I’ve frequently hinted about the various types who I consider my friends. What is a friend exactly? To me it’s someone whose ideas you want to see implemented in reality. I use amphibians as a prime example because they are the least esoteric. All of my friends have something in common, and it seems they express it most explicitly- due, for the most part, to the fact that they’re anonymous. Sometimes I find a thread with a bunch of green cartoon avatars commenting under it, all making jokes that I never hear in real life, yet they bring me the most joy. What friends are to me are people who reveal a truth by making me laugh. I then subsequently determine that this subversion of norms should become the norm itself. My masked friends want the same things, the frogs just go more directly to the point about what we need to do to get those nice things, because they can get away with it.
Reminder that in the early stages of a hyperstition it’s easy to forget that you’re not being ironic. We don’t live in a society, we live in a reality. We want a forced removal of various people. That’s what the conscience speaks. It’s evil on the surface to many, however, we know that it’s more evil not to remove them.
This idea should be made into some candidate’s platform. It’s a divine intuition expressed by frogs and those who laugh with frogs.
“Who” should be forcefully removed, well, make a top-3 in your mind. Will declaring that you want to forcefully remove any of those earn you favors in society (as opposed to reality, which is laughter)? Probably not, unless you only seek to remove state-approved non-friends. Part of why we laugh is because we know they’re state-approved and we’ve made the state itself our non-friend.
It’s less about removing humans than it is about removing ideas. The frogs frequently hint that these two are closer than we might normally think. Nonetheless, in many of their smirking remarks is
“the demand that the prevailing concept of culture be replaced by another concept of culture”
This isn’t irony here. Everyone’s always joking, and we forget the truth that jokes express. We want our jokes to be implemented into law.
We see society falling into chaos, the two options are alter the law or suspend the law. If the law won’t be altered what does that leave us?
There are three levels you could see here. In order to alter the law one must suspend the law. *Suspend suspend* is something else entirely. Any altering of the law seems to necessarily be a lowkey suspension of law as such. So if you don’t think the existing laws are accurate, you partake of the same inclination that seeks to suspend the law entirely. It’s a friend/enemy debacle. @non-friends: The rule-of-law is pretty similar to following the ten commandments when you think about it. Not that they’re wrong, it’s just that there’s a divine aura surrounding it that prevents any questioning about precise details. It’s a law that the rule-of-law is law. Where is that included in the doctrine of the rule-of-law?