is eventually declared. You end up with east and west berlin, where the balance is completely lopsided. [footage from meet the mormons?] You end up with Utopians on either side. Utopians are responsible for every major disastrous movement to have ever been realized; the belief in a perfect world that we can build ourselves up to [tower of babel] brings about not Utopia, but Dystopia, every time it is attempted. Archetypically speaking, we cannot build ourselves up to Heaven, we can only try our best to live the best lives we possibly can, in a way that doesn't make sacrifices of the balance required for the sustaining of life. We cannot build ourselves up to Heaven, but we're certainly capable of digging ourselves into some fresh Hell. Perhaps the most far-reaching truth that has been revealed to me in my twenty-three years of life on this earth is this: If you don't believe in Heaven, you're not looking hard enough; if you don't believe in Hell, you're not looking at all. Heaven is all around us, but it's subtle, quiet, and rarely recognized and appreciated. Hell is also all around us. Hell is in the loss of a loved one. Hell is in the eyes of the drug-addicted man who stares at passers-by from the gutter. Hell is in those who struggle to make ends meet. Hell is in those who don't know how they can make it another day. Hell stares you in the face when you turn on the news. Hell is in watching the results of an election, terrified that your life will be dictated to on high by somebody else's favorite tyrant. Hell is in pain, from everything as simple as the smart of a stubbed toe, to the searing pain of a mortal wound. Hell is in those who shake their fist at God. Hell is in those who take out their frustration with cosmic injustice on all the innocent around them who don't deserve it. [lenin, stalin, marx, school shooters...] Hell is real. If you've ever been conscious you know Hell is the realest thing we can ever have the misery of witnessing. Conversely, and more subtly, Heaven is also all around us. Heaven is in the safety and comfort of one's own home. Heaven is in the embrace of a mother [iron giant]. Heaven is in the kindness of a friend. Heaven is in the presence of those whose existence proves you're not alone. Heaven is in the courage of those burdened with the responsibility that comes with power, who refuse to use it for anything that isn't good [iron giant, spider-man]. It's easy to believe in Hell, it's hardly even a choice. It's the damn hardest thing any of us can do to even believe in Heaven, let alone to bring it about. When we're in Heaven, we should thank our lucky stars it's graced us with its presence. And we won't dare attempt to force others to bring about our pathetic imitation of Heaven.
+
+## Utopians believe too much in a heaven that exists only within their minds. They believe it can be made real, which is delusional. They don't believe in shooting for the moon and at least landing among the stars. They believe in absolution to their aim, and the destruction of all who stand in their way.

yt/Why Furries Need Conservatives_003.md

@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+Why Furries Need Conservatives
+
+## Well hello. A couple months ago, a certain video came across my twitter feed, and it piqued my interest. In this video, the question was asked: why do furries need conservatives? So I spent a fair bit of time on my podcast exploring the questions, accusations, and mischaracterizations made therein. And I, being one for beating dead horses, see fit now to elaborate on the subject. Both of us seemed to struggle to define what conservatism even is, though I at least was able to name several key characteristics, while the dissenting opinions in the comments seemed to be... far less descriptive... [nazi comments]
+
+## I think the real question that's being asked here, in earnest, encompasses far more than furries. American furries are a microcosm. Their culture is embedded within that of the sociopolitical, geological context within America, so this question, if asked in good faith, requires a step back, a broadening of the horizons, and God willing, some humility from all who seek the answer. The real question being asked here, is Why do Liberals need Conservatives?
+
+## And obviously we must define our terms here, so we're all on the same page. Most people use these terms colloquially, and quite flippantly at that. Many who use them couldn't define them if you asked them to. Some will reveal an operative definition so disappointingly narrow, you'll be forced to question why they're talking about it at all... [conservatives like to conserve things] Others will give such a verbose description that it takes hours of discussion to even broach the topic, and even then, they may not have given you a concrete definition as much as they have named every single belief held by those who brand themselves under the label. Guilty as charged. Perhaps I've taken a break from the podcast for good reason.
+
+## It's clear there is an operational framework required for defining these features, and I think I have just the one. The Meyers-Briggs- just kidding. If we're going to be pseudoscientific, we may as well be as scientific as possible. The five-factor model of personality, otherwise known as the Big Five personality traits. Each trait can have a low score or a high score. For the sake of simplicity, you can view each of these as sliders in a character creation sequence in a bethesda game. Low scores result in the opposite trait becoming dominant. Neutrality can exist between the polar opposite ends of each trait. In my experience, if you have autism, you tend to bounce between the extremes on many, if not all, of these traits, though you may still tend towards a certain comfort zone. Keep in mind that this framework isn't perfect, much like my understanding of it. Thinking scientifically is difficult, and even scientists don't do it well most the time. I use it because it provides a simple explanation of reality by allowing us to categorize the behaviors we observe in ourselves as indicative of certain traits, traits that can be measured by empirical evidence. Each trait is broken down into several facets, and each facet is scoreable based off of an observation of a behavior, particularly as a reaction to a broad range of stimuli. Such measurements have determined that these traits are highly biologically informed, if not outright determined. This is a crucial caviat for understanding the implications of this framework.
+
+## First: Openness, or openness to experience, is synonymous with creativity. [tony stark and peter parker] It is characterized by inventiveness and curiosity. They feel comfortable in a place where the boundaries are free and limitless to their exploration and experimentation. Those who score low in this trait are more consistent and cautious. Broadly, this trait reflects to the ability and interest in processing complex stimuli. There is no correlative link between sex and this trait, though women tend to score higher on the facets of Esthetics and Feelings, while men score higher on the Ideas facet.
+
+## Conscientiousness is synonymous with orderliness. Conscientous people are efficient and organized. They feel comfortable in a place where the boundaries are clearly, tightly drawn, and where everything remains in its proper place. [lego movie lord business irl] Those who score low in this trait are more extravagant and careless. Women score higher in some facets of conscientiousness, such as order, dutifulness, and self-discipline. These findings have not been replicated across cultures, so no correlation has been proven between conscientiousness and sex. Fascinatingly enough, those who score high in this trait are far more likely to react sharply to a stimulus such as a bad smell, a dirty word, or some sort of categorical insult. This facet is called a Novelty Aversion.
+
+## Extraversion is synonymous with sociability. [turk from tarzan?] Extraverts are outgoing and energetic. They feel comfortable where the people are, and they prefer to get to know them. Those who score low in this trait are more solitary and reserved. Males score higher in some facets of this trait, women on others. This one tends to be relatively balanced.
+
+## Agreeableness is synonymous with compassion. Highly agreeable people are quite friendly by disposition, want others to be happy, and want others to like them as well. They tend towards cooperation, social harmony, and the consideration of other's concerns. Those who score high in agreeableness find it difficult to put themselves first, even when they need to. Those who score low in this trait are more critical and judgemental. Female humans consistently score higher for agreeableness, while males are far more likely to be disagreeable, though there are exceptions to every rule, and they are rare. [stoic and valka, astrid and hiccup]
+
+## [piglet] Neuroticism is synonymous with negative emotion. Neurotic people are senstive and nervous by disposition. They feel comfortable nowhere, because everywhere the senses are activated, there are things to worry the conscience about. Those who score low in this trait are more resilient, confident, and damn lucky. Women disproportionately score higher in trait neuroticism, likely in correlation to their far lower risk tolerance in comparison to their male counterparts. Women are disproporationately anxious and have low self-esteem, though men tend to defeat women in anger, or Anger Hostility.
+
+## If you're interested in learning more about the data explored here, I've linked a couple articles in the description. If any of the descriptions I've provided remind you of yourself, perhaps you'll be interested in taking a test. You can purchase one at understandmyself.com or if you're poor and stingy, like me, there are plenty of free tests online.
+
+## These traits are constraining, but not entirely immovable. It is possible to mitigate the downsides of each trait. For example, some highly Agreeable individuals will find it difficult, indeed, they may consider it kryptonite to put their needs before the needs of others. This may hamper their ability to advance in their career path. Such people can take Assertiveness training, which employs a strategy a bit like this: every time your needs are trampled, or you're overlooked, or made to feel lesser than, you will feel resentment welling up inside. The natural inclination of the Agreeable is to quash that resentment. Assertiveness training encourages the Agreeable one to channel that resentment into a form that can put their needs first. Sometimes life itself puts you through Assertiveness training; I, for one, started out incredibly Agreeable, then became progressively more disagreeable as that was taken advantage of, and dismissed. Such is life. Those who cannot learn to stop sacrificing themselves, will be devoured by their own empathy. <!-- too bleak?-->
+
+## So now that I've thoroghly simplified, or perhaps complicated, the sociopolitical landscape, now we can square that with our understanding of the occupants of said landascape.
+
+## This landscape is embedded within the most broad landscape that we all exist in: the narrative landscape. First, everything in the universe can be fundamentally categorized into two groups: that which we know, and that which we do not know. The territory of the Unknown, or Chaos, is vast and expansive, far more than any one of us can ever know. The territory of the Known, or Order, is small, finite, and precious. We, as rationally self-interested beings, intelligent and self-conscious, are designed to make chaos into order. Regardless of our big five trait scores, we all have a part to play within this Order, whether it's in preserving it, or whether it's in disrupting it for its benefit.
+
+## Let's start with conservatives, after all, that's why we're in this mess. The conservative temperament is primarily conscientious, and secondarily disagreeable. I believe the latter is an outgrowth of the former, though it could be vice versa and likely varies per person. Conscientious people prefer rules, order, and categorizations. They are quite novelty-averse, meaning that which is new, or Chaos, causes them to react highly cautiously and distrustfully and on the extreme end, violently. This is why those with a conservative temperament may suffer from out-group homogeneity bias in a more abject way than their liberal counterparts. This bias, for those who don't know, is a human universal. It is the tendency to erronously percieve that one's in-group is more diverse than out-groups. You see, when we're with our in-group, we percieve that group as diverse, because we know each member by name. We each share an abstracted ideal, values, a common conceptual schema, so we may behave similarly to one another, and we have our own culture, customs, inside jokes, and other common behaviors, but we're all individuals and thus we do not think as one. When you neither know nor understand the out-group, it's far easier to dismiss them as monotypic, when that group is just as diverse as the in-group. This is a human universal because again, Chaos is so expansive that we must simplify it into digestible categories in order to efficiently deal with it. Once we bring more light [lion king] upon the Chaos, and bring more of it to Order, the additional information is sufficient to bring even more of it to proper order. But until we can understand each other more deeply, we must categorize each other in order to continue living our lives without getting a headache.
+
+## Those with a conservative temperament are not comfortable where the bondaries are not well-defined. They are not comfortable with Chaos. They see extravagance and carelessness as tantamount to suicide. They aren't completely risk-averse, and can be blinded by disagreeableness, but they're risk-averse enough to maintain Order well enough to make the Order habitable and prosperous. Often, their dedication to Order can reach near-autistic levels. [10 cloverfield lane] Living under such an Order can be oppresive. It will feel especailly oppressive to those high in Openness, who see Order as limitation and confinement. It's not difficult to imagine how this conflict arises. To be efficient and organized, is to be judgemental; when an ideal or aim is set, a judgement is required in assessing whether the mark has been hit or missed. [robin hood? brave?] Pure conscientiousness sees a missed mark, otherwise defined as a Sin, as an objective failure, and will seek to rectify it without delay or shame. Those who score low in conscientiousness don't care when they miss the mark, and hardly even see it worthwhile to aim in the first place. Conscientious individuals can't help but to see missed marks wherever they look, and will often point out their existence to whomever will listen. This makes them critical and judgemental, which is categorically disagreeable. Thus, the Conservative Ethos tends to come off as cold and heartless, and at its most disagreeable, downright disdainful and rude. This, clearly, is when their liberal counterparts are least happy with them.
+
+## The highly conscientious will avoid Chaos at any cost, and prefer to work their entire lives at their maximum capacity. Conscientiousness is likely to be responsible for the vast majority of the global GDP at any given time in history, though this is near impossible to quantify. There are some people where, if you were to air-drop them onto an island with nothing but a hatchet, they would do nothing but chop down trees, build shelters, and work themselves to the bone for the rest of their lives. These are the hyper-conscientious. They often need help with balance in their life, but they have to be told it in the language of Conscientiousness; the work-obsessed CEO can be convinced with the data that productivity significantly increases when breaks are allowed or mandated, and when vacations are taken. So they can stop putting in 16 hour days, if it means that they can get the same amount of work done in 8 hours, because they more mentally organized, prepared, and efficient. A car traveling at low speeds has better mileage. But a car traveling at high speeds will get further faster. So fuel up completely, and spend more time at home, because your wife and children desperately need you there.
+
+## The Liberal Temperament is primarily Open, and secondarily Agreeable. In this case, I believe there is no correlation between the two; in today's America, there is a growing chasm between the two. Those who are high in Openness prefer adventure, limitless and expansive. They prefer to experiment with their surroundings, innovating and creating, learning and expanding their horizons. [stark and parker] They often feel comfortable in a chaos of their own creation, given the beauty thereof, and that is where they work to be. On the extreme end, they are so destructive of boundaries that the chaos is inevitable for them. [joe hawley] They may find themselves resisting all forms of labels because their identity relies on boundless infinity. [hobie brown] They tend to embrace Chaos and to oppose whatever Order is in place. They find it difficult to understand concepts of dutifulness and self-discipline. Often, they struggle with accusations that they believe they are above the rules, even if they do understand them. They may struggle in school, not because they aren't bright, quite the opposite; because they are too bright to allow themselves to be subject to the hierarchal, orderly nature of organized schooling. Openness is synonymous to intellect, though overall IQ is not necessarily correlated. Several facets of Openness include Esthetic and Feelings, which women score higher on, and Ideas, which men score higher on, on average. They tend to be less novelty-averse; they seek to understand that which is new, rather than assuming it is dangerous. They tend to be resistant to out-group homogeneity bias, more so than their conservative counterparts. Often their disdain for boundaries and rules make them resistant to all types of groupthink, and the groups they gravitate towards are individuals first. Open liberals are the promoters of radical individualism. Groupthink is tiring or even sickening to them, no matter which group is participating in it. This is strictly due to their aversion to categorization. They seek not to be defined by anything, let alone that which they cannot control. They seek not to define others that way, either, because they don't want to limit their options of people they can participate in discussions with, if that means they can learn something new from them. Their love of Chaos, of novelty, can be their downfall in many cases.
+
+## They tend to go all or nothing on their creations. They have no concept of 80-hour work weeks; on the contrary, they tend to spend their entire time exploring the vast expanse of chaos. This does not mean they are useless in a market economy, far from it. They are the generators of all the innovations. They are the movers of the market, and at large, society, from the technology, customs, and conventions of yesterday, to that of tomorrow. The metaphysical frontier exists within the view of their psyche, and they seek to conquer it all, sometimes to such a crushing degree that they're overwhelmed by the existential burden of the knowledge they've gathered. They're entrepreneurial; once they invent something of use to somebody, they create unimaginably successful businesses, or even singlehandedly create brand new markets unimaginable from those of yesterday. [ford, meet the robinsons?] Success is not guaranteed for them, however; their careers tend to be extremely high-risk high-reward. They make extremely risky investments of their time and resources, because they don't really understand how not to. This is why Artists struggle to make money or to get successful businesses off the ground. This is why industries that profit off of creativity are constantly having battles between the Artists, the idea-generators, and the executives who fund their projects. [brad bird vs. the executives @ disney] The Visionaries need to create, and can make a living off of doing it, but in order for that to happen and for their ideas to be publicized, the executives need to fund them, and they need to discipline them so that their work meets deadlines and is not wasteful of budget. The Creatives find this oppressive, but if they're in the industry, they know they need the funding in order to properly realize their ideas, share them with the world, and feed themselves at the same time. So they're willing to compromise their vision slightly rather than to sacrifice the whole like a monkey trap. Often, the limitations set by executives simply become additional creative challenges for them, and the work becomes better as a result. "They're not going to stop our creation" is a cry that pierces the heart of all creatives. [wolf of wall street, Iron Giant behind the scenes] However, this balance is tentative. If the creatives are given too much power, they run out of budget and miss deadlines, and the piece is not completed. If the executives are given too much power and oversight, and micromanage the creators, the creative vision is crushed and becomes barely profitable, meaningless corporate sludge. This is just one example of the balance [daoism] that is required in every facet of life, at every level of analysis.
+
+## Secondarily, Agreeableness. [the wild robot!!] Those who are highly Agreeable tend to desire social cohesion, and seek to consider other's concerns, to care for the needs of others. Agreeableness is synonymous with compassion. On the extreme end, they put others first to the degree that they will sacrifice their own needs to the needs of others, even unto the point of death. They find it difficult to be assertive and to stand up for themselves. The only case they will fight for their own needs, is when their own needs are tied up in the needs of others. They tend to prefer a place that is safe, where the needs of each are able to be cared for without compromise between said needs. Competing needs frustrate them; they desire a state of being where all needs can be met, perhaps except for their own. Balance is incredibly difficult in this state. Their compassion for others is so great, that what hatred they have is directed towards themselves, others who are functionally indistinguishable to themselves, or others who are so different from themselves, that they must be put in the category of predator. Women are disproportionately Agreeable, and thank God for that. If women weren't self-sacrificing and compassionate to such an incredible degree, none of us would be here. Newborns are incredibly taxing to take care of. It takes a lot of compassion-based restraint not to chuck 'em out the window, and if you don't believe that, you haven't gone through the exhaustion of being a parent to a newborn. The evolutionary biologist literature suggests that's why women are so Agreeable; every caretaker that abandoned their child was eradicated from the gene pool. So biology necessitates that parents sacrifice their own wants for that of their children, perhaps to an insane degree. [parents running to console coughing child in middle of night]
+
+## The Compassionate are wont to speak for the disposessed, for those who have no voice. They see the struggles of others as a call to action on their behalf, or perhaps on the behalf of the society that has left them behind. Some of the more conscientious among the compassionate, understand that others may not assist in their efforts to give a leg-up to the disposessed, and they will do it themselves. Some of the less conscientious, will dedicate their efforts to making the issues of the disposessed everybody else's problem, too. Dostoyevsky said, "There is only one way to salvation, and that is to make yourself responsible for all men's sins. As soon as you make yourself responsible in all sincerity for everything and for everyone, you will see at once that this is really so, and that you are in fact to blame for everyone and for all things." The overwhelmingly Agreeable take this principle to heart, though they may only enforce it against society at large, because their personal responsibilities are more pressing than that which is out of their control. Principles are, universally, easier preached than followed. Likewise compassion is easier expressed than enacted. The compassionate, when confronted with a heartbreaking situation, will advocate assistance towards the disposessed, some may donate to their cause. But if they attempted to right every wrong they witnessed, they'd forget to feed themselves. Many on the extreme end, do. [Chris from megapleggs... perhaps Ghandi? may be a bad example] So it must needs be that there is moderation in all things. Those who cannot stand up for themselves; children, those plagued by illness or addiction, the homeless, the mentally ill, the mentally and physically disabled, the disposessed at large, their struggles, challenges, and needs, require eyes, ears, action, and perhaps a mouthpiece on their behalf. For if the compassionate care not for those who cannot care for themselves, who will? Certainly not the disagreeable. The agreeable and the disagreeable, much like the Open and the Conscientious, must be confrontational in negotiating with each other. For when we cease to negotiate, we devolve into War and Chaos, on the individual and the societal level. The Compassionate are destined to knock on the doors of others, shaking down the disagreeable for the funds to care for those who suffer. [scrooge visited by beaker and dr funi] But the more they do so via the long arm of the state and the Government gun, the less willing the disagreeable will become. [are there no poorhouses...?]
+
+## So Agreeableness is incredibly important, and constructive. It can also be incredibly destructive. Pathological Agreeableness is akin to a mother bear. It's great to be within the sphere of her agreeableness. If you're adjacent to her sphere of Agreeableness, watch out; she *will* maul you. Protection of the needs of the in-group above all, necessitates aggression against the out-group. Mama bear does not have time to assess threats. She must assume all out-groupers are threats. When Agreeableness becomes Pathological, nothing but destruction is left in its wake. Archetypically, this is represented by the Devouring Mother, or the Evil Queen. She seeks to imprison the Noble Knight, stripping him of his strength and power, releasing him only when he is too weak and feeble to make any meaningful difference in the world. Neither him nor his strength, courage, nor sacrifice can benefit the Princess if the Evil Queen gets her way.
+
+## Openness and Agreeableness are allied, if not correlated. Those who are Creative and curious, create the means by which the Compassionate can meet the needs of those they have taken under their wing. Openness understands Agreeableness, as Openness seeks to understand all. Openness even understands Conscientiousness, though they may disagree on much, they respect each other. Conscientiousness also assists in creating the means for Compassion to meet needs. But Agreeableness often sees Conscientiousness as the enemy, identifying, and sometimes rightly so, that the Conscientious, and especially their overlap with the Disagreeable, creates the class of the disposessed. So Openness and Agreeableness have a pact to embrace Chaos, until the Chaos is so prevalent that Agreeableness has no more means to care for the disposessed. When resources are low, safety is a privilege, and needs cannot be met, Agreeableness flees to the Order maintained by Conscientiousness, and directs their Mama Bear towards those who disrupted the Order, even within their own ranks. The pathologically compassionate, likewise push the Visionaries away, due to their insistance on the tight boundaries of in-groups and out-groups, and also because too much Chaos is too disruptive to them.
+
+## If you find yourself agreeing with one temperament over the other, and cannot see the value in sharing a society with the other, you're missing the entire point. Liberals start all the successful businesses. Conservatives run them. Look at Tesla, for example. Elon Musk is psychologically Liberal; he's so devoted to exploring the Chaos, that he won't even purchase a home. His ideas break the mold constantly, innovating so intensely that he's practically singlehandedly created the entire electric vehicle market, something we would have thought impossible a decade ago. He's generated many now-ubiquitous ideas and businesses such as PayPal as well. His ideas are incredible and quite profitable, but he fucking sucks at compromising his boundary-breaking limitless ideas with the wisdom of the current Order. In less philosophical terms, his cars are efficient, sleek, and more than adequately serve the basic functions of their design. But they sacrifice safety, function, and convenience for the sake of novelty. For example, the wisdom of conventional controls for windshield wipers are as follows: the operation of the wipers is controlled by a physical lever. All of the parameters are set by additional controls on the lever that differ by make and model. Why is this the case? Because it allows the operation to be executed without taking up additional bandwidth in the prefrontal cortex. In other words, it's subconscious. The windshield wipers can be activated, and the speed adjusted, by muscle memory alone. It hardly has to be activated by the conscience. This allows the conscious to give its undivided attention to the road, which keeps the driver, their passengers, and all other individuals on the road, safe. The visionaries with lesser conscientiousness do not appreciate the utility of this and many other features of both our cars and our societies at large, often because they have never thought about it and have taken such wisdom for granted. The tesla model [IDK] has its wipers activated by touch screen. This requires the driver to take their eyes off the road, and tap the correct option. There is no tactical difference where anything but the eyes can recognize where the option is, and which one has been pressed. Tactical feedback is essential for confirmation of an operation being completed; this is why most people overwhemingly prefer a computer keyboard with a certain amount of feedback. Almost nobody prefers a keyboard with zero feedback. [citation needed] Try texting on your touchscreen smartphone with your eyes closed and without using your peripheral vision. Your thumbs remember the general areas to tap, but without the confirmation of viewing the inputs, you will absolutely make mistakes. Mistakes while texting are trivial. Mistakes while driving can be fatal. Similarly, many other features are locked behind the novelty of voice-activation. I forsee many of these so-called "innovations" will become things of the past, even with the assistance of AI. Communication, though it differs across languages, takes up much more mental bandwidth than subconscious actions, as it should. Speaking commands out loud disengages other bodily processes from the activity. Humans are not designed to be treated as consciousnesses in brains, and brains in bodies. We are consciousnesses intertwined with bodies, and the brain is just the central locus of it all. The brain is inseperable from the nervous system, so it's hardly accurate to say that the brain inhabits the head. The brain *is* the body. Point being, tactical feedback is far from pointless, and we'll be safer if we don't have to look down to command the most basic functions of the death machines we operate on a daily basis.
+
+## Additionally, whatever you think of the visual design of the Cybertruck, the entire thing hardly qualifies as a truck. The Cybertruck is probably Musk's greatest failure to compromise with the conventional wisdom of vehicle design. It competes pitifully with any of the basic functions of all other trucks. The windows boast very little comparative durability due to their lack of structural integrity, a concern they promised would be ironed out. The frame is weak and presents challenges of the lithium ion battery spontaneously combusting after a certain amount of wear and tear. In the event the vehicle does catch on fire, or other emergencies, those who are unfamiliar with the unintuitive design of the exits may not be able to escape, especially if disoriented from an impact. The doors cannot be operated unpowered for multiple reasons, one of which being the need for the windows to slightly open upon exit. When powered, the emergency exit will lower the windows. The emergency latch is unintuitive, but easily accessible on the front doors. Unpowered, the window will not roll down and will become damaged. In the rear doors, you must dig in the bottom of the door to lift a secret compartment, revealing a yellow pullstring that releases the door latch. Powered doors are a neat feature in line with Elon's vision for the future of personal vehicles. This feature will not catch on if the design thereof is not adjusted to address the safety of the operator and passengers. Elon's visions are magnificent and valuable. His achievements with SpaceX are awe-inspiring. It's not to say that going to mars won't present Elon, and humanity at large, significant challenges, but the only way to meet said challenges is with the input of both the Visionary and the Disciplined. It's tough enough to balance this within yourself, tougher still for everyone to be individually balanced enough to cooperate in balancing an entire society.
+
+## If you're high in openness, you love breaking things. If you're highly conscientious, you can't stand the mess. [jbp] There is a moderate amount of the population who scores high on both, though it is somewhat rare. It is immensely difficult to have both, because you find yourself breaking things, then beating yourself up when you suffer the consequences. You understand that self-discipline is a pathway to success, but you find self-discipline taxing. The best balance for this, as far as I'm aware, is to find a job where self-discipline can keep you financially stable, while exploring the Chaos in your free time. Because if you're high in openness, you don't get a choice to not explore the Chaos. If you're high in Conscientiousness, you don't get the choice to not maintain the order. Keeping this in balance, pardon my German, sucks dick. Say you want to compose or even simply play music. You can recognize how the composition fits together, how the instruments are played, and you want nothing else than to triumphantly deliver your performance! But you can hear every wrong note, every incorrect rhythm. You can hear precisely just how off each timbre or tone is. So the openness and conscientiousness clash, and stop dead in their tracks, completely impeded by each other. Momentum in a forward direction is nearly impossible; getting anything done in this state is incredibly difficult. Children and adults alike find it difficult to complete assignments, deadlines, and even basic tasks due to this unending limitation on their conscience. I suspect this is common with those who are neurodivergent, though I have no empirical evidence to present to corroborate it. It's just a hunch.
+
+## Conversely, the primarily Agreeable and the Disagreeable need each other as well. The overwhemingly agreeable don't know how to balance their own needs with the needs of those they have compassion for. The disagreeable, too, cannot find this balance, but they prioritize themselves instead. The Agreeable will go out on a limb wih their compassion. For example, the agreeable will offer compassion to the homeless by direct donations [hulk taco], charitable donations, and advocacy for policies and programs to help them (otherwise known as donation of other people's money). But when there is a poor stranger on their doorstep, they are forced to square their compassion for the generally disposessed with their compassion for the in-group. The in-group always wins. This is demonstrable with further examples. The Agreeable consensus agrees that there must be homeless shelters, and they're willing to sacrifice their own resources, or will seize the resources of others, in order to erect and maintain them. However, the consensus will divide on whose needs take precedence within said shelters. A Compassionate Feminist group will become discompassionate to male-to-female transgender individuals who decide to take up lodging within a women's shelter. Other Agreeables who prioritize Trans people will become combative with the Feminist Agreeables. This results in a Mama Bear War. [drawing of two combative (anthro?) bears, one holding up a feminist flag, the other a trans flag] The Agreeable Feminists will argue that subjective identity does not negate the threat of a biologically male individual entering a woman's space. The Agreeable Trans-Advocates will argue that the manifestation and presentation of said subjective identity opens the male-to-female transgender individual to violence within the male shelter, and there exists no third category of shelter for the transgender individual to go. There is hardly a feasible compromise between these diametrically opposed perspectives, thus a war is practically inevitable. Pathological Agreeableness eats its own when they cannot agree on the hierarchy of compassion. Does the compassion extend to individuals based on their individual needs, or does the compassion extend to groups based on their group needs? And if the latter is true, which group needs take precedence? The group that matters the most to anyone with the slightest degree of agreeableness, is the group that is most similar to you, or the one you personally feel more compassionate for. Universally, this is the group you spend the most time with; your inner circle of friends and family.
+
+## The Agreeable need to become assertive, or more disagreeable, in order to champion the cause of their priority group. So their spokesperson, or protector, must be the most disagreeable among them in order to win in either war or negotiation. This is nested within the other dichotomy, given that negotiation requires both creativity, openness to understanding the opponent's position, and conscientiousness in communicating one's own position. Too much openness, and the communication sounds like lunacy and pie-in-the-sky ideological regurgitation. Too much conscientiousness, and the communication sounds inhuman and unfeeling. Depening on your perspective, one or both of these perspectives will sound idiotic. So every single individual requires balance within themselves, and the groups to which they claim membership also require just as much, if not more balance, in order to function without falling to either side. And believe you me, it doesn't matter which side you fall on when you lose balance. Both sides require a descent, and the fall is harsh.
+
+## Within today's sociopolitical landscape, Openness and Agreeableness have a tight allyship and hegemony, though this allyship is beginning to fray. Liberals tend to be primarily Open, while leftists tend to be primarily Agreeable. The Conscientious disagreeables advocate for the hierarchy, and the Agreeables advocate for the disruption or even destruction of the hierarchy. Openness bounces between whomever allows the most freedom, tending to side against the order that has become an old, outdated, and corrupt tyranny. Neuroticism is also mostly in the middle. This dichotomy, between hierarchy on one side, and the criticism of hierarchy on the other, is classically referred to as the Right and Left, respectively. These definitions are overly simplistic and thus must not be applied so broadly, for the consequence is sociopolitical division and exacerbated polarity. Again, when negotiation ceases without the emergence of a new social contract, the only interaction we have left between us is war. [Klaus] If the left and right cease negotiation, war breaks out, new boundaries are drawn, and a winner is eventually declared. You end up with east and west berlin, where the balance is completely lopsided. [footage from meet the mormons?] You end up with Utopians on either side. Utopians are responsible for every major disastrous movement to have ever been realized; the belief in a perfect world that we can build ourselves up to [tower of babel] brings about not Utopia, but Dystopia, every time it is attempted. Archetypically speaking, we cannot build ourselves up to Heaven, we can only try our best to live the best lives we possibly can, in a way that doesn't make sacrifices of the balance required for the sustaining of life. We cannot build ourselves up to Heaven, but we're certainly capable of digging ourselves into some fresh Hell. Perhaps the most far-reaching truth that has been revealed to me in my twenty-three years of life on this earth is this: If you don't believe in Heaven, you're not looking hard enough; if you don't believe in Hell, you're not looking at all. Heaven is all around us, but it's subtle, quiet, and rarely recognized and appreciated. Hell is also all around us. Hell is in the loss of a loved one. Hell is in the eyes of the drug-addicted man who stares at passers-by from the gutter. Hell is in those who struggle to make ends meet. Hell is in those who don't know how they can make it another day. Hell stares you in the face when you turn on the news. Hell is in watching the results of an election, terrified that your life will be dictated to on high by somebody else's favorite tyrant. Hell is in pain, from everything as simple as the smart of a stubbed toe, to the searing pain of a mortal wound. Hell is in those who shake their fist at God. Hell is in those who take out their frustration with cosmic injustice on all the innocent around them who don't deserve it. [lenin, stalin, marx, school shooters...] Hell is real. If you've ever been conscious you know Hell is the realest thing we can ever have the misery of witnessing. Conversely, and more subtly, Heaven is also all around us. Heaven is in the safety and comfort of one's own home. Heaven is in the embrace of a mother [iron giant]. Heaven is in the kindness of a friend. Heaven is in the presence of those whose existence proves you're not alone. Heaven is in the courage of those burdened with the responsibility that comes with power, who refuse to use it for anything that isn't good [iron giant, spider-man]. It's easy to believe in Hell, it's hardly even a choice. It's the damn hardest thing any of us can do to even believe in Heaven, let alone to bring it about. When we're in Heaven, we should thank our lucky stars it's graced us with its presence. And we won't dare attempt to force others to bring about our pathetic imitation of Heaven.
+
+## Utopians believe too much in a heaven that exists only within their minds. They believe it can be made real, which is delusional. They don't believe in shooting for the moon and at least landing among the stars. They believe in absolution to their aim, and the destruction of all who stand in their way.
+
+
+If one, the other, or both temperaments refuse to at least leave each other alone, they will then enter into war with each other. And that's not a threat, that's a prophecy. 

yt/Why Furries Need Conservatives_004.md

@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+Why Furries Need Conservatives
+
+## Well hello. A couple months ago, a certain video came across my twitter feed, and it piqued my interest. In this video, the question was asked: why do furries need conservatives? So I spent a fair bit of time on my podcast exploring the questions, accusations, and mischaracterizations made therein. And I, being one for beating dead horses, see fit now to elaborate on the subject. Both of us seemed to struggle to define what conservatism even is, though I at least was able to name several key characteristics, while the dissenting opinions in the comments seemed to be... far less descriptive... [nazi comments]
+
+## I think the real question that's being asked here, in earnest, encompasses far more than furries. American furries are a microcosm. Their culture is embedded within that of the sociopolitical, geological context within America, so this question, if asked in good faith, requires a step back, a broadening of the horizons, and God willing, some humility from all who seek the answer. The real question being asked here, is Why do Liberals need Conservatives?
+
+## And obviously we must define our terms here, so we're all on the same page. Most people use these terms colloquially, and quite flippantly at that. Many who use them couldn't define them if you asked them to. Some will reveal an operative definition so disappointingly narrow, you'll be forced to question why they're talking about it at all... [conservatives like to conserve things] Others will give such a verbose description that it takes hours of discussion to even broach the topic, and even then, they may not have given you a concrete definition as much as they have named every single belief held by those who brand themselves under the label. Guilty as charged. Perhaps I've taken a break from the podcast for good reason.
+
+## It's clear there is an operational framework required for defining these features, and I think I have just the one. The Meyers-Briggs- just kidding. If we're going to be pseudoscientific, we may as well be as scientific as possible. The five-factor model of personality, otherwise known as the Big Five personality traits. Each trait can have a low score or a high score. For the sake of simplicity, you can view each of these as sliders in a character creation sequence in a bethesda game. Low scores result in the opposite trait becoming dominant. Neutrality can exist between the polar opposite ends of each trait. In my experience, if you have autism, you tend to bounce between the extremes on many, if not all, of these traits, though you may still tend towards a certain comfort zone. Keep in mind that this framework isn't perfect, much like my understanding of it. Thinking scientifically is difficult, and even scientists don't do it well most the time. I use it because it provides a simple explanation of reality by allowing us to categorize the behaviors we observe in ourselves as indicative of certain traits, traits that can be measured by empirical evidence. Each trait is broken down into several facets, and each facet is scoreable based off of an observation of a behavior, particularly as a reaction to a broad range of stimuli. Such measurements have determined that these traits are highly biologically informed, if not outright determined. This is a crucial caviat for understanding the implications of this framework.
+
+## First: Openness, or openness to experience, is synonymous with creativity. [tony stark and peter parker] It is characterized by inventiveness and curiosity. They feel comfortable in a place where the boundaries are free and limitless to their exploration and experimentation. Those who score low in this trait are more consistent and cautious. Broadly, this trait reflects to the ability and interest in processing complex stimuli. There is no correlative link between sex and this trait, though women tend to score higher on the facets of Esthetics and Feelings, while men score higher on the Ideas facet.
+
+## Conscientiousness is synonymous with orderliness. Conscientous people are efficient and organized. They feel comfortable in a place where the boundaries are clearly, tightly drawn, and where everything remains in its proper place. [lego movie lord business irl] Those who score low in this trait are more extravagant and careless. Women score higher in some facets of conscientiousness, such as order, dutifulness, and self-discipline. These findings have not been replicated across cultures, so no correlation has been proven between conscientiousness and sex. Fascinatingly enough, those who score high in this trait are far more likely to react sharply to a stimulus such as a bad smell, a dirty word, or some sort of categorical insult. This facet is called Novelty Aversion, a psychological tendency to avoid or dislike new or unfamiliar stimuli, situations, or experiences.
+
+## Extraversion is synonymous with sociability. [turk from tarzan?] Extraverts are outgoing and energetic. They feel comfortable where the people are, and they prefer to get to know them. Those who score low in this trait are more solitary and reserved. Males score higher in some facets of this trait, women on others. This one tends to be relatively balanced.
+
+## Agreeableness is synonymous with compassion. Highly agreeable people are quite friendly by disposition, want others to be happy, and want others to like them as well. They tend towards cooperation, social harmony, and the consideration of other's concerns. Those who score high in agreeableness find it difficult to put themselves first, even when they need to. Those who score low in this trait are more critical and judgemental. Female humans consistently score higher for agreeableness, while males are far more likely to be disagreeable, though there are exceptions to every rule, and they are rare. [stoic and valka, astrid and hiccup]
+
+## [piglet] Neuroticism is synonymous with negative emotion. Neurotic people are senstive and nervous by disposition. They feel comfortable nowhere, because everywhere the senses are activated, there are things to worry the conscience about. Those who score low in this trait are more resilient, confident, and damn lucky. Women disproportionately score higher in trait neuroticism, likely in correlation to their far lower risk tolerance in comparison to their male counterparts. Women are disproporationately more anxious and have low self-esteem, though men tend to defeat women in anger, or Anger Hostility.
+
+## If you're interested in learning more about the data explored here, I've linked a couple articles in the description. If any of the descriptions I've provided remind you of yourself, perhaps you'll be interested in taking a test. You can purchase one at understandmyself.com or if you're poor and stingy, like me, there are plenty of free tests online. Just don't waste your time with Meyers-Briggs, because it's worthless pseudoscience. <!-- this is an intellectually cowardly line but i wrote it here anyway... hmm...-->
+
+## These traits are constraining, but not entirely immovable. It is possible to mitigate the downsides of each trait. For example, some highly Agreeable individuals will find it difficult, indeed, they may consider it kryptonite to put their needs before the needs of others. This may hamper their ability to advance in their career path, for example. Such people can take Assertiveness training, which employs a strategy a bit like this: every time your needs are trampled, or you're overlooked, or made to feel lesser than, you will feel resentment welling up inside. The natural inclination of the Agreeable is to quash that resentment and to suffer silently, even for the sake of their aggressors. Assertiveness training encourages the Agreeable one to channel that resentment into a form that can put their needs first. Sometimes life itself puts you through Assertiveness training; I, for one, started out incredibly Agreeable, then became progressively more disagreeable as that was taken advantage of, and dismissed. Such is life. Those who cannot learn to stop sacrificing themselves, will be devoured by their own empathy. <!-- too bleak?-->
+
+## So now that I've thoroghly simplified, or perhaps complicated, the sociopolitical landscape, now we can square that with our understanding of the occupants of said landascape.
+
+## This landscape is embedded within the most broad landscape that we all exist in: the narrative landscape. First, everything in the universe can be fundamentally categorized into two groups: that which we know, and that which we do not know. The territory of the Unknown, or Chaos, is vast and expansive, far more than any one of us can ever know. The territory of the Known, or Order, is small, finite, and precious. We, as rationally self-interested beings, intelligent and self-conscious, are designed to make chaos into order. Regardless of our big five trait scores, we all have a part to play within this Order, whether it's in preserving it, or whether it's in disrupting it for its benefit.
+
+## Let's start with conservatives, after all, that's why we're in this mess. The conservative temperament is primarily conscientious, and secondarily disagreeable. <!--I'm not sure where I picked this up but this isn't remotely true; there is no correllation between conscientiousness and disagreeability.--> I believe the latter is an outgrowth of the former, though it could be vice versa and likely varies per person. Conscientious people prefer rules, order, and categorizations. They are quite novelty-averse, meaning that which is new, or Chaos, causes them to react highly cautiously and distrustfully and on the extreme end, violently. This is why those with a conservative temperament may suffer from out-group homogeneity bias in a more abject way than their liberal counterparts. This bias, for those who don't know, is a human universal. It is the tendency to erronously percieve that one's in-group is more diverse than out-groups. You see, when we're with our in-group, we percieve that group as diverse, because we know each member by name. We each share an abstracted ideal, values, a common conceptual schema, so we may behave similarly to one another, and we have our own culture, customs, inside jokes, and other common behaviors, but we're all individuals and thus we do not think as one. When you neither know nor understand the out-group, it's far easier to dismiss them as monotypic, when that group is just as diverse as the in-group. This is a human universal because again, Chaos is so expansive that we must simplify it into digestible categories in order to efficiently deal with it. Once we bring more light [lion king] upon the Chaos, and bring more of it to Order, the additional information is sufficient to bring even more of it to proper order. But until we can understand each other more deeply, we must categorize each other in order to continue living our lives without getting a headache.
+
+## Those with a conservative temperament are not comfortable where the bondaries are not well-defined. They are not comfortable with Chaos. They see extravagance and carelessness as tantamount to suicide. They aren't completely risk-averse, and can be blinded by disagreeableness, but they're risk-averse enough to maintain Order well enough to make the Order habitable and prosperous. Often, their dedication to Order can reach near-autistic levels. [10 cloverfield lane] Living under such an Order can be oppresive. It will feel especailly oppressive to those high in Openness, who see Order as limitation and confinement. It's not difficult to imagine how this conflict arises. To be efficient and organized, is to be judgemental; when an ideal or aim is set, a judgement is required in assessing whether the mark has been hit or missed. [robin hood? brave?] Pure conscientiousness sees a missed mark, otherwise defined as a Sin, as an objective failure, and will seek to rectify it without delay or shame. Those who score low in conscientiousness don't care when they miss the mark, and hardly even see it worthwhile to aim in the first place. Conscientious individuals can't help but to see missed marks wherever they look, and will often point out their existence to whomever will listen. This makes them critical and judgemental, which is categorically disagreeable. Thus, the Conservative Ethos tends to come off as cold and heartless, and at its most disagreeable, downright disdainful and rude. This, clearly, is when their liberal counterparts are least happy with them.
+
+## The highly conscientious will avoid Chaos at any cost, and prefer to work their entire lives at their maximum capacity. Conscientiousness is likely to be responsible for the vast majority of the global GDP at any given time in history, though this is near impossible to quantify. There are some people where, if you were to air-drop them onto an island with nothing but a hatchet, they would do nothing but chop down trees, build shelters, and work themselves to the bone for the rest of their lives. These are the hyper-conscientious. They often need help with balance in their life, but they have to be told it in the language of Conscientiousness; the work-obsessed CEO can be convinced with the data that productivity significantly increases when breaks are allowed or mandated, and when vacations are taken. So they can stop putting in 16 hour days, if it means that they can get the same amount of work done in 8 hours, because they more mentally organized, prepared, and efficient. A car traveling at low speeds has better mileage. But a car traveling at high speeds will get further faster. So fuel up completely, and spend more time at home, because your wife and children desperately need you there.
+
+## The Liberal Temperament is primarily Open, and secondarily Agreeable. In this case, I believe there is no correlation between the two; in today's America, there is a growing chasm between the two. Those who are high in Openness prefer adventure, limitless and expansive. They prefer to experiment with their surroundings, innovating and creating, learning and expanding their horizons. [stark and parker] They often feel comfortable in a chaos of their own creation, given the beauty thereof, and that is where they work to be. On the extreme end, they are so destructive of boundaries that the chaos is inevitable for them. [joe hawley] They may find themselves resisting all forms of labels because their identity relies on boundless infinity. [hobie brown] They tend to embrace Chaos and to oppose whatever Order is in place. They find it difficult to understand concepts of dutifulness and self-discipline. Often, they struggle with accusations that they believe they are above the rules, even if they do understand them. They may struggle in school, not because they aren't bright, quite the opposite; because they are too bright to allow themselves to be subject to the hierarchal, orderly nature of organized schooling. Openness is synonymous to intellect, though overall IQ is not necessarily correlated. Several facets of Openness include Esthetic and Feelings, which women score higher on, and Ideas, which men score higher on, on average. They tend to be less novelty-averse; they seek to understand that which is new, rather than assuming it is dangerous. They tend to be resistant to out-group homogeneity bias, more so than their conservative counterparts. Often their disdain for boundaries and rules make them resistant to all types of groupthink, and the groups they gravitate towards are individuals first. Open liberals are the promoters of radical individualism. Groupthink is tiring or even sickening to them, no matter which group is participating in it. This is strictly due to their aversion to categorization. They seek not to be defined by anything, let alone that which they cannot control. They seek not to define others that way, either, because they don't want to limit their options of people they can participate in discussions with, if that means they can learn something new from them. Their love of Chaos, of novelty, can be their downfall in many cases.
+
+## They tend to go all or nothing on their creations. They have no concept of 80-hour work weeks; on the contrary, they tend to spend their entire time exploring the vast expanse of chaos. This does not mean they are useless in a market economy, far from it. They are the generators of all the innovations. They are the movers of the market, and at large, society, from the technology, customs, and conventions of yesterday, to that of tomorrow. The metaphysical frontier exists within the view of their psyche, and they seek to conquer it all, sometimes to such a crushing degree that they're overwhelmed by the existential burden of the knowledge they've gathered. They're entrepreneurial; once they invent something of use to somebody, they create unimaginably successful businesses, or even singlehandedly create brand new markets unimaginable from those of yesterday. [ford, meet the robinsons?] Success is not guaranteed for them, however; their careers tend to be extremely high-risk high-reward. They make extremely risky investments of their time and resources, because they don't really understand how not to. This is why Artists struggle to make money or to get successful businesses off the ground. This is why industries that profit off of creativity are constantly having battles between the Artists, the idea-generators, and the executives who fund their projects. [brad bird vs. the executives @ disney] The Visionaries need to create, and can make a living off of doing it, but in order for that to happen and for their ideas to be publicized, the executives need to fund them, and they need to discipline them so that their work meets deadlines and is not wasteful of budget. The Creatives find this oppressive, but if they're in the industry, they know they need the funding in order to properly realize their ideas, share them with the world, and feed themselves at the same time. So they're willing to compromise their vision slightly rather than to sacrifice the whole like a monkey trap. Often, the limitations set by executives simply become additional creative challenges for them, and the work becomes better as a result. "They're not going to stop our creation" is a cry that pierces the heart of all creatives. [wolf of wall street, Iron Giant behind the scenes] However, this balance is tentative. If the creatives are given too much power, they run out of budget and miss deadlines, and the piece is not completed. If the executives are given too much power and oversight, and micromanage the creators, the creative vision is crushed and becomes barely profitable, meaningless corporate sludge. This is just one example of the balance [daoism] that is required in every facet of life, at every level of analysis.
+
+## Secondarily, Agreeableness. [the wild robot!!] Those who are highly Agreeable tend to desire social cohesion, and seek to consider other's concerns, to care for the needs of others. Agreeableness is synonymous with compassion. On the extreme end, they put others first to the degree that they will sacrifice their own needs to the needs of others, even unto the point of death. They find it difficult to be assertive and to stand up for themselves. The only case they will fight for their own needs, is when their own needs are tied up in the needs of others. They tend to prefer a place that is safe, where the needs of each are able to be cared for without compromise between said needs. Competing needs frustrate them; they desire a state of being where all needs can be met, perhaps except for their own. Balance is incredibly difficult in this state. Their compassion for others is so great, that what hatred they have is directed towards themselves, others who are functionally indistinguishable to themselves, or others who are so different from themselves, that they must be put in the category of predator. Women are disproportionately Agreeable, and thank God for that. If women weren't self-sacrificing and compassionate to such an incredible degree, none of us would be here. Newborns are incredibly taxing to take care of. It takes a lot of compassion-based restraint not to chuck 'em out the window, and if you don't believe that, you haven't gone through the exhaustion of being a parent to a newborn. The evolutionary biologist literature suggests that's why women are so Agreeable; every caretaker that abandoned their child was eradicated from the gene pool. So biology necessitates that parents sacrifice their own wants for that of their children, perhaps to an insane degree. [parents running to console coughing child in middle of night]
+
+## The Compassionate are wont to speak for the disposessed, for those who have no voice. They see the struggles of others as a call to action on their behalf, or perhaps on the behalf of the society that has left them behind. Some of the more conscientious among the compassionate, understand that others may not assist in their efforts to give a leg-up to the disposessed, and they will do it themselves. Some of the less conscientious, will dedicate their efforts to making the issues of the disposessed everybody else's problem, too. Dostoyevsky said, "There is only one way to salvation, and that is to make yourself responsible for all men's sins. As soon as you make yourself responsible in all sincerity for everything and for everyone, you will see at once that this is really so, and that you are in fact to blame for everyone and for all things." The overwhelmingly Agreeable take this principle to heart, though they may only enforce it against society at large, because their personal responsibilities are more pressing than that which is out of their control. Principles are, universally, easier preached than followed. Likewise compassion is easier expressed than enacted. The compassionate, when confronted with a heartbreaking situation, will advocate assistance towards the disposessed, some may donate to their cause. But if they attempted to right every wrong they witnessed, they'd forget to feed themselves. Many on the extreme end, do. [Chris from megapleggs... perhaps Ghandi? may be a bad example] So it must needs be that there is moderation in all things. Those who cannot stand up for themselves; children, those plagued by illness or addiction, the homeless, the mentally ill, the mentally and physically disabled, the disposessed at large, their struggles, challenges, and needs, require eyes, ears, action, and perhaps a mouthpiece on their behalf. For if the compassionate care not for those who cannot care for themselves, who will? Certainly not the disagreeable. The agreeable and the disagreeable, much like the Open and the Conscientious, must be confrontational in negotiating with each other. For when we cease to negotiate, we devolve into War and Chaos, on the individual and the societal level. The Compassionate are destined to knock on the doors of others, shaking down the disagreeable for the funds to care for those who suffer. [scrooge visited by beaker and dr funi] But the more they do so via the long arm of the state and the Government gun, the less willing the disagreeable will become. [are there no poorhouses...?]
+
+## So Agreeableness is incredibly important, and constructive. It can also be incredibly destructive. Pathological Agreeableness is akin to a mother bear. It's great to be within the sphere of her agreeableness. If you're adjacent to her sphere of Agreeableness, watch out; she *will* maul you. Protection of the needs of the in-group above all, necessitates aggression against the out-group. Mama bear does not have time to assess threats. She must assume all out-groupers are threats. When Agreeableness becomes Pathological, nothing but destruction is left in its wake. Archetypically, this is represented by the Devouring Mother, or the Evil Queen. She seeks to imprison the Noble Knight, stripping him of his strength and power, releasing him only when he is too weak and feeble to make any meaningful difference in the world. Neither him nor his strength, courage, nor sacrifice can benefit the Princess if the Evil Queen gets her way.
+
+## Openness and Agreeableness are allied, if not correlated. Those who are Creative and curious, create the means by which the Compassionate can meet the needs of those they have taken under their wing. Openness understands Agreeableness, as Openness seeks to understand all. Openness even understands Conscientiousness, though they may disagree on much, they respect each other. Conscientiousness also assists in creating the means for Compassion to meet needs. But Agreeableness often sees Conscientiousness as the enemy, identifying, and sometimes rightly so, that the Conscientious, and especially their overlap with the Disagreeable, creates the class of the disposessed. So Openness and Agreeableness have a pact to embrace Chaos, until the Chaos is so prevalent that Agreeableness has no more means to care for the disposessed. When resources are low, safety is a privilege, and needs cannot be met, Agreeableness flees to the Order maintained by Conscientiousness, and directs their Mama Bear towards those who disrupted the Order, even within their own ranks. The pathologically compassionate, likewise push the Visionaries away, due to their insistance on the tight boundaries of in-groups and out-groups, and also because too much Chaos is too disruptive to them.
+
+## If you find yourself agreeing with one temperament over the other, and cannot see the value in sharing a society with the other, you're missing the entire point. Liberals start all the successful businesses. Conservatives run them. Look at Tesla, for example. Elon Musk is psychologically Liberal; he's so devoted to exploring the Chaos, that he won't even purchase a home. His ideas break the mold constantly, innovating so intensely that he's practically singlehandedly created the entire electric vehicle market, something we would have thought impossible a decade ago. He's generated many now-ubiquitous ideas and businesses such as PayPal as well. His ideas are incredible and quite profitable, but he fucking sucks at compromising his boundary-breaking limitless ideas with the wisdom of the current Order. In less philosophical terms, his cars are efficient, sleek, and more than adequately serve the basic functions of their design. But they sacrifice safety, function, and convenience for the sake of novelty. For example, the wisdom of conventional controls for windshield wipers are as follows: the operation of the wipers is controlled by a physical lever. All of the parameters are set by additional controls on the lever that differ by make and model. Why is this the case? Because it allows the operation to be executed without taking up additional bandwidth in the prefrontal cortex. In other words, it's subconscious. The windshield wipers can be activated, and the speed adjusted, by muscle memory alone. It hardly has to be activated by the conscience. This allows the conscious to give its undivided attention to the road, which keeps the driver, their passengers, and all other individuals on the road, safe. The visionaries with lesser conscientiousness do not appreciate the utility of this and many other features of both our cars and our societies at large, often because they have never thought about it and have taken such wisdom for granted. The tesla model [IDK] has its wipers activated by touch screen. This requires the driver to take their eyes off the road, and tap the correct option. There is no tactical difference where anything but the eyes can recognize where the option is, and which one has been pressed. Tactical feedback is essential for confirmation of an operation being completed; this is why most people overwhemingly prefer a computer keyboard with a certain amount of feedback. Almost nobody prefers a keyboard with zero feedback. [citation needed] Try texting on your touchscreen smartphone with your eyes closed and without using your peripheral vision. Your thumbs remember the general areas to tap, but without the confirmation of viewing the inputs, you will absolutely make mistakes. Mistakes while texting are trivial. Mistakes while driving can be fatal. Similarly, many other features are locked behind the novelty of voice-activation. I forsee many of these so-called "innovations" will become things of the past, even with the assistance of AI. Communication, though it differs across languages, takes up much more mental bandwidth than subconscious actions, as it should. Speaking commands out loud disengages other bodily processes from the activity. Humans are not designed to be treated as consciousnesses in brains, and brains in bodies. We are consciousnesses intertwined with bodies, and the brain is just the central locus of it all. The brain is inseperable from the nervous system, so it's hardly accurate to say that the brain inhabits the head. The brain *is* the body. Point being, tactical feedback is far from pointless, and we'll be safer if we don't have to look down to command the most basic functions of the death machines we operate on a daily basis.
+
+## Additionally, whatever you think of the visual design of the Cybertruck, the entire thing hardly qualifies as a truck. The Cybertruck is probably Musk's greatest failure to compromise with the conventional wisdom of vehicle design. It competes pitifully with any of the basic functions of all other trucks. The windows boast very little comparative durability due to their lack of structural integrity, a concern they promised would be ironed out. The frame is weak and presents challenges of the lithium ion battery spontaneously combusting after a certain amount of wear and tear. In the event the vehicle does catch on fire, or other emergencies, those who are unfamiliar with the unintuitive design of the exits may not be able to escape, especially if disoriented from an impact. The doors cannot be operated unpowered for multiple reasons, one of which being the need for the windows to slightly open upon exit. When powered, the emergency exit will lower the windows. The emergency latch is unintuitive, but easily accessible on the front doors. Unpowered, the window will not roll down and will become damaged. In the rear doors, you must dig in the bottom of the door to lift a secret compartment, revealing a yellow pullstring that releases the door latch. Powered doors are a neat feature in line with Elon's vision for the future of personal vehicles. This feature will not catch on if the design thereof is not adjusted to address the safety of the operator and passengers. Elon's visions are magnificent and valuable. His achievements with SpaceX are awe-inspiring. It's not to say that going to mars won't present Elon, and humanity at large, significant challenges, but the only way to meet said challenges is with the input of both the Visionary and the Disciplined. It's tough enough to balance this within yourself, tougher still for everyone to be individually balanced enough to cooperate in balancing an entire society.
+
+## If you're high in openness, you love breaking things. If you're highly conscientious, you can't stand the mess. [jbp] There is a moderate amount of the population who scores high on both, though it is somewhat rare. It is immensely difficult to have both, because you find yourself breaking things, then beating yourself up when you suffer the consequences. You understand that self-discipline is a pathway to success, but you find self-discipline taxing. The best balance for this, as far as I'm aware, is to find a job where self-discipline can keep you financially stable, while exploring the Chaos in your free time. Because if you're high in openness, you don't get a choice to not explore the Chaos. If you're high in Conscientiousness, you don't get the choice to not maintain the order. Keeping this in balance, pardon my German, sucks dick. Say you want to compose or even simply play music. You can recognize how the composition fits together, how the instruments are played, and you want nothing else than to triumphantly deliver your performance! But you can hear every wrong note, every incorrect rhythm. You can hear precisely just how off each timbre or tone is. So the openness and conscientiousness clash, and stop dead in their tracks, completely impeded by each other. Momentum in a forward direction is nearly impossible; getting anything done in this state is incredibly difficult. Children and adults alike find it difficult to complete assignments, deadlines, and even basic tasks due to this unending limitation on their conscience. I suspect this is common with those who are neurodivergent, though I have no empirical evidence to present to corroborate it. It's just a hunch.
+
+## Conversely, the primarily Agreeable and the Disagreeable need each other as well. The overwhemingly agreeable don't know how to balance their own needs with the needs of those they have compassion for. The disagreeable, too, cannot find this balance, but they prioritize themselves instead. The Agreeable will go out on a limb wih their compassion. For example, the agreeable will offer compassion to the homeless by direct donations [hulk taco], charitable donations, and advocacy for policies and programs to help them (otherwise known as donation of other people's money). But when there is a poor stranger on their doorstep, they are forced to square their compassion for the generally disposessed with their compassion for the in-group. The in-group always wins. This is demonstrable with further examples. The Agreeable consensus agrees that there must be homeless shelters, and they're willing to sacrifice their own resources, or will seize the resources of others, in order to erect and maintain them. However, the consensus will divide on whose needs take precedence within said shelters. A Compassionate Feminist group will become discompassionate to male-to-female transgender individuals who decide to take up lodging within a women's shelter. Other Agreeables who prioritize Trans people will become combative with the Feminist Agreeables. This results in a Mama Bear War. [drawing of two combative (anthro?) bears, one holding up a feminist flag, the other a trans flag] The Agreeable Feminists will argue that subjective identity does not negate the threat of a biologically male individual entering a woman's space. The Agreeable Trans-Advocates will argue that the manifestation and presentation of said subjective identity opens the male-to-female transgender individual to violence within the male shelter, and there exists no third category of shelter for the transgender individual to go. There is hardly a feasible compromise between these diametrically opposed perspectives, thus a war is practically inevitable. Pathological Agreeableness eats its own when they cannot agree on the hierarchy of compassion. Does the compassion extend to individuals based on their individual needs, or does the compassion extend to groups based on their group needs? And if the latter is true, which group needs take precedence? The group that matters the most to anyone with the slightest degree of agreeableness, is the group that is most similar to you, or the one you personally feel more compassionate for. Universally, this is the group you spend the most time with; your inner circle of friends and family.
+
+## The Agreeable need to become assertive, or more disagreeable, in order to champion the cause of their priority group. So their spokesperson, or protector, must be the most disagreeable among them in order to win in either war or negotiation. This is nested within the other dichotomy, given that negotiation requires both creativity, openness to understanding the opponent's position, and conscientiousness in communicating one's own position. Too much openness, and the communication sounds like lunacy and pie-in-the-sky ideological regurgitation. Too much conscientiousness, and the communication sounds inhuman and unfeeling. Depening on your perspective, one or both of these perspectives will sound idiotic. So every single individual requires balance within themselves, and the groups to which they claim membership also require just as much, if not more balance, in order to function without falling to either side. And believe you me, it doesn't matter which side you fall on when you lose balance. Both sides require a descent, and the fall is harsh.
+
+## Within today's sociopolitical landscape, Openness and Agreeableness have a tight allyship and hegemony, though this allyship is beginning to fray. Liberals tend to be primarily Open, while leftists tend to be primarily Agreeable. The Conscientious disagreeables advocate for the hierarchy, and the Agreeables advocate for the disruption or even destruction of the hierarchy. Openness bounces between whomever allows the most freedom, tending to side against the order that has become an old, outdated, and corrupt tyranny. Neuroticism is also mostly in the middle. This dichotomy, between hierarchy on one side, and the criticism of hierarchy on the other, is classically referred to as the Right and Left, respectively. These definitions are overly simplistic and thus must not be applied so broadly, for the consequence is sociopolitical division and exacerbated polarity. Again, when negotiation ceases without the emergence of a new social contract, the only interaction we have left between us is war. [Klaus] If the left and right cease negotiation, war breaks out, new boundaries are drawn, and a winner is eventually declared. You end up with east and west berlin, where the balance is completely lopsided. [footage from meet the mormons?] You end up with Utopians on either side. Utopians are responsible for every major disastrous movement to have ever been realized; the belief in a perfect world that we can build ourselves up to [tower of babel] brings about not Utopia, but Dystopia, every time it is attempted. Archetypically speaking, we cannot build ourselves up to Heaven, we can only try our best to live the best lives we possibly can, in a way that doesn't make sacrifices of the balance required for the sustaining of life. We cannot build ourselves up to Heaven, but we're certainly capable of digging ourselves into some fresh Hell. Perhaps the most far-reaching truth that has been revealed to me in my twenty-three years of life on this earth is this: If you don't believe in Heaven, you're not looking hard enough; if you don't believe in Hell, you're not looking at all. Heaven is all around us, but it's subtle, quiet, and rarely recognized and appreciated. Hell is also all around us. Hell is in the loss of a loved one. Hell is in the eyes of the drug-addicted man who stares at passers-by from the gutter. Hell is in those who struggle to make ends meet. Hell is in those who don't know how they can make it another day. Hell stares you in the face when you turn on the news. Hell is in watching the results of an election, terrified that your life will be dictated to on high by somebody else's favorite tyrant. Hell is in pain, from everything as simple as the smart of a stubbed toe, to the searing pain of a mortal wound. Hell is in those who shake their fist at God. Hell is in those who take out their frustration with cosmic injustice on all the innocent around them who don't deserve it. [lenin, stalin, marx, school shooters...] Hell is real. If you've ever been conscious you know Hell is the realest thing we can ever have the misery of witnessing. Conversely, and more subtly, Heaven is also all around us. Heaven is in the safety and comfort of one's own home. Heaven is in the embrace of a mother [iron giant]. Heaven is in the kindness of a friend. Heaven is in the presence of those whose existence proves you're not alone. Heaven is in the courage of those burdened with the responsibility that comes with power, who refuse to use it for anything that isn't good [iron giant, spider-man]. It's easy to believe in Hell, it's hardly even a choice. It's the damn hardest thing any of us can do to even believe in Heaven, let alone to bring it about. When we're in Heaven, we should thank our lucky stars it's graced us with its presence. And we won't dare attempt to force others to bring about our pathetic imitation of Heaven.
+
+## Utopians believe too much in a heaven that exists only within their minds. They believe it can be made real, which is delusional. They don't believe in shooting for the moon and at least landing among the stars. They believe in absolution to their aim, and the destruction of all who stand in their way.
+
+
+If one, the other, or both temperaments refuse to at least leave each other alone, they will then enter into war with each other. And that's not a threat, that's a prophecy. 

yt/musings on sexuality.md

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+[critique bit]
+
+## And that's about it for this one. I split it due to not wanting my thoughts to be all over the place, but then again, this is me we're talking about. Again, I'm streaming on Twitch every so often and enjoying my time there. Got several projects on the way, so long as I can get these off my plate as well. Farewell, and take it easy.
+
+## **I see it prudent now, to share an anecdote.**
+
+/* When I was about 16, I was on the swim team, and I was never comfortable with changing with the rest of the boys in the tiny cramped locker room. I was harassed by at least one of my peers, and derogatorily called gay for always changing in the stall and taking a long time. But I wasn't in the stall because I was gay or bi, I was in the stall because I was autistic. I couldn't reconcile the fact that we wear clothing all the time for privacy's sake, but for some reason when it was time to change, everybody could strip totally naked in each other's presence. I hadn't exactly rationalized it then, but I think the subconscious thought in my mind was, there's a reason we have clothes on, and it's to keep the private parts of our bodies private. What about keeping those parts private changed, when we were in a boys-only locker room? If we can go naked in the locker room, why don't we go naked outside it, and why do we have laws that criminalize such exposure? I thought none of it was okay, and I wasn't comfortable with showing mine, and much of that was because very few of the older, more popular, socialized people on that "team" were ever very kind to me. Whenever I would talk to them, they'd look at me like I was from another planet. Which is true, but that didn't make it right. If I don't even feel comfortable talking to you, what makes you think I'd ever feel comfortable getting *naked* in front of you? And the constant harassment and complaints from the juniors and seniors only furthered this divide. Sure, I could have taken less time. But they should have been kinder, not just because it was the right thing to do, but because common ground helps resolve disputes and you're being a dumbass if you think being forceful in directing your anger towards somebody at their behavior is *ever* going to fix their behavior. I wish I could have been more social. But I was in the process of reverse-engineering the intricacies of social interaction with a lot on my plate for a teenager, given my extracurriculars and AP and concurrent enrollment and all. But none of that had to do with sexuality. So it would be disrespectful to and exploitative of myself to define myself that way.*/
+
+## Especially given that my sexuality is exploitative of myself, which is true of any male with a high libido.
+
+## We are slaves to our inhibititions, because consciousness exists as the convergence of multiple different systems, and they're constantly at war with each other. The limbic system, otherwise known as the paleomammalian system, is one of the most ancient collection of circuits in the human brain. Part of this system is the hypothalamus, which connects the nervous system to the endocrine system. It's outside of the control of consciousness; humans can't tell the body to stop sending signals to maintain homeostasis. The body doesn't trust consciousness with that. So that same circuit that induces hominids to seek shelter when cold, is the same one that makes them seek a mate when the body says it's time to do so. You don't control it. It controls you. And it can be hijacked by a great manner of things. Sexuality, for example, has been scientifically proven to be remarkably fluid depending on the surrounding culture. This is why LGBTQAF has shown substantially increased numbers in the youngest generations. If your brain is wired, whether it be by nature or nurture, to associate your sex drive with certain things, you can't control that. What you can control is what to do about it, which is the purpose of consciousness. Your job, as the conscious being at the locus of those converging systems, is not to tyrannize the lower systems. It's to accept that they demand something of you, and assess whether that demand is maximally beneficial for you as a whole. So the limbic system demands sexual satisfcation, and does so in different ways and at varying intensities in different people. If your conceptual schema is that the system is always wrong, you're going to be very unhappy, because now you have an entire system at war with your schema, but if the schema falls, your consciousness will devolve into chaos. This is why some males with homosexual feelings, such as myself, fall into self-destructive behavior when grappling with them. Our schema says it is wrong, but the limbic system won't shut up because you cannot dictate its function. So that internal war must not be allowed to have either side prevail. If the limbic system wins, then you're left without a schema, and a new schema is built to enslave you to your sexual desires. If the schema wins, the limbic system will torture you constantly and you will crumble under the weight of said desires. The limbic system can't be wrong, in the sense that it exists to make desires known to the consciousness, so that they may be satiated. But it can be wrong, in the sense that those desires can be satiated via methods that are not maximally beneficial to you, because said methods do not allow you to play the game of life in a way that is best for you, that is also best for your inner circle of friends and family, that is best for your community, that is best for your principality, state, and the world at large. You can say that the entire hierarchy is completely wrong, good luck to you trying to destroy the most advanced collective schema ever known to be created in the history of biology and the *universe*. Good luck trying to supplant that with a schema you cobbled together last week. It's tough enough to be at war with your own internal systems. It's damn near impossible to win, so you have no chance in hell going to war with someone else's schema, let alone all of humanity.
+
+## My proposed alternative is this: you could figure out what way you can ensure that the hypothalamus is satiated, in a way that is maximally beneficial for you, without subjugating the entire rest of existence to your physiological or emotional needs, no matter where they truly come from, and no matter what you believe. We can now have a conceptual schema that incorporates the concerns of the hypothalamus, or at least doesn't sideline every concern that it brings to the table. But that schema must be constructed with the concerns of other consciousnesses in mind. That way, you have no need to go to war with yourself, neither with anybody else. But to get there, it's required that you consider the perspective of other consciousnesses and have civil discussions in a way where information can be exchanged without devolving into War, in any way.
+
+## Personally, my conceptual schema has never been tolerant of my lower systems attempting to determine my behavior. It's caused me a great deal of distress, especially given the fact that the hypothalamus is truly in control. It causes you to do things that you wouldn't do in your right mind, things you tend to regret afterwards. The guilt can be debilitating. But it's part of life, so the best way to go forward is to mitigate those forces as much as possible, and to only embrace them when you know you can afford to, and that's when there are minimal outsized consequences to your behavior. And not a moment earlier. It's a mistake to embrace your inhibitions when you have no idea where they're going or why they're there. And it's tyranny to demand that others praise you for embracing them, especially when they serve only yourself. We are all responsible for our mental state, and if we make ourselves dependent on the praise of others, we will inevitably be disappointed and miserable. Even if the rebukes of others aren't just or fair, we have the responsibility to recognize their right to speak in that way. It serves us best in the long run, to get the sympathy we need from ones who love and understand us, and to expect no sympathy from those who may not.
+
+## In conclusion, my sexuality does not define me. It may constrain my behavior somewhat, but only in ways that matter to me and my significant other. My autism defines me in ways that are far more pronounced, in that the constraints on my behavior are omnipresent and somewhat obvious to anyone who's ever socialized before. I'm me because I'm me, and I will not take pride in anything that doesn't define me. I'll take pride only on what I have made the efforts to control, to bring about the best state of being I can muster. I'll take pride in who I decided to be, so long as that's someone worth being prideful of. Perhaps I'm not yet entirely proud of who I am. Perhaps I never should be, if my only desire is Improvement & Progression ad Infinitum.
+
+## And that's what I wish for you, dear viewer. May you have Improvement & Progression, ad Infinitum. God be with you 'til we meet again.

yt/musings on sexuality_001.md

@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+## In a previous RainysRambles video, I briefly spoke about sexuality, autism, and some of the psychological and philosophical implications surrounding it in my experience. I was going to elaborate in my editor's notes, but my notes ended up far too long to put in that video, so I decided to split them off into a separate presentation. Keep in mind my limited implicit ethos; I'm making my case based off of the information I've gathered in life and have not provided any sources. I do this because I don't see my musings here as such distilled, pure, and actionable truth that they require rigorous sourcing, moreso due to the required time investment. I'd love to speak the truth and nothing but, and to provide extensive sources, but my time here is limited, so you must take these as speculative musings based off of the experience of someone with twenty-three years on this Earth, and nothing more.
+
+## **So, I see it prudent now, to share an anecdote.**
+
+## When I was about 16, I was on the swim team, and I was never comfortable with changing with the rest of the boys in the tiny cramped locker room. I was harassed by at least one of my peers, and derogatorily called gay for always changing in the stall and taking a long time. But I wasn't in the stall because I was gay or bi, I was in the stall because I was autistic. I couldn't reconcile the fact that we wear clothing all the time for privacy's sake, but for some reason when it was time to change, everybody could strip totally naked in each other's presence. I hadn't exactly rationalized it then, but I think the subconscious thought in my mind was, there's a reason we have clothes on, and it's to keep the private parts of our bodies private. What about keeping those parts private changed, when we were in a boys-only locker room? If we can go naked in the locker room, why don't we go naked outside it, and why do we have laws that criminalize such exposure? I thought none of it was okay, and I wasn't comfortable with showing mine, and much of that was because very few of the older, more popular, socialized people on that "team" were ever very kind to me. Whenever I would talk to them, they'd look at me like I was from another planet. Which is true, but that didn't make it right. If I don't even feel comfortable talking to you, what makes you think I'd ever feel comfortable getting *naked* in front of you? And the constant harassment and complaints from the juniors and seniors only furthered this divide. Sure, I could have taken less time. But ethically speaking, they should have been kinder, not because I'm an altruist. As an Objectivist, common ground helps resolve disputes, and if you want someone to stop doing what they're doing, you need to be diplomatic about it. Forcefully directing your anger towards somebody for their behavior is *never* going to be anything but counterproductive to your desires. In any case, I wish I could have had more success socially. But I was in the process of reverse-engineering the intricacies of hominid social interaction with a lot on my plate for a teenager, given my extracurriculars, AP classes, and concurrent enrollment and all. But none of that experience had to do with sexuality. So it would be disrespectful to, and exploitative of myself to define myself that way.
+
+## Yes, defining me by my sexuality is a very bad idea, because my sexuality *itself* is exploitative of myself, which is true of any male with a high libido, particularly those who struggle to control it.
+
+## We are slaves to our inhibititions, because consciousness exists as the convergence of multiple different systems, and they're constantly at war with each other. The limbic system, otherwise known as the paleomammalian system, is one of the most ancient collections of circuits in the human brain. Part of this system is the hypothalamus, which connects the nervous system to the endocrine system. It's outside of the control of consciousness; humans can't tell the body to stop sending signals to maintain homeostasis. The body largely doesn't trust consciousness with that. You can breathe manually, and you can hold your breath, but when your consciousness is preoccupied, those activities return to their homeostatic defaults. Even if you wanted to, you can't manually pump blood or stop your heart, even if you were attempting to do so for what you believed to be good reason. The consciousness is not wiser than countless generations of the Darwinian process, and is thus not to be trusted with total control.
+
+## So that same circuit that induces hominids to seek shelter when cold, is the same one that makes them seek a mate when the body says it's time to do so. You don't control it. It controls you. And it can be hijacked by a great manner of things. Sexuality, for example, has been scientifically proven to be remarkably fluid depending on the surrounding culture. This is why the LGBTQAF has shown substantially increased numbers in the youngest generations, and potentially in those who are autistic, though I'm speaking a priori, and haven't done my research to whatever extent is required to prove this. If your brain is wired, whether it be by nature or nurture, to associate your sex drive with certain things, you can't necessarily directly control that. What you can control is what to do about it, which is the purpose of consciousness. Your job, as the conscious being at the locus of those converging systems, is not to tyrannize the lower systems. It's to accept that they demand something of you, and assess whether that demand is maximally beneficial for you as a whole. So the limbic system demands sexual satisfcation, and does so in different ways and at varying intensities in different people. 
+
+## A conceptual schema is a high-level, abstract representation of a database's structure and relationships. It's a term normally relevant to computer science, but we can relate this to psychology with psychoanalysis, in the sense that, whether we've mapped it out or not, we all have built a "database" consisting entirely of the information we've collected. Truths and falsehoods, realities and dreams, and especially the vast ramifications of archetypical stories, reside here. Each action, lesson, experience, behavior, it all influences this node tree. Thus, the older you become, often the more complex this schema will be, if it were to be mapped out. This schema resides within the prefrontal cortex.
+
+## If your conceptual schema is coded with the logic that a system, in this case, the limbic system, particularly the hypothalamus, is always wrong, you're going to be very unhappy, because now you have an entire system at war with your schema, but if the schema falls, your consciousness will devolve into chaos. This is why some males with homosexual feelings, such as myself, fall into self-destructive behavior when grappling with them. Our schema says it is wrong, but the limbic system won't shut up because you cannot dictate its function to it. So that internal war must not be allowed to have either side prevail. If the limbic system wins, then you're left without a schema, and a new schema is built to enslave you to your sexual desires. If the schema wins, the limbic system will torture you constantly and you will crumble under the weight of said desires. The limbic system can't be wrong, in the sense that it exists to make desires known to the consciousness, so that they may be satiated. But it can be wrong, in the sense that those desires can be satiated via methods that are not maximally beneficial to you, because said methods do not allow you to play the game of life in a way that is best for you, that is also best for your inner circle of friends and family, that is best for your community, that is best for your principality, state, and the world at large. You can say that the entire hierarchy is completely wrong, good luck to you trying to destroy the most advanced collective schema ever known to be created in the history of biology and the *universe*. Good luck trying to supplant that with a schema you cobbled together last week. In the impossible sum of the monkey fist hung on a vine, your schema was created yesterday. Hominids have a consistent problem with percieving themselves as wiser than countless successes in the Darwinian process. It's tough enough to be at war with your own internal systems. It's damn near impossible to win, so you have no chance in hell going to war with someone else's schema, let alone all of humanity, or conversely, all of reality.
+
+## My proposed alternative is this: you could figure out what way you can ensure that the hypothalamus is satiated, in a way that is maximally beneficial for you, without subjugating the entire rest of existence to your physiological or emotional needs, no matter where they truly come from, and no matter what you believe. That way, we have a conceptual schema that incorporates the concerns of systems such as the hypothalamus, or at least it doesn't sideline every concern that is brought to the table. But that schema must be constructed with the concerns of other consciousnesses in mind. That way, you have no need to go to war with yourself, neither with anybody else. But to get there, it's required that you consider the perspective of other consciousnesses and have civil discussions in a way where information can be exchanged without devolving into War, in any way.
+
+## Personally, my conceptual schema has never been tolerant of my lower systems attempting to determine my behavior. It's caused me a great deal of distress, especially given the fact that the hypothalamus is truly in control. It causes you to do things that you wouldn't do in your right mind, things you tend to regret afterwards. The guilt can be debilitating. But it's part of life, so the best way to go forward is to mitigate those forces as much as possible, and to only embrace them when you know you can afford to, and that's when there are minimal outsized consequences to your behavior. And not a moment earlier. It's a mistake to embrace your inhibitions when you have no idea where they're going or why they're there. And it's tyranny to demand that others praise you for embracing them, especially when they serve only your happiness, which is your moral burden alone. We are all responsible for our mental state, and if we make ourselves dependent on the praise of others, we will inevitably be disappointed and miserable. Even if the rebukes of others aren't just or fair, we have the responsibility to recognize their right to speak in that way. It serves us best in the long run, to get the sympathy we need from ones who love and understand us, and to expect nor demand any sympathy from those who may not.
+
+## But there's obviously balance to this; do not conflate minimal outsized consequences with *zero* outsized consequences. Mistakes are inevitable in an imperfect temporal existence. Don't tyrannize yourself for falling short of whatever your ideal is. Be vigilant, but not so uncompromizing as to force you give up your original aim. In a word, be *realistic* with what you can achieve over the course of your journey of self-mastery. Tyrannizing yourself is a bad idea, but it's even worse to tyrannize others. You can choose your aim and how you pursue it. It's a fool's errand to attempt to choose the aims of consciousnesses independent from your own. And berating others about their decisions, whether you believe them to be poor or not, is not likely to be anything but counterproductive to your aims.
+
+## I mentioned responsibility, and what I mean by that is that you deserve everything you experience without limitation. This is a metaphysical conclusion, an absolute, I've come to over much philosophical musing. Or, perhaps, it's an idea that's siezed me. But as it applies to freedom of speech, you deserve everything that results from your inability to recognize the right of others to speak as they see fit, no matter how much you may object to their ideas. Again, this is an absolute. So, if you see someone else's behavior as an affront to your senses, you have every right to speak your mind on it. Do so with rationality. Or do not; you will suffer the consequences either way, be they good or bad. If you are the one who has become subject to critique, first assume that the person you're speaking with knows something you don't, and if you seek to gain understanding of that, you may be able to learn something of value, and hopefully it's a more amicable experience for you both.
+
+## Let me apply my philosophy bluntly: those who claim membership to the Alphabet Mafia has the right to behave as they see fit, and those who are opposed to such behavior have the right to voice their opposition, especially if they do so offensively. What neither of them have a right to do is to tyrannize each other. The gay progressive has no right to penalize the speech of the Christian Conservative, and vice-versa. /*michael knowles*/ Both of them have the right to dissociate with the other if they see no reason to prolong association. In any case, the happiness of each is their own moral burden, and they deserve every consequence of their behavior they recieve. So the best way forward is for everyone to leave each other the hell alone. For any grouping of us versus them, either we will agree to coexist, or we will agree to exist separate from each other. If that boundary cannot be drawn and abided to, war will continue, and the consequences thereof will be on the heads of all who did nothing to prevent it. Don't be mistaken that I say this in favor of your pursuasion. I say this in favor of the ideal itself, and I pray that we do not fail in our adherence to it.
+
+## In conclusion, my sexuality does not define me. It may constrain my behavior somewhat, but only in ways that matter to me and my significant other. My autism defines me in ways that are far more pronounced, in that the constraints on my behavior, or indeed, the underlying causes of the behavior itself, are omnipresent and somewhat obvious to anyone who's ever socialized before. I'm me because I'm me, and I will not take pride in anything that doesn't define me. I'll take pride only on what I have made the efforts to control, to bring about the best state of being I can muster. I'll take pride in who I decided to be, so long as that's someone worth being prideful of. Perhaps I'm not yet entirely proud of who I am. Perhaps I never should be, if my only desire is Improvement & Progression ad Infinitum.
+
+## And that's what I wish for you, dear viewer. May you have Improvement & Progression, ad Infinitum. God be with you 'til we meet again.

yt/political compass/redesigning & redefining the political compass.md

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+## One of the reasons why I don't think this is a useful categorical tool is because it leads to a lot of confusion about what any given ideology actually believes. For example, Ba'athism is seen as holding both right and left-wing beliefs simultaneously, which causes it to end up in a weird place due to the law of averages. I mean, for goodness' sake, Kleptocracy ends up on here twice due to the ineptitude of this model; nobody knows where to place it. Fascism and Nazism suffer a similar fate, in that Economic Fascism is when the government sees Capitalism as a useful mule to hitch a cart to, with which it can enact all of its grand and big ideas, whatever those may be. But many people seem to want to garble this axis in particular, sometimes ignoring that it's supposed to be about economic policy, instead injecting nationalism into it. Nationalism, in its simplest form being the belief that each nation should govern itself, free from outside interference, does not exist on either of these axes. Whether the government's scope applies only to their own country, or if it can or should go beyond its borders or when, or whether borders should even exist, requires a separate axis entirely. The problem here is that the history of human thought is far too complicated to display all of the axiomatic persuasions of any particular ideology on only two axes, and while adding an additional axis would complicate the model enough, if we were to add another one, the average human mind would find it very difficult to comprehend. The best we could do is something like this, but it doesn't create the same categorical effect, even if it plainly displays more ideological axioms, we still don't know exactly how to categorize this person, and if we were to color code and then blend the colors, we'd have to calculate that. It's just too damn complicated. So, if we want to set out to achieve a two-axis categorical model, we must ensure that both axes are completely simple, which they are not.
+
+## The vertical axis of more government versus less government is a simple, value-centric axiomatic dichotomy. In other words, it speaks to basic values and is therefore useful. In contrast, the horizontal axis of Socialism versus Capitalism, or left-wing versus right wing economic policies, is trying to grapple with a much deeper question about who gets to own things of value.
+
+## Thus, my proposal is simple: we agree to define the horizontal axis as positive rights versus negative rights.
+
+## It's not to say that this model isn't without its flaws. There is no axes for isolationism, for example, so if you're strong on borders that doesn't compute here, though it may fall on someone who believes other things based on their pathologies. And obviously, there is no axis for racism, or who the racism applies to, or what the result of the racism may be. The most useful antidote to this, is you take the most fundamental beliefs on this axis, and scale them up to larger populations. Now, this may cause complications, because people at different levels struggle to fit their axiomatic beliefs into larger problems, but I'll take a crack at some examples. One of the benefits of such a values-based model is that it applies to all situations, big or small, so it may force you to rethink the way you treat people on an interpersonal level, effectively merging your axiomatic beliefs into one belief system, which I think we're in dire need of, given the lack of consistency we see in all political persuasions. 
+
+## If you believe in negative rights, and you apply that value at the familial level, you will raise your children with an expectation for them to behave well, in accordance with preserving their own negative rights, taking on the responsibilities that come with them, and respecting the negative rights of others. So the bubble of negative rights that surround each individual in your family, has such an overlap that it becomes its own bubble in a collective sense, and anyone within that bubble shares the largest set of common values than at any level in society in order for them to coexist. If enough values prove to be uncommon between one member of the family and the others, that member may be distanced from the family, potentially permanently. To use a human universal as an example, if the father begins to abuse a child, so long as the mother does not think it just, she now has to confront that their common values are no longer common, and will use any means available to her to create distance between her and the offending party. In the modern day, divorce can be such a means, but in the state of nature, she may have to use whatever form of physical force she can employ, or perhaps she must use trickery or other tactics in order to move the bubble of the family's rights to exclude his.
+
+## To scale it up one level, if you coexist in physical proximity with other families, those families must share a certain amount of values as well, though the amount of values decreases. 
+
+## To place anyone on this model is a claim, and all claims require evidence and thus a case to be made. So while all these claims require evidence, I can spitball a couple to give a rundown of how categorization should work here. Keep in mind that people can change views over time, so it serves us well to consider how the views and policies of individuals may have shifted.

yt/potentialvids/coco vs book of life/desktop.ini

@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+[LocalizedFileNames]
+20141017 - Carmelo (2000) - Copy.mp4=@20141017 - Carmelo (2000),0

yt/potentialvids/frozen review note.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+2020-10-03
+
+frozen 2 review
+i enjoyed the film, it was pretty good! the least i can say for it is that it wasn’t as painfully mediocre as many of the other films produced in recent pixar history. 

yt/potentialvids/ideas or whatever.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+- mr beast content cop/expose/colossaldoc
+	+ "I would have a section here where I cover "the Beast in Me," but that's already been done so ... [some sort of idubbbz thing here]
+	+ 兽先生
+
+you know, for an asian, Yang isn't very smart... suffice it to say, he's not your stereotypical asian
+
+he pulls out his social justice warrior powers! the ability to redefine words at will is a very envied power. comes at the cost of your integrity, but, it's amazing how the human body can live without it, you know?
+
+1:20:00 girl makes point about the platform and format of change my mind being predatory towards ill-informed, emotional college students, saying it's easy for steven to capitalize on it. this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what change my mind is as a segment
+
+idk where to put this note but h3 podcast #163 ethan does an entire segment on how "joe biden is the god of cringe" wonder how consistent he'll remain on that...

yt/potentialvids/toy story movie.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+2020-07-07 5:27 pm
+
+The Toy Story Movie Nobody Wanted To See
+
+my theory: the imagination of a child is what gives them life, and the reason they swear to secrecy is because the lack of imagination the truth would casuse their child to have would kill them. some holes in this theory but I reckon it's pretty good. without any reason to remain secret at all, however, the story seems silly because you see no reason for why woody goes through all that trouble to keep forky's sentience a secret. he has no motive whatsoever to do so, and while it's funny to see him freak out about the situation, it seems wildly unneccessary because the stakes for if bonnie finds out aren't there. when there are no stakes, there is no hope and fear (uhh take off your clothes), and without hope and fear, there is no cinematic experience, and the story isn't told well.
+
+the reason why this film fails in many respects is because it fundamentally misunderstands two rules of the first movie: first, that we don't know why the toys swear to secrecy, and second, that we don't know how toys receive life. Forky makes these problems more obvious than any character or situation in the past films.
+