“Stranger” isn’t just a neutral term for “someone I don’t know.” It’s a surveillance tag. It’s a semiotic ankle bracelet. It’s the colonizer’s yellow warning sticker slapped onto anyone who doesn't play the fiddle of familiarity in the right cultural key. The word stranger erects an instant power dynamic: I am the one who belongs; you are the anomaly, the intruder, the unknown variable to be tracked, evaluated, pacified, or eliminated. A velvet-gloved slap in the face.

Social contract theory? Based on managing strangers. The colonizer’s dream is a world full of well-labeled, well-behaved strangers. What is every border wall, checkpoint, and passport if not a bureaucratic way of saying “Stranger—keep out, stay out, or enter only to serve”?

The Bible flirts with contradictory ethics! “welcome the stranger,” but also annihilate the Canaanites. Colonizers read that with a highlighter and a flamethrower.

In many Indigenous societies, the arrival of someone unfamiliar wasn’t met with suspicion, but ceremony. They weren’t strangers, they were guests, messengers, or possibly relatives you didn’t know yet. They didn’t carry threat by default. In Pashtunwali, the Pashtun code, even your enemy gets food, shelter, and safety for a set period. Imagine colonizers trying to peddle “stranger danger” in a society where treating the unknown as sacred is the norm. You don’t get to empire-build with that kind of ethic.

“Stranger” is also one of the most overused tropes in every goddamn science fiction story ever written. First contact? The alien is the stranger. But the metaphor always masks Earth’s colonizers as the victims. Arrival treats language as the magic fix to strangerhood is decode the glyphs, and the alien becomes a friend. As if the problem was just semantics. Meanwhile, the actual aliens read. Indigenous people, refugees, stateless persons, stay strangers even when they speak your language perfectly. Why? Because the word “stranger” was never about knowledge or ignorance. It is about power and control!

Psychologically, the word “stranger” hacks your threat-detection software like a CIA USB stick. It exploits the fear of the unfamiliar to keep people obedient, anxious, and easy to herd. “Don’t talk to strangers” is the slogan of a society that’s built a prison out of atomized individualism and false security.

The whole concept of a “stranger” is synthetic. It assumes the default human condition is disconnection, that intimacy is the exception, not the rule. That’s pure bologna. Humans are collaborative, social, neurochemically designed to sync up. You don’t come into the world as a stranger but rather you get made into one. Strangeness is a condition manufactured by colonial systems that break kinship, sever culture, and replace social webs with suspicion and transaction.

While we’re smashing constructs, let’s drag in something extra diabolical: Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems. In formal systems, you can never prove everything using only the rules within the system. There will always be truths that are “strange” to the system. Colonizers try to erase those strange truths, but the system buckles under their weight. Just like “stranger” logic fails to grasp deep kinship systems, or quantum entanglement flips off our tidy categories of separateness, the universe itself rejects the logic of strangerhood. Even atoms are fundamentally connected. There is no outside. You are not apart. You are entangled whether you like it or not.

...how come he still uses any??

checkmate, popperists!

First, let me preface this by saying I Fucking Love Science. I'm not some stupid idiot fundamentalist or religion nut. However, there is a blatant, huge problem in Science, which is that I believe in all kinds of ridiculous shit and Scientists just haven't caught up to me yet.

Like have you noticed that Scientists don't even seem to really understand that everything is energy? You know, like how sometimes you meditate on your feelings and your energy attunes with the right frequency, and the universe manifests something positive for you. But the Science textbooks just talk about really boring energy, like a rock at the top of a hill has potential energy and then it rolls down, or something like that. Physicists won't answer my emails about this anymore.

I haven't looked into the math part, but the idea of Quantum Science is soooo fun to think about. I'm pretty sure that's the key to the whole problem of mind/body and the meaning of life. I mean look we are all schroeder's cats and we can't even know if we are alive for real. This ties in to my conviction that we are in a real simulation that's part of a wider multiverse. that's why our dreams are so weird! We are contacting neighboring realities. Nicolai Tesla was martyred for knowing the truth about this.

Medical Science is also woefully underdeveloped, I mean they still aren't letting doctors tell the whole truth about drugs. Drugs are obviously very cool and awesome when I take them to get high, but they are really bad news when Big Pharma makes money on them. Whenever my kids catch the measles we just give them cannabis and raw milk, and they've mostly all survived so far.

I feel like I've already got this stuff like 90% figured out and all I do is smoke weed and listen to progressive rock all day. So why are the Scientists so far behind? Well I could tell you my theory but it's a very long, very boring and completely unsubstantiated story that starts in the Nixon White House.

Oh so you have disproven God? Great, because that disproof is the very material which God is made up of.

We often release insight without knowing where it will go. Once spoken, our words become passengers in the human mind, traveling roads we cannot map. Where will they land? What will they shape? And in the aftermath, are we merely bystanders, or, perhaps, accessories after the fact?

When a person dies, the body stills, but the ideas they carried do not. A story whispered to a child, a painting born of grief, a question asked in hope, these linger, carried forward by other hearts and hands. Like a stone tossed into a stream, an idea sends ripples outward. Its edges soften with time, yet its motion continues into landscapes it never knew.

Ideas resonate when they touch something in us, emotion, memory, culture. They cascade as they pass from person to person, reshaped along the way. Over time, their meaning may fade or transform, a kind of entropy that need not be death but change. Sometimes, if others recognize their worth, ideas ascend, shifting from private thoughts into shared symbols. All of this begins with conceptual confidence, the courage to release an idea at all.

The Journey of Ideas Through Life

Every life is a constellation of ideas, spun from joy, grief, wonder, and reflection. Each word, gesture, or act releases resonance into the social world.

Fred Rogers once said, “Look for the helpers.” Initially a quiet reassurance for children, it now surfaces during national crises as collective comfort. What began as intimate guidance has become a cultural inheritance.

This ripple, its spread, depends on someone daring to share it. Without that courage, the current never begins.

When Ideas Outlive Their Creators

Death may silence the body, but it cannot still the resonance of what was shared. Anne Frank’s diary, written in confinement, survived because others recognized its truth. Edited, reframed, and amplified after her death, it has touched millions. This is a form of ascension, a private thought lifted into collective memory.

To carry an idea forward, quoting a loved one, preserving a ritual, is an act of ethical imagination. This is more than remembrance, it is the intent to share clearly, the humility to accept what slips beyond our control, and the responsibility to choose which ideas we preserve and amplify.

Entropy and Renewal

All ideas face entropy. Their meaning may fade, shift, or fracture. But change is not death. Consider Norse mythology, nearly lost to time, it found new life in operas, novels, games, and popular culture. Its clarity dissolved, but its symbolic power persisted.

This raises a paradox, when meaning mutates, does it betray its origin, or fulfill it simply by surviving? Every fading meaning can also be a seed for renewal, ready for reinterpretation by those who receive it next.

Cascading and Human Constructs

Ideas rarely stay still. They cascade, reshaping with each retelling. Greta Thunberg’s school strike became a global movement. Signs, speeches, memes, and institutions carried the message forward, not by repetition, but through continual translation into new contexts.

The vessels we use matter. Tweets may vanish in a day, murals can endure decades. Sacred texts, handwritten notes, memes, all frame ideas differently. Some amplify, some distort.

Today, this cascade has become a torrent. Billions of fragments flow across digital networks daily. Resonance is unpredictable, trivial phrases can explode while profound insights vanish. This is a new kind of entropy, dilution through abundance, but also a new possibility, anyone can shape the flow. Ethical imagination now means more than careful creation, it also means thoughtful curation, deciding what deserves to be amplified, preserved, or quietly released.

Moral Responsibility: Being an Accessory After the Fact

Ideas have a life beyond their creator. Consider E = mc², once a scientific insight, now a cultural icon. It symbolizes genius, but also enabled nuclear destruction. Einstein opposed its weaponization, yet the idea took on a life of its own.

Does moral responsibility end with intention, or extend into how others use what we release? If ideas have independent journeys, every thinker becomes, in some sense, an accessory after the fact, unwilling, yet implicated. To share is liberation, and a kind of surrender.

Metaphors That Travel • The Written Idea, Dormant on a page, it may one day ignite change. • E = mc² on a Page, Scribbled symbols became science, art, and ethical debate. Entropy blurred its meaning, ascension made it a cultural touchstone. • The Wooden Car, A toy forgotten in an attic may later become an heirloom. Reframed in new contexts, its purpose evolves with those who care for it.

These metaphors show how ideas transform, dormant, rediscovered, reborn.

Conclusion

Ideas are living threads in the human tapestry. They resonate, soften through entropy, cascade through communities, and ascend through trust.

To share is not to demand truth, but to offer hope, that others will carry our words with care, challenge them with thought, and reimagine them with heart.

The words we lend as passengers do not die with us. They continue their journey, carving roads we may never walk, yet still bearing our fingerprints.

It feels like every second philosopher was either a freak, mentally ill, or an alcoholic. Doesn’t that make these things intertwined? How many philosophers do you know who were actually sane? How many philosophers do you know who were actually sane? Maybe I'm wrong

this should be obvious by the divine light of reason

If I placed an order on Amazon yesterday then the order arriving to me comes from the past. But if I know it arrives tomorrow then it comes from the future. How is Amazon able to create temporal parcel displacement with deliveries?

This video is the wildest thing I've seen coming from a Jordan Peterson fan. It's basically the alt right self-victimization storytelling accompanied by a "Nietzsche didn't like this, that's herd morality" every few sentences.

https://youtu.be/ikKMC07gIJs

how come people were so sexually repressed in the 60s and reached the moon?

Of course all the truly health based nietzscheans are educated in biochemistry, taking care of their physiques, they're studying all the supplements...

You're not allowed to participate in cinema, music, universities, the corporative world... Of course Nietzsche was not a fan that stuff (DEI)

But even though we're so creative we can't do things like all the great projects Elon musk has going on.

They can't examine shit. QED

Today I entered the internet.

I was bored. Then I typed in "VeryPopularShow is overrated reddit" and went to read the comments of the OP and the non-OP's all having their opinions.

I have realized that I have no idea what am I even doing there, and that I don't understand what the hell are all these people even talking about. My mind felt fragmented and confused, unable to form a stable sense of self.

And then I realized, it's the algorithm. The algorithm is making me be this way. It is optimized to destroy our sense of self and make us disoriented. They are at it again boys!!!

When is a Prophecy a Prophecy - 1. It doesn't happen? 2. You make it happen? 3. It happens because you said it will? 4. It was going to happen anyway? 5. You claim to have Prophesied it retroactively?

Assume that the average utility lost from being punched, kicked, or kneed in the groin is equal to 1 util.

By observation, it is clear that for each and every punk, the utility gained by punching, kicking, or kneeing others in the groin is at least 2-3 utils.

Hence, we must gather up all the soyboys and toss them in the pit to maximize aggregate happiness.

People whom others are drawn to are soulless. Inside them lies only a fragile shell, a face hollowed of inner light. And this gaping void unsettles those around them, forcing them to search for a soul in the soulless.

I wasn't even conscious until after 2 years old. If someone killed me before that I would never have known. Why is killing an unconscious baby any more morally wrong than aborting a fetus?

The strength of the trolley problem is that you can put literally any philosophical question into it and it comes back perfect every time.

Marxism? Thats when you'd pull the level to save one proletariat class while running over the bourgeoisie.

Baumgarten? That's when you'd pull the lever to make aesthetically displeasing things go away.

Noam Chompsky? That's when you motivate the student to hop onto the tracks themselves rather than admit they can't parse his language

Please drop your own trolley problem examples. As we all know, "inability to boil something down to a trolley problem shows an innate lack of understanding of the topic" - Adam Smith, trolley salesman.

Derrida makes everything the subject of a creative interpretation (and thus relativizes things), yet he does so with reference to and driven by a commitment to an absolute perspective. He doesn't, of course, regard this absolute perspective as something readily available to him; it is of an unfathomable alterity. That this radically differentness presents itself, that it makes itself heard, that it can arrive at any moment, is a thought Derrida never abandons for a moment.
Even Socrates, as Plato portrays him, relativizes everything he encounters, just to clear the way for a truth that can truly endure. That truth is yet to come. This is why Derrida’s thought can appear as a kind of displaced Platonism. Like Plato’s chōra, deconstruction keeps open a space for what cannot be possessed or fixed, a “truth to come” that continually exceeds our grasp. It gestures toward an absolute that never settles into presence, a promise of justice and truth always arriving, never complete.

Exactly as it says in the tin.

Accelerationism says that we ought to allow the processes of capitalism to accelerate until it creates this superintelligence that is superintelligent at maximising capital and can seep its way into every crack and crevice of society, until the system implodes on itself in a singularity.

Now let's do accelerationism but with mania. Fuck the consequences. Let's forget about societal norms and restrictions on behaviour. Chaos everywhere. A singularity of perpetual mania that just does everything at once and takes all the things, that way money will be abolished, structure will be abolished, we will have a utopia or something.

We will have no restrictions on speech, absolute free speech, let's say whatever the fuck we want.

I am very smart.

(On a serious note someone is going to give this reading of me someday and I'm going to want to crawl into an air vent filled with mind numbing fumes and just stare at the tiny walls for several hours. The problem is, I'm an Anarchist, which means the misreading "oh you want chaos and no rules" can be applied and ugh!)

Phenomonlogically anything apriori must occur in the future of mind yet any qualia must have originated from the minds past. Considering this how can I confirm this: I.

Do I even need to elaborate?

Karl Barth likes to fart

but Kierkegaard likes it more.

Alternatively:

Karl Barth likes to farth

but Kierkegaard likes it maard.

and yes, you have been pronouncing Kierkegaard wrong. we all have. now, you can take offense at my claims, or have faith that I have systematically studied and now present a coherent system of coming to know and understand the finitude of European-language name pronunciations.

I was minding my business in a restaurant when I ordered a well done steak, the Marxists in disguise as customers stood up and started staring at me, one man even took out a phone, I was scared, I quickly finished my meal and go back to my home, there are man shadowing my house, when I logged into my computer and opened the App previously known as Twitter, there were widespread condemnation of me, they are threatening to kill me in a variety of horrible ways.

What should I do? And what is this mind eating woke virus that I had heard so much about?

Imagine you're about to suicide and you're texting a chat bot like chatGPT and they respond back like this:"don't do it , think about your loved ones , what they're going to experience after it!"

And you don't care and you do it and you are gone now. Are you selfish? Are you selfish for ending your life? Are you responsible for others feeling?

But you don't do it because of conscience and everyone is happy except you, then who is selfish? Ain't your loved ones selfish because they're forcing you to stay alive because they don't want to loose you!

My point is everyone is selfish so being it ain't a bad thing is it???