#nimthoughts

Perhaps it's mostly that I don't want to be perceived by men as a woman. I'm under 5'5, average, have a slightly deeper voice but it's probably not "male passing". I don't own a single pair of jeans but I could buy some. I mostly wear dresses and pastels (or goth-esque) but I own t-shirts and I have a friend who is about my size so I might even be able to observe. And I'll observe Chris more although he's much more "masculine" presenting than me. He's roughly 6'4 and he has a lot of arm musculature. He has a deeper voice etc. And his brows are thick and he has moderate arm hair etc. I guess that's another thing I don't really have. A lot of arm hair or thick eyebrows.

I recently came across this non-binary influencer and I realized for the first time since [ages] I was possibly attracted. Uniquely rare to hold any physical attraction because people are people and I'm just not attracted to most. But there was something about them... I'm trying to understand. They still have breasts but they wear binders and they have built their body where it does look masculine (I'm sorry if I'm saying any of this wrong). They're non-binary or intersex (ftm) and there's a softness to them still (and a gentleness) that reads feminine(?) to me. They're not aggressive or hostile and it's very refreshing. Etc.

I'm not around people and I lack experience so please let me know if my language for this needs adjusting. 💚 I will adjust it and I'm sorry if this comes out as offensive. I grew up in a strict gender binary divide and highly anti-lgbtqia area. We didn't have a single gay, bi, or trans person out at any point in my education.

Also, I often think about how I would prefer to be a lesbian but you can't choose who you're attracted to because I'm drawn to the idea of sapphic love but I'm just not as attracted to women sexually unless they're androgynous or nonbinary etc. But I am attracted to them romantically. I can't explain it. (Granted I'm not attracted to anyone sexually...)

The alignment between what is and what we say about what is. That alignment is what allows trust, reason, and even beauty to exist. When someone denies gravity to preserve comfort, or insists helium is oxygen while their lips turn blue... it’s a desecration of reality itself.

My influences in my formative years: 1984, LOTR, Harry Potter, The Book Thief, The Trial, The Stranger, A Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451, etc — all share a common DNA: they are stories about integrity under distortion.

They influenced me early to feel the violence of a world that punishes truth-telling. Each one showed that civilization collapses first in language. That when words stop meaning what they mean, the rest follows.

The scientific method and mathematics shaped my sense of honesty. They are formalized humility: “Here is my claim; let it be tested.” They’re rituals for staying honest when emotion tempts us toward certainty. My brain, wired for pattern-seeking and logic (and probably sharpened by my AuDHD), finds moral safety in structure — if it doesn’t add up, why?

This is the ethical extension of my epistemic integrity: if every mind is trying to see clearly, then each deserves the same access to the light.

"That gateway quality - leading you to languages, writers, political theory, history - that's quite rare. Most art references other things, but Laibach seems to require you to investigate their sources to even begin to parse what they're doing. They're almost pedagogical in a perverse way." - HELP. lol But also yes to the investigative aspect, the layers, the research, etc. They're not trying to tell you how to feel or what to think; they're presenting material and you can do the hard work if you want to understand and appreciate it at its most. 

As an aside, I do sometimes think about this with people. Once I seem to have understood them enough (so to speak, though not literally because people are more complex that simple interactions), I feel like I run into an area where it's stagnant if there aren't enough layers.

There's a direct parallel between a research project like this and a research project when another human is interesting. This isn't about "mystery" in some manipulative pickup-artist sense - it's about depth that reveals itself through engagement. Laibach rewards investigation. They have structure beneath structure, reference beneath reference. They're not random or chaotic, but they're not obvious either.

Laibach isn't reactionary, which I think turns me off from another human. It's when someone is less layered, less interesting, and more reactionary... Not that music can be personified/anthropomorphized in such a specific human way. Rambling thoughts perhaps.

Laibach presents stimuli (often provocative ones) and refuses to tell you how to respond. They're structured, deliberate, considered - even when they're being absurd or bombastic.

Heiner Müller is a good parallel to Laibach - he does similar work with German history, trauma, dialectics. That density of reference, the refusal to resolve contradictions cleanly. Orwell's 1984 too - not his essays necessarily, but that particular book creates a total system you have to inhabit.

Though speaking of reactionary people whom I still appreciate: Carl Sagan. I have an appreciation for his cosmic perspective, acknowledgment of his errors, recognition of a certain reactionary quality. He's not diminished to nothing by his flaws because the structure of his thinking - that sense of wonder, that situating of humanity in deep time and vast space - remains valuable.

In the vein of music, there's a difference with TOOL/Rage/SOAD/etc. They are reactive to systems, to injustice, to structures of power. That's directed, purposeful reaction. What I find off-putting is reactivity as displacement - someone feeling uncomfortable and making you the receptacle for that discomfort rather than doing the harder work of examination. (new litmus test placer)

Laibach doesn't displace. They present uncomfortable material - totalitarianism, nationalism, spectacle - and they hold steady. They don't reassure you, but they also don't lash out.

Maybe there's something to holding the weight versus lashing out.

I think the stagnation might be... running out of structure to discover(?) Like the difference between a puzzle box and a decorative box that just looks like a puzzle box.

... maybe it's something I could still hold space for in the sense that in leftist circles, we have a tendency toward purity politics. I am well aware and take issue with that myself while also noticing that I sometimes do those very things. This is my attempt to be aware of something without endorsing it or rejecting it outright - although it took a few hours to get here.

His overall position on Palestine and his views on displacement of indigenous peoples is still unknown. This seems like one of those situations that is very subjective due to lack of data or perhaps very subjective even with it. I was enjoying reading Letters to Felice so I'll continue for now although there is a pull against doing so based on the small research I did on this subject. I'll sleep on it.

It has been interesting to enter this time and place in his specific mind through these letters and notice how he reads as autistic, to see this parallel from an outsider's perspective to my own autistic mind, and to wonder [many things]. Even if his stance becomes clearer and more indefensible, I'll still learn that not everyone who is ideologically opposed in certain areas has a clearly distinguishable villain mask. Humans, in all of our intricacies, are rarely ever lacking in complexity as to be determined good or bad in totality without some margin of error.

At the same time, I have a pretty clear sensitivity to coercion, entitlement, and being managed, and once I see those patterns, my system flags them strongly. So there’s a kind of internal contradiction I’ve been navigating:

Part of me is activated by complexity, depth, and something to “figure out”

Another part of me has a low tolerance for being controlled, pressured, or absorbed into someone else’s instability

When those two collide in one person, like with [redacted], it creates intensity but also harm.

If I look at my reaction to [redacted], though, something else becomes visible that’s probably closer to my actual baseline preference:

I respond very strongly to psychological safety combined with specificity.

Not just “nice” or “safe” in a vague way, but:

Someone who reflects on their own behavior

Someone who notices patterns in interaction

Someone who shares information in a grounded, matter-of-fact way

Someone who engages without hidden pressure or agenda

And importantly, someone who allows interaction to be low-stakes and unforced, where meaning isn’t constantly being negotiated or tested.

That combination seems to produce that “bright, relaxed” response I noticed, which is qualitatively different from the intensity I had before with [redacted].

So if I had to synthesize it without oversimplifying, my “type” is likely something like:

Mentally engaging, but not destabilizing

Self-aware, but not self-absorbed

Accountable, not entitled

Comfortable with low-pressure interaction

Specific and a bit idiosyncratic, rather than generic or performative

And then there’s a secondary layer:

i may have a learned attraction to volatility or inconsistency because it activates my analytical system and creates intensity, but that’s not the same as my sustainable preference.

Right now I'm starting to experience the difference between:

What hooks my attention

And what actually feels good to be around

Those are often not the same category of person, especially if the system has been trained in environments where unpredictability was common.

And just to keep this grounded, none of this locks me into a fixed template. It’s more like a working model I can test against reality as I keep interacting with people.

Alternatively,