Joe Bonucci

Every cry for the pragmatic is useless when backing further and further from an ideal; every cry for the common man or the business man irrelevant to the individual accountable. One idiot is still an idiot; the rest might be less idiotic, but they’re still idiots for not adhering to a sense of value they claim to have by encouraging such idiocy. That makes it idiocy okay, or worse only punishable by a centralize system rather than social pressures; such apathetic nihilism collapses on itself, when the boot flips and reason becomes made evident to cultural dividers, yet at the avoidable expense of everyone involved in such “postmodern” theater of champagne “trust fund” activism.

To oppose an idea without an idea isn’t merely antintellectual; it’s unintelligible. If one provides no substitute yet demands silence, they’re a tyrant; if they provide a subtitute that is lesser, it is more than the authoritarian, supremist idea that demands no persuasion being needed. Not engaging is a substitute to such coercion; if something is truly self-destructive, it will die and it should be so, instead of turned into to dividing point of ideolgues. Intervening on a deadened matter can unnecessarily cause the unwanted persistence of such, as an unintended consequence.

There’s desire to look beyond the materialism of reality, while denying the material of existence, while seeking spiritualism, and attempt to grasp the spiritual contrary; all in attempt to both be free in manners similar to an idealized childhood and idealized adulthood, at times intersecting each and inducing conflict. Rather than reexamining any of the prior dualisms, as the learned experience is seen as beneficial despite it not leading to benefit in the subjective manner which is conflicted.

When one admits something is stupid, they admit it’s not in their best sense of self-interest. Yet tend to use such as an excuse to deny self-interest, which is illogical. In parenting and other managerial governances, it is important to have reminders of such; not that impulse can’t lead to better decisions, yet because impulse is not the correct induction theory. Guessing is sometimes necessary, yet less likely things are not wise; though, circumstances can make better things less likely, as an understanding of such may yet not be clear to the consensus.

Demisexual makes more sense, when sapio tends to refer to an intelligence and intelligence tends to fixate on planning everything with concerns of agency, and agency is seen as emotional outcry for the despot’s plans; and that a relationship needs a level of agency for respect rather than the abusive basis of arbitrary predetermined dominance vs submission based on group association rather than metrics of individuals indecent of the group. Yet even saying that, people worry enough to forgoe agency beyond themselves, whether as an individual or group to an authority and become accustomed to submitting to it increments of soft despotism that it ends up being considered “common sense”, instead of climbing the peaks of reason.

One person views another assumes they don’t wish or do wish. The other often rationalizes the answer expected, would not always be truly honest yet may be perceived such; they may be even honored for such lack of development. “How virtuous” thine trauma, like that of Quasimodo. (“Those that can you believe absurdities can commit atrocities.”) Sacrfice is such a cultist mentality; as if berating oneself was worse than truly demonstrating greater worth than those so ignoble they demand nobility. (“Good is not a thing you are. It’s a thing you do.”)