>>62 I want to point out the fact that I used the word "inquiry" multiple times in the segment of the video you are fixated on. I said "inquiry" because I would ask Kearesu questions or a series of questions that were meant to make conversation. I also can confirm none of the inquiries I referred to in the video revolved around drugs or their effects. If they had, I would understand why he would provide non-responses. He had never taken or even researched drugs, and attempting to construct a conversation around something he had little interest in would be selfish given that he could not participate. And if you want, I can get Kearesu himself to create a trip on here and confirm this.
Also, I do not know where you got this idea that, that video revolved around that anecdote that I had only spent less than 2 minutes explaining. It was an example I gave, in attempt to illustrate a much larger concept (that could've also been illustrated without the example.) The example was the least relevant piece of information in that video which leads me to believe >>65 is correct.
Like, is this concept really that difficult for you to understand? People use examples or hypotheticals to illustrate broader concepts. They're primarily talking about the *concept*, the example(s) used are only a small piece of this. What you're failing to understand in this comment is a basic aspect of abstract thinking.
Unless you just didn't listen to the video, there's no way you could come away thinking a comment like this is reasonable. You do not even address the thesis of the video. Instead you make vague, unsubstantiated assertions that I'm basing the thesis off of one single anecdotal experience.
It's even more jarring that you'd assume these conversations were "15 minutes of word vomit at them", when in the video I am directly referring to questions, or inquiries, I was trying out in an active attempt to engage Kearesu and learn more about him and his thought process.
What the video is really about, is this idea that "Normie" is a social construct that doesn't serve any purpose aside from internet dick measuring contests and pretentiousness. The idea was that a "normal person" does not exist.
The segment of the video you took particular issue with and attempted to paint the entire video as being about, while completely misunderstanding, was *my attempt at steelmanning the concept of normie.* It was my attempt at making the best argument for the concept of normies. A concept I disagree with and believe does not exist.
As someone who's seen n0's video, argued with him about it endlessly, and even gotten him to agree that it has certain flaws, obviously I think that video is woefully inadequate at steelmanning the concept.
So, I used an example to illustrate a good argument for a bad concept. The best argument in defense of "normies and non-normies" as concepts is "instinctual non-introspective people" vs. "non-instinctual introspective people". A paradigm that your daddy N0THANKY0U has endorsed and agreed with, by the way! When I brought this up to him, he thought it was a good way to describe two groups that he (unlike myself) believes exist.
That's the thing. I have been painstakingly arguing against this concept of "normies" since at least 2019, drawing on similar themes each time. The least you could do is criticize my positions in good faith. It would generate much better discussion, which is something this dying e-slum of a website desperately needs.
I want to point out the fact that I used the word "inquiry" multiple times in the segment of the video you are fixated on. I said "inquiry" because I would ask Kearesu questions or a series of questions that were meant to make conversation.
I also can confirm none of the inquiries I referred to in the video revolved around drugs or their effects. If they had, I would understand why he would provide non-responses. He had never taken or even researched drugs, and attempting to construct a conversation around something he had little interest in would be selfish given that he could not participate. And if you want, I can get Kearesu himself to create a trip on here and confirm this.
Also, I do not know where you got this idea that, that video revolved around that anecdote that I had only spent less than 2 minutes explaining. It was an example I gave, in attempt to illustrate a much larger concept (that could've also been illustrated without the example.) The example was the least relevant piece of information in that video which leads me to believe >>65 is correct.
Like, is this concept really that difficult for you to understand? People use examples or hypotheticals to illustrate broader concepts. They're primarily talking about the *concept*, the example(s) used are only a small piece of this. What you're failing to understand in this comment is a basic aspect of abstract thinking.
Unless you just didn't listen to the video, there's no way you could come away thinking a comment like this is reasonable. You do not even address the thesis of the video. Instead you make vague, unsubstantiated assertions that I'm basing the thesis off of one single anecdotal experience.
It's even more jarring that you'd assume these conversations were "15 minutes of word vomit at them", when in the video I am directly referring to questions, or inquiries, I was trying out in an active attempt to engage Kearesu and learn more about him and his thought process.
What the video is really about, is this idea that "Normie" is a social construct that doesn't serve any purpose aside from internet dick measuring contests and pretentiousness. The idea was that a "normal person" does not exist.
The segment of the video you took particular issue with and attempted to paint the entire video as being about, while completely misunderstanding, was *my attempt at steelmanning the concept of normie.* It was my attempt at making the best argument for the concept of normies. A concept I disagree with and believe does not exist.
As someone who's seen n0's video, argued with him about it endlessly, and even gotten him to agree that it has certain flaws, obviously I think that video is woefully inadequate at steelmanning the concept.
So, I used an example to illustrate a good argument for a bad concept. The best argument in defense of "normies and non-normies" as concepts is "instinctual non-introspective people" vs. "non-instinctual introspective people". A paradigm that your daddy N0THANKY0U has endorsed and agreed with, by the way! When I brought this up to him, he thought it was a good way to describe two groups that he (unlike myself) believes exist.
That's the thing. I have been painstakingly arguing against this concept of "normies" since at least 2019, drawing on similar themes each time. The least you could do is criticize my positions in good faith. It would generate much better discussion, which is something this dying e-slum of a website desperately needs.