houseoftolstoy @[email protected]

Part 1

A man is traveling by foot when he sees a party of merchants walking in the opposite direction. With that party is a donkey who is heavily burdened with all the merchandise. The man noticing the donkey ready to collapse, states, "That donkey is carrying too much! Take off some of those things so that he does not die from exhaustion!"

The merchants take a look at the donkey and see that the man is correct. They start to discuss among themselves what they should do.

I have a theory about the supposed increase in autists. The internet is to blame. Not simply because people can look up terms and mis-diagnose themselves (though this is part of it), but rather that the internet has the unfortunate side effect of allowing people to be "terminally online."

When you are doing the vast majority of your communication through text alone, you are missing most of the actual communication you would get in a natural social situation (vocal inflections, emotions)

/1

For anyone who wants marriage and family in their future, I have some advice:

Don't marry wrong. If that means not marrying at all, so be it.

It is indeed better to not marry at all than to make the wrong choice on who to marry. I will never tell any man that they have an obligation to get married, because in spite of the fact that I am married myself, I understand that my path is not one that can or should be prescribed to all other men.

While I find certain aspects of accessing content such as games, shows and movies to be an annoyance when they are exclusively locked to different platforms, I do not agree with the complainers who seem to think that it is a violation of their rights that they have to pay for additional platforms in order to have access to everything.

Last I checked, video games, movies, and shows are not necessities. Complaints about this being some moral wrong shows that you have it pretty easy in life.

The author was a woman too, and obviously writing for other women. And she knew her audience well.

Meanwhile, men did not care for Twilight. Which is to be expected, since it was not made for us. But the reason I bring this up is to demonstrate that it is not "the patriarchy" or any males who are responsible for the creation or popularity of this series among females. They chose to read and watch it, and any males who also watched were either gay or watched with their girlfriends.

The constant pushing for the "girlboss" archetype in movies is a poor choice not only because it does not resonate with male fans, but also female fans. I remember when I was in high school the most popular book/movies among the girls was Twilight. The main character Bella was the most passive character you could have, the opposite of a girlboss.

But the female audience loved it. Sure, it is just one example, but it is the perfect counter example against the girlboss propaganda being pushed.

If anything would disprove George Orwell's idea of Newspeak being an effective tool to prevent ideas from being expressed, it is the people on youtube using every annoying term to get around demonetization.

I find it annoying when I hear the term "unaliving" instead of suicide. Everyone knows what they mean, it just makes you have to jump through more hoops while everyone knows the real word they mean.

Annoying as it is, I am fine with less parts of 1984 being able to happen.

My inspiration for this Freedom Test comes from a scenario by the fat fuck commie Vaush. He asks if you are in a lawless desert, do you have freedom? The answer he expects you to give is no, because you don't have food or water and cannot live.

The presence of provisions or the lack thereof does not define freedom. So his assertion is retarded and the answer remains yes, you do have freedom. Take the inverse, prison, and even with food and shelter provided, you are not free.

We can apply this test in multiple facets too. For example, gay marriage.

Whether you like it or not, if there are no restrictions to marriage, then gay marriage would be possible under the value of freedom.

The problems start coming in when the state is involved, such as lawsuits for gay wedding cakes or forcing others to acknowledge their marriage as valid. Many gays fail the freedom test the moment they are confronted with the fact that others do not want to participate.

Not everyone is going to be all about genuine freedom. And that is not necessarily a bad thing. But people should not be so quick to proclaim that they are about freedom if they require others to be forced into some action in order to attain their "freedom."

I would not consider myself anarcho-capitalist, but they at least are those that would be genuinely about freedom. But considering we have yet to have an ancap example in the world, that might show that 100% freedom might not be possible.

The Freedom Test is helpful in determining who is for freedom and who is for "freedom."

The test is this: if we remove government entities from the equation, are you able to get what you want? The answer should be quite clear if you think about this.

For those who want their freedom to have firearms, the government being out of the way would not change your ability to have firearms. But if your "freedom" is paid for by the government ("free" healtchare), then you do not have true freedom.

I have an idea I would like to call a Freedom Test. The idea of this test is to determine if you really value freedom or if you value something else. Many people will claim they are about freedom, but often they either are conflating freedom with another value that is not actually freedom.

One example of the misuse of this term is by those who call for "free healthcare." Whether or not you value this, it is not freedom, but a provision.