My base thoughts are non-verbal. Sometimes I describe it like shapes in a hyperdimensional vector space.

My internal monologue is basically just practicing translating these base thoughts into language, to explain concepts to others.

Like I said, my boy kills a lot of invasive lizards. And he proudly displays that fact. If he’d ever killed a bird, I’d sure as hell know.

Eh, my cat has the disability of a bell around his neck. He’s killed quite a few invasive lizards, but I can say with confidence he’s never killed a bird (he’s very proud of the aforementioned lizard kills, and would absolutely be showing off any birds he managed to catch). I’ve watched him fail hilariously at pouncing on a butterfly.

Bells are perfectly fine. I’d feel much worse cooping him up in a house all day every day.

Several decades actually. It’s just been national news for a decade.

Uh, that seems like a legitimate reason to be stressed. You might just be particularly stress-tolerant.

I’m busy, but that’s because I cram a lot of extra things in my life for fulfillment. I’m also fairly lucky in that I make over the median income working 30-35 hours a week. I assume you are also financially comfortable, but our experience is very different from someone who has to work 2 jobs to make ends meet.

I half-joke that my childhood was so stressful that the stress/anxiety circuit in my brain burned out years ago. It’s probably more accurate to say that I have a solution-oriented mindset: when there’s someone wrong in the world, instead of getting anxious I start brainstorming solutions and how to implement them; if I have no solution, stressing still isn’t going to fix anything so I just focus on problems I can find solutions for.

I’d wager most people feel more helpless than that, they see big problems in their life as immutable facts instead of temporary conditions. That certainly plays a role in how stressed/anxious they feel.

NVIDIA doesn’t secretly hate themselves

Literally Holden Bloodfeast

Eh, the 80s and 90s were a marked shift towards usefulness. Gotta maximize shareholder value, dontcha know.

There’s just really not a very useful reason outside of “because we can”, so it hasn’t really been a priority. Still, that’s kinda the point of the Artemis program, so we’re getting there.

There are a few that you can buy, they just aren’t cheap. KAT Walk is a usable omni-“treadmill”, FreeAim has their motorized shoes. Again, not cheap, but still within the budget of a motivated enthusiast.

“Whilst you lack the strength to do away with bourgeois parliaments and every other type of reactionary institution, you must work within them because it is there that you will still find workers who are duped by the priests and stultified by the conditions of rural life; otherwise you risk turning into nothing but windbags.”

The mistakes of others do not magically make your alternative successful just because it’s different. Success isn’t a feeling of moral superiority, it’s improvements in material conditions. I see no improvement in material conditions.

You can’t claim horoscopes are successful because you think prayer doesn’t work. You need actual measurable results.

This is succeeding? I’d hate to see what failure looks like.

So to recap: the revolutionary approach isn’t succeeding because it’s under attack by liberals, except the liberal attacks are ineffective as evidenced by an 18% approval rating (nevermind that polling actually shows 34%). Not sure how low approval ratings for liberals is evidence for the efficacy of revolutionaries. Also lowering approval for liberals only empowers the more virulently fascist conservatives.

How, pray tell, does any of that demonstrate the strength of revolutionaries? None of that implies positive support for revolution, or organization necessary to implement that revolution, much less any likelihood of revolution securing the desired end goal.

This approach just seems like toothless reactionary bluster.

Shifting focus to avoid answering a question is the exact definition of deflection. Answer the question.

There you have it indeed, any excuse to deflect and ignore the actual point. Alright champ, assume words man whatever you think they mean and anyone left of Lenin is a fascist. If you can’t handle a segment, how on earth do you have the organization and numbers to overthrow the whole system?

Even if that were true it wouldn’t refute my point. If you can’t handle attacks from a segment, how are you going to overthrow the whole thing?

If you can’t weather liberal attacks, how do you expect to overthrow fascists? If it was organized and adequately staffed, the attacks from liberals would be ineffective.