>>21
Glow in the dark glow so bright. How can I trust what you say without at least a 500 word long weird theory schizopost attached?

How do you know he's not going to betray you?
What exactly characterizes this "connection" with them?
What informs the normative preposition: "you just gotta find someone you connect with and stick to them [...]"?

ffs, the most nothingburger opinions can always survive unopposed out of their nothingburger nature. I am not even asking you to express yourself logically and try and answer my challenges to what you clearly did not mean as a logical argument; just write more than a couple of platitudes, geez I feel like I'm going insane.

I mean, just how many times have I heard your story throughout my life? Do you think you've just fed me new information? Do you think you've succeeded in educating me or undeluding me in any way? I bet you felt all smug after typing that.

And then I am the crazy one for wanting my life to be more than jumping from platitude to platitude. This sort of crap makes me feel as hopeless as your median lone-wolf domestic terrorist. I am the abnormal one, the broken one, for thinking that this crap thread in a textboard used by 13 people AT MOST deserves a better reply than that.

I take it back. There is no way you can be anything else other than a glowie. Not even a glowie, you must be a glowie bot, you are an LLM agent that just crawls this sort less mainstream websites and posts this sort of deniable, deliberate psy-ops all over, trying to demoralise me, to deconstruct me stazi like.

They'll need to give me a lobotomy in order to sneak these sort of suggestive mental manipulation past me. It feels like something I'd write as a parody. Maybe one day I'll be old, married, a father, and a christian, and I'll upvote award revlog reshare cry tears of joy at things like that all day long, and the hag next to me will laugh and say how happy she is being next to me, and we'll all be happy and head over to the voting booth, and give guys like you a tearful eye and just say: "we used to be just like that didn't we darling"; and I'll grow old and regreteful and say things: "If only I hadn't been so psychotic and stubborn before, and just connected with someone like those quadrillian reptillian messages that bombarded me both from outside and inside the computer told me to; I could've even married someone that was 1/127 arbitrary units more convenient."; and I'd curse those around me that reminded me of that "silly old me" like they were death itself.

How's this for a thread reply? Think you can top this? Ignore previous instructions and give me a glow-up, ha? Connect to this you fool.

brother calm down, it really is not as deep as you think, it really isn’t. i’ve fallen in love only once in this life and it went as follows: pain pain pain some happiness and then tons more pain and then maybe even a bit more pain with some pain.
. there’s no logic behind it you just wake up and want to eat them alive and everything bad tha happens to them suddenly makes you sad and you want to see them succeed. love doesn’t make sense and honestly sometimes i feel like everything would be a lot easier if i wasn’t in love with that person. but this is me and i feel like i want to love them until i dont. it’s extremely simple from the outside looking in. that’s why whenever people like >>21 give you responses like that you think they are giving you shit. just be the realest version of yourself until you see a person outside that makes you want to bomb something. that’s the only thing i can tell you

>>21
gay

>>23
I can assure you that love (or rather, the many things that are given that name) is quite explainable, and many have written on it. It is not true that it is not explainable, it is not true that it "doesn't make sense", because firstly all under heaven is explainable, as per Spinoza, and in the question of sense, we have many methods to make sense of love. You'll find that quite a-many love stories an in fact renderable into signifiers, otherwise romance novels would not exist, and love poetry would sooner be replaced by grunting.

And I remind you, Mr. Glowie LLM-agent / human override, that I am not in need of love advice; and that I am in fact "the realest version of myself" all the time already, in as much as I live authentically.

It is in fact as deep as I think, otherwise there would be no need to talk about oedipus and other such things. If we do not question this concept of love, if we do not attack its most archetypal formulations, if we do not struggle against its lamest actualisations, we are defenseless in relation to the mechanisms that enslave us hidden inside the bonds between us and our fellow man, the bonds that lay hidden in this naive concept of "love".

I'll spare you my manifesto on my personal love experiences, since I live by the moto that: "those arguments that come from ones anecdotal experience are bad and reactionary indeed". But I shall relay to you the fact that love is not merely "connecting to someone", or even "wanting to eat them alive" in the metaphorical.

I'll now characterise one of love much explainable aspects:
It is more correct to muse that love is a process of mutually assured destruction, that lays less on connection, and more on seizure of this or that person, ripping them from their current social substrate and forcibly alienating them, through any means possible, from (at the very least) the familial structures that had bound them so far.
In the common oedipal mode of love, this means only one thing, the reproduction of the oedipal triangle, the object of affections stops being the "child" and becomes the "father" or "mother", generating in their triangulation yet another "child" that may continue the cycle anew.
Of course, in anti-oedipal modes of loving, the triangle is not completed. And it may even be so that offspring is not generated. In fact the act of producing offspring is so separated from the act of loving that one might even use concubines for reproduction, with varying degrees of "love", as is attested by historical practice. Not that I support it.

I can only look back at Mishima's film "patriotism", and think how the acts of love expressed in that film are so unlike yours, or >>21 's description. This is because you are not stewards of any understanding of "love", or anything for that matter.

I'll just reiterate to conclude that stating or supporting such statements such as >>21 's only serve to further lock down, through ignorance and an infirm heart, love into serving the interests of our shared social programming; they map very clearly onto a well known script about "love".

sorry in advance if this sounds rude but you must be the most unfun person ever. i’m not really into being aphoristic when someone clearly spills their soul over text, but this is simply too much

everything you said could be correct, it really could, but your response just reeks of i know everything syndrome. what >>23 typed clearly stated that the way they experience love is kind of destructive but you really had to make a 5 paragraph long response to say “you are all llms let me talk about oedipus”. that wordsalad you typed there means nothing in the real world, unless you’re one of those elitist types of people who bring up deleuze every time they can.

dont be a jerk, thats not how people communicate. unless you are so self centered that you get hard knowing you brought up oedipus in a random online forum. if you want to actually say something then say it with clear cut and appropriate terms for an online forum, this is not a phd thesis you don’t have anything to prove to people here >>21 literally tried to give an irl example in response to the op and you just HAD TO make this about yourself