“Why does /v/ hate strong female character?”
“same reason i hate art.
it’s ugly, it’s technically incompetent, and it occupies a name which should be rightfully used for the real, much better deal – in other words, because it’s a scam.”
“Because most contemporary writers have an idea of a “strong female character” as “a character that behaves like a generic male” which is completely missing the point, usually comes across as unnatural, forced, and ironically results in poor and shallow characters.
It comes from the idea that males and females are supposed to compete for the same roles and display same behavior. Which generally isn’t true. Instead of focusing on an actual gender-informed character that behaves naturally and fits with real-world behavioral patterns and intuitions we have, they frequently force the female into unnatural behavior and situations only to manifest that “women are just as bad-ass as men” (by making them BE men). Not only that it contradicts most of our intuitions (and gives real-world females some really bad ideas on how to behave at times), but ironically SUPPORTS the idea that masculine behavioral patterns are better than feminine.
The result is usually a complete mess. They are unlikable (particularly to men, as they behave in fashion opposite to what men generally find appealing about women), unrelatable (even for most women, as they behave contraintuitive to them), unbelivable (as the story has to frequently contrive it’s way around bunch of basic problems such as weight and muscle advantages), lack depth (because in order to behave in unnaturally masculine fashion, the character usually must be cut from deeper personal history of character traits. And finally, it frequently just reminds the audience of the authors cluelesness about gender dichotomies and his weird, stupid, naive and one sided political beliefs.
An actually good writer can pull off any character. But the more unnatural and further away from classic archetype you want your character to be, the more you need to have a REALLY damn good psychological study.
Most game writers can’t pull of a half-decent strong man, so they sure as fuck won’t pull off a decent strong woman.”
“>be progressive feminist shithead
>Dress like a slut IRL
>Complain when fictional characters are dressed like sluts
liberalism is a mental disorder”
“because the characters dont “choose” it”
“>imagine being so obsessed with your ideology that you fight for imaginary people’s rights”
“If the character’s didn’t choose to wear it themselves, then who did?
And why does them not choosing to wear it suddenly give the people doing redesigns to choose what they wear?”
“Pixels on a screen have no rights, the creators can dress them how they want.”
“10/10 mental gymnastics. Anything that doesn’t directly benefit the women tribe must be purged.”
“”Drawings on a screen didn’t choose to be drawn like a drawing.””
“Neither did they pick to be ugly hags wearing hijabs, who has the right to decide and choose then, the author or some feminists?”
“Play other stuff. Play single player stuff. Play old stuff. Go out of your comfort zone and stop being so cynical. Don’t play multiplayer games not 100% of the time. This mentality that you need one game to put all your time into is destructive to your enjoyment of the hobby unless you are a tourney level player.”
“So there’s been another Islamic terrorist attack, this time in Spain. A dozen dead. This time though, funnily, the terrorists didn’t kill themselves. They’re still on the loose. Apparently the main actor is a 17 year old Moroccan. Even if they catch him, as a minor he’ll probably get a slap in the wrist and some community service.
After Charlottesville, people should have noticed that when Power wants something, it gets it. It will take any means necessary, put any resources needed to achieve it. If the Power in the West wanted to get rid of Islamic terrorism, it could do it.
As an example, China wants to get rid of Islamic terrorism. Pretty damn strongly. So what do they do?
“Xinjiang Authorities Convert Uyghur Mosques Into Propaganda Centers”
I just love this picture. The huge banner on the mosque says: Love the Party, Love the Country. On a mosque. In rural Kashgar. Which is 100% Uyghur. Look at it again. “Love the party”. They don’t say that back in China proper. In Beijing you would get laughed at for being so in your face. But the Uyghurs must take it.
This of course is enforced by a huge security apparatus, killing suspects on sight, and a police state that would’ve scared the shit out of Orwell. You haven’t seen Internet control like China’s. Although I hear Germany’s is getting close.
So anyway, it isn’t hard. Xinjiang is 50% Muslim, and increasingly so. But China will take care of it. It can be done. When there’s a will. In Europe there obviously isn’t.”
“They’re strawman arguments, fundamentally. One of them is just Marxist. “What are power structures there for?” “Well they’re there to serve the purposes of the elite.” No, that’s one of their purposes.
That mono mania, that insane desire for singular causes, to me that’s also the expression of an archetype. It’s monotheism in action. You see these people who claim to be atheistic, they just invented a new God. Foucalt did that with power. Freud did that with sex. If you’re smart, you can take a major motivational drive or system – they’re not really drives, they’re really personalities – you can take a major motivational personality like power or sex and you can explain everything on its basis because everything is – every human action is motivated the major motivational system, some admixture of them. If you’re smart enough, you can always figure out a way that some complex phenomena is related causally to some simpler motivation. But it’s intellectual masturbation, as far as I’m concerned. It’s not the attempt to explain something. It’s the attempt to reduce everything to one simple principle that you can be master of.”
“We might as well make it a tiger, they’re pretty solitary, so it’ll be simple. They have a big territory, right? Hundreds of square miles. And the reason for that is, well they’re tigers. You can’t have like fifty of them because they’ll just eat everything that’s there. You have to have a big territory to support one apex predator. So what exactly is the territory of the tiger? And you’d say here are its boundaries, this is where it roams.
But that’s not the right way of thinking about the territory of the tiger, because the territory of the tiger is actually: “all the places where when the tiger does its thing, the things that the tiger wants to expects, happens”. That’s the tiger’s territory.
It’s the same with you. You’re at home when wherever you know what to do. And what you’re doing when you know what to do is how to match the hierarchy with the situation so that when you put it into practice, the potential that’s there transforms itself into what you’re aiming at. And that’s your territory.”
“Rationalism equates language with thought; Chomsky famously said that language’s primary function is as a vehicle of thought, not communication. That’s completely wrong, of course, most of the computation your brain does to keep you alive doesn’t use language at all. To the extent that a minority of people tend to have extensive internal monologues, that’s just conversation practice. Talking to yourself; generally in order to be ready to talk with others.”
“Wittgenstein made himself famous by basically destroying the whole academy of philosophy by pointing out the, on hindsight, obvious point that Philosophy is based in a misunderstanding of how language works. How people use language in daily life. Words don’t have definitions, they don’t have essences. Writing books about single words is completely pointless. Words are things we use in particular contexts; the use changes all the time. It’s all convention, and conventions are dynamic, pragmatic affairs.”
“The vast majority of ideas don’t have physical consequences; all they have is social consequences. They are status markers. Whether Muslims belong in Germany or not won’t get your finger burnt immediately. It may over the long term, but human brains don’t work like that. You learn behaviors to avoid danger and earn pleasure. And social disapproval by uttering non-progressive opinions are as harsh and immediate as a burnt finger in a fire.
So the reaction of most people to any abstract proposition like that will rely on their calculation of the social consequences of their particular reaction to that proposition. As it happens, being a good progressive gets you status and approval; not being a good progressive gets you low status and disapproval. So of course most people will do whatever gets them status and approval. The few contrarians like us who disagree, do so because of different experiences, because they don’t see the point in earning that sort of status, or, in many cases, because they are like the philosophers who Wittgenstein made fun of, and are just not getting the point. Taking stuff literally when you’re not supposed to. That’s not how language works.
You could make a meta point about “social construct”. It of course means that definitions are social conventions, which is a completely accurate point. But how is the string “social construct” used in actual language usage? A mere frequency analysis would tell you that “social construct” is a string that leftists use in order to crack down on bad people. You could perfectly define “social construct” as “a word whose definition is set by the Cathedral, and which denying it would get you in real trouble so shut up already”. When people come out of their way to state that “race is a social construct”, that’s not a scientific point. All they mean is “race is what I and my friends say it is and shut up you fascist”.
Note that they don’t really need to be aware of the difference. Surely some people understand that “social construct” is supposed to mean a concept deriving its meaning from social convention. But plenty of people just have picked up “social construct” being used in leftist agitation, got what’s used for, and imitated that usage themselves. You don’t need to be aware of the origin of words; only how they’re used. That’s the etymological fallacy at the micro level.
I’ve had hour long conversations about how to define “racist”. But “racist” in common usage means “bad person who I can easily accuse of disliking black people in order to ostracize him”. That’s how the language game is played. You can contest that kind of usage, and word usage indeed changes a lot all the time. But changing social conventions requires power. Political power. Because, of course, everything is politics. That’s a point the left understood a very long time ago. Even if they won’t say so.”
“You can get away with being incoherent and contradicting yourself in speech if you push the appropriate emotional buttons frequently enough.”
“The key insight of Wittgenstein is that speech is a kind of a game. You agree on a set of rules, e.g. that the word “apple” stands for a certain kind of fruit, and you agree to use that word to refer to that fruit. But games, like most human social interactions, are a local thing. There’s no universal set of rules, and you can come up with a different set of rules with other people. Kinda like good friends sometimes may modify the rules of their card games just went playing among themselves. So you can use the word “apple” to refer to apples, but with some other group you can use the word “apple” to refer to the breasts of women, or whatever. The thing often gets out of hand, as in things like Cockney rhyming slang. The point being that words don’t have “meaning” they only have patterns of use in certain contexts, governed by local sets of rules. Understanding those rules is a form of sociology.”
“The problem with science is not that it insists in analyzing objective reality. The problem is that the scientific method only works when observation is reliable. Which worked well in earlier physics and biology. But the prestige of science made us come up with things which just can’t be measured with any reliability. Economics. Psychology. Climate science. Much of medical science. It’s just too complicated to take any reliable data on much of it. And we refuse to admit that we don’t know much about it, and that we can’t know much about it. It is not possible. There is only one ancient intellectual discipline which hasn’t been made into a science: history. It can’t be done. The data just isn’t there. And historians always understood that. There was this healthy skepticism about “History is written by the victors”. You had to take it with a grain of salt. But it has its value nonetheless.”
“And so humans have evolved to put a lid over all that stuff, which is kinda obvious when you think about it. But seeing the obvious is not what human nature is about. We wouldn’t be here if it were. Human nature is about coming up with bullshit, believing it and sticking to it, so that we can all get along.”
“But wait a minute. This blog has been writing for years already about how politics is precisely about signaling. There’s little else. Social life itself is about signaling. Social Matter saying they refuse to signal things about Tibet means they are refusing to do basic human sociality. Why do you have a blog if it’s not about signaling? To have an opinion about something which doesn’t affect your livelihood is signaling, by definition. To have an opinion about the benefits of not having an opinion is… yes, signaling. That’s how human cooperation work. You say something, people agree or disagree, you make friends by signaling the same things, and next thing you know you got a big fat army to conquer your opponents. So saying that neoreaction doesn’t have an opinion on Tibet because neoreaction isn’t about having opinions doesn’t make sense at all. If you don’t have opinions, if you are a good quietist, you don’t run a blog. Much less a group blog.”
“Neoreaction, or simply any reality-based set of ideas just don’t work as a coordination mechanism. The Chinese legalists were slaughtered to a man. Machiavelli was sent to rural exile and died a lonely man. At best it’s the kind of thing a ruler must know but must also deny knowing.
The most important part of the project, after telling the truth, is coming up with a good disguise for the truth. We’re not there yet.”
“Both the Dalai Lama and his advisor and youngest brother, Tendzin Choegyal, claimed that “more than 1.2 million Tibetans are dead as a result of the Chinese occupation.” The official 1953 census–six years before the Chinese crackdown–recorded the entire population residing in Tibet at 1,274,000.”
“There’s only one reason you remember the past: it’s so that you’re prepared for the future.”
“Imagine that each of these levels of existence I just laid out are like patterns, they’re patterns within patterns within patterns within patterns, and there’s a way of making all that harmonious: that’s what music models. That’s why music is so meaningful. You take a beautiful orchestral composition and all the instruments are doing different things at different levels but they all flow together harmoniously and you’re right in the middle of that as a listener. And it fills you with almost a sense of religious awe, even if you’re a punk rock nihilist.
And the reason for that is the music is modelling the manner of being that’s harmonious. That’s the proper way to exist. And religious writings in the deepest sense are guidelines to that mode of being. So they’re not true, like scientific truths are true. They’re hyper-true or meta-true.
We take the most true things about your life, and then we take the most true things about ten other peoples’ lives and we amalgamate them into a single figure, and that would be a literary hero. Then we take a thousand literary heroes and we extract from each of them what makes the most heroic person: that’s a religious deity.”
“It’s not by chance that the word spell has this double meaning – to cast a spell, or to arrange the letters in the correct order to spell out a word… to be able to arrange the letters in the right order, to actually conjure, as it were, that thing that you just spelled – it was experienced by oral peoples, who had not met the written word before, as magic, as a very powerful form of magic.”
“People don’t have ideas. Ideas have people.
[…] Which ideas have you? And where are they suggesting that you go?”
“The patterns that govern a dominance hierarchy are the place from which ethics derive. And they evolved. And they’re not arbitrary. What works in one dominance hierarchy works in another. Where’s the proof for that? One of my proofs is that we use the same brain chemical and the same neurological system, roughly speaking, to keep track of our position in the dominance hierarchy as lobsters do. That’s 300 million years of continuity, so that’s real enough as far as I’m concerned.
So you’ve got your lobsters and they organize themselves according to these rules and the top lobster is confident and makes himself big and he’s the one that gets all the chicks. Your success in the dominance hierarchy especially if you’re male also determines the probability of your reproduction, and it may determine that more than anything else. How to maneuver the dominance hierarchy might be the prime question that faces creatures that have to live with conspecifics.
The females in some sense use the dominance hierarchy as a distributed computational device to determine the worth of the males. What the females do is hang off to the side and they watch the males battle it out and then they just pick from the top. They have their own hierarchy, and it runs by somewhat different rules, but it’s very smart, they’re externalizing the cognitive problem to the structure itself.”
“But for most people when they hear the word truth, especially people in academia or involved in the sciences in any way, they think of something very different.”
“Of course. Their truth is representational. That’s also partly why the Catholic Church, historically, has been so put off by the rational intellect. People like Dawkins say they went after Galileo because he was undermining their superstitions, it’s like, yeah, partly right. The other part was Seth, the figure of evil throughout history, is always the hyper-rational intellect. And the reason for that is intellect is God’s highest angel, so that’s Lucifer, and it falls in love with its own creations: it likes to make totalities out of its own creation. Once there’s totality there’s no room for the trancendent, there’s no God, that’s Satan’s error by the way. And everything immediately turns into hell.
That was all put together particularly well by Milton. And Milton was a visionary. What Milton felt and put together was the imagistric substrate out of which totalitarian states were going to grow. He envisioned it. It was visionary, he saw it as a battle between heavenly agents. But he codified it, and said, here’s the approaching problem, the totalitarian intellect.
If you talk to people who are suffering existentially, they’re always in love with the products of their intellect. They DO NOT pay attention. They say “well I can’t see how my life has any meaning”, and the answer to that is “you’re not seeing, you’re thinking”. And you can easily think yourself into a corner where your life has no meaning. It’s a cheap trick.
I can say, who cares about this documentary? It’s not going to matter in a billion years. Or a hundred years, or whatever, I can pick a timeframe in which this event is irrelevant. OK. So then you can derive from that fact that it’s irrelevant. Or you can derive from that fact that that’s a stupid way to think.
You can derive the conclusion it’s a stupid way to think if you haven’t made thinking your god.
There’s lots of other things that work better than thinking. Paying attention is thinking. It’s MUCH better than thinking. Paying attention allows you to listen to people who don’t agree with you, paying attention allows you to learn what you don’t already know. If it’s thinking or attention that should be the god, attention rules, thinking is a subordinate phenomena. But it likes to pop on top, because it likes its little tight theories and it likes to be right.
Well, forget that.
You’re not going to be right.”
“We encounter chaos. It’s often a snake. Well that also points to its deep evolutionary roots.
There’s an anthropologist, Lynne Isbell, who wrote a book a while back called [The Fruit, the Tree, and the Serpent] and she was interested in why human beings can see so well. Because we can see really well. The only things that can see better than us are birds of prey. And she thought “well why would a primate like us have such good vision?” So she went around the world and she knew we were also particularly good at detecting the kind of camoflague patterns that characterize snakes, especially in the lower half of our visual field, and she thought, well, maybe we were preyed upon by snakes, and maybe we developed good vision because we were preyed upon by snakes, like 60 million years ago, way back when we weren’t even people. Which is about how old snakes are, 60 million years or something like that. So then she went around the world and she correlated the acuity of primate vision with the prevalence of predatory snakes. It’s a nice correlation. So she thought oh, humans and snakes co-evolved.
So what gives you vision? Snakes. That’s what it says in Genesis.
What else gives you vision? Fruit. That’s also right, that’s why we have color vision.
What makes you self-conscious if you’re a man? Women. That’s Eve.
So the stories in the Bible, the pre-flood stories, they’re really old. We have no idea how old they are. In story form, god only knows how old they are, but in terms of behavioral patterns, they could easily be 60 million years old. “The thing that defeats the snake gets the women”. You imagine that in tree-dwelling primates, say, well up come the snakes, the first guy who figured out to drop a stick on a snake? He was very popular.
[…] What’s happened as far as I can tell is that the systems that our brain evolved to detect basically rapacious predators, it’s not just snakes, but like… reptiles with teeth, predators in the dark, things under the water, like crocodiles, that’s- the lurking anomaly, it’s the thing you have to contend with.
And it’s actually a monster. People say monsters aren’t real. It’s like, depends on your timeframe. If you add up and average all the predatory monsters across 60 million years, you get a monster. So the amalgam of “monster” is “a representation of the class of predatory of predatory stimuli”, that might be a way of looking at it.
So we’re very sensitive to that because we were prey animals. So then our cortex leaped up a level of abstraction, and that same system started to detect anomaly as such. It wasn’t just the predatory thing that was outside the dominance hierarchy, it was the abstract thing that was outside the system of ideas. It’s the same thing. And so that became symbolized by the chaos monster, and we can easily throw that on our enemies. It’s like, “well who are you? you’re outside the hierarchy. oh, you’re a chaos monster”. well yes you are. That’s not an arbitrary prejudice. You are absolutely a chaos monster.
Then the question is what do you do with chaos monsters? One answer is kill them. The other answer is get their gold. That’s a better answer. Because there’s information in chaos, and we’re information scavengers, and that’s our niche.
Outside what we know, there’s information. You might die retrieving it. But if you don’t die, you’re a major hero.”
“”The Father” isn’t an individual. “The Father” is the whole patriarchal dominance hierarchy, right? The individual is just a representation of that. Our minds are more evolved to consider “masculinity” as such, rather than the male individual. […] The masculine is like a god. You say, well is it a god? Well, it shapes your behavior. It determines your destiny. It determines your fitness. Is it alive? That’s a good question. Depends on how you describe alive.
So we’ve got this system that can recognize the masculine living thing, the feminine living thing, and the self living thing. That’s the underlying pre-suppositions of our nervous system. Thats the world of being. At some point our cortex inflates. So now we can use abstraction. But you know that evolution is a conservative process. You don’t just build a new thing, you build a new thing on an old thing, so the new thing still thinks like the old thing, but it can do some more things. So what’s happened to us and this is something that’s amazing to me is that we’ve taken these basic social cognitive cateogires, and we’ve been able to map being itself using the same categories– and it works.
You map the masculine the dominance hierarchy, you map the feminine onto nature. Well, that works. All of a sudden, that works. You can survive like that.
Is that a metaphor? No, it’s not a metaphor. Here’s an example. Why is mother nature “mother” nature? Well what’s nature? Nature is that which selects. That’s as far as I can tell, how else are you going to define nature? “Nature selects”. Women select. That’s what women do, human women. They’re not like chimps, they’re selective maters. So as far as men are concerned, and maybe as far as women are concerned too: Women ARE nature. It’s not a metaphor. They’re the thing that stops you from reproducing, and that’s partially why they make you self-conscious when you reject it. They’re the portal to immortality. They ARE nature. It’s not like they represent it. They are nature, in the most direct possible way.
Is that a right way of looking at the world?
It’s difficult to make an alternative case if you look at the world from a Darwinian perspective.”
“If you walk down Bloor Street, and you watch, you can see people in “Hell” with no problem. They’re not only the people who are completely lost – the homeless – but they’re homeless that you cannot look at. And the reason you can’t look at them is because they find your act of mirroring their state of existence as intolerable. It will instantly enrage them. And that’s because they’re in chaos. They’re in the underworld, but they’re in a particular suburb of the underworld, and that little suburb, that’s hell. And you think, well, is it eternal? Depends on what you mean. It’s been around a long time. A long time. It’s really deep. And there’s another weird thing about Hell, which is when you’re in it, no matter how bad it is, there’s some stupid thing you can do to make it worse. And that’s why it’s bottomless.”
“[…]how we compartmentalize reality is not at all a given.”
“No, you do it on the fly. And you do it for pragmatic reasons. And in some sense what you do is look for the simplest possible and least energetic way of conceptualizing the current situation so that the next thing you want to do happens.”
“Maybe you’ll even start to understand what the larger problems are, because that’s a problem with prematurely trying to do too much, it’s like, well is that really the problem? And what makes you think you’ll make it better rather than worse? So you have to pick the right-sized problem.”
“Part of the progress of human knowledge is the differentiation of the map. Now, you can get quite a long ways with an undifferentiated map, in fact, often, an undifferentiated map is often more useful because it obscures useless detail. And so we’ve always been making maps of the world. And you might say we were making maps of the objective world, even when we didn’t know it, and I would say no we weren’t. I don’t believe that. We were making maps of being, and that’s not the same thing.
Imagine you exist within a sacred landscape. How could a modern person conceive of that? Well that’s easy. Leave home for… a while. And then come back. Let’s say it’s your parents’ home and you’ve been gone for fifteen years, and you come back and everything in the house is imbued with magical significance. And you might say well that’s not inherent to the object. Like, yeah, sure. Depending on how you define the object. It’s completely inherent to the object as they manifest themselves in your realm of perception. And you can dissociate the object itself from the subjective overlay, but that’s not such an easy thing to do, and it’s not so self-evident. And it’s not even obvious that what you’re doing when you do that is coming up with a more accurate picture of reality, because the picture of reality that represents the item of sacred importance,
How do you know that importance isn’t the most important part of that item? That’s how you act. You won’t throw it away. Well, why? It’s just a material entity. Well no it’s not. It’s an element of being. And that’s a different thing.
And so what people prior to the dawn of the materialist age was producing maps of being, and that meant things had historical significance. The mountain where your grandfather was buried was not the same mountain as another mountain. And you might say, yes they are, they’re made out of the same clay and silica and all of that, and it’s like, yeah, man, you’re missing the point.
A Westerner might say, “yes but it’s extraordinarily useful to differentiate and to act as if there’s an objective reality and a subjective reality because it opens up all sorts of new avenues of pursuit”, and yes, that’s why we’re technological wizards. But we’ve lost something. We’ve lost our capacity to understand the reality of that overlay that we scraped off in order to produce objective reality.”
“Being is the domain in which suffering is real […] and that’s not the material world.
Pain is not a material phenomena. It’s like, well yes… I would like to point out that that is hardly a brilliant observation, everything is associated with the material world, because here we are, in this world. But we do not understand.”
“A while back I was in New York, and unfortunately I don’t remember in which museum, but in this room in this museum, there was a spectacular collection of mid-to-late Renaissance art. Staggering room. The value of the paintings in that room… they’re priceless. Billions of dollars worth of art in that room. And there were people from all over the world looking at it. One of the pieces was The Assumption of Mary. Beautiful. […]
And I thought well, let’s be a cultural anthropologist about this. That museum is on some of the most expensive real estate in the world. There’s a tremendous amount of time and effort spent on producing the museum and fortifying it and guarding it. And people from all over the world make pilgrimages to stand in front of it. And what they are looking at they do not understand.
So what the hell are they doing there? Why are they looking at those pictures?
The answer is the pictures speak to their soul… but not in the language they understand. But that’s okay because we don’t understand ourselves. That’s obvious: we’re more than we can understand. By a tremendous margin. The artists and the mystics are at the vanguard of that development of understanding, and they come up with ideas that are clearer than mere feelings, but are not yet clear.”
“It’s especially real if you’re Darwinian, because what’s more real from the Darwinian perspective than that which selects? That’s the most real. In fact it’s the definition of real. It’s not “the material world”. It’s “that which selects”. […] This is the problem I have with people who are simultaneously reductionistic materialists and evolutionary biologists. It’s like, sorry guys, you don’t get to be both.”
“Are there cases where stating what appears to be the truth to the best of your ability to articulate it is inferior to a pragmatically functional white lie?”
“I would say it depends on your motivations. I can use the truth to hurt you. But I’m doing is like a white lie, it’s a black truth, let’s call it that. It also doesn’t serve the ordered structure entirely. It’s true on say three levels of analysis, usually sub-levels, and not true on a really profound level.
I can say “Well I’m just telling you this for your own good”, and I tell you something true, but I picked a context or a state of vulnerability in which delivery of that message has an undermining effect. And I know that. “Well it was true” well no. All things considered, it wasn’t true. Some things considered it was true, and a white lie is the inverse of that […] It would be wrong of me to hurt your feelings over such a trivial issue.”
“He who has a why can bear any how.”
“If you don’t read it, you’re not informed, you can’t participate in the debate except as a puppet. And I wouldn’t recommend participating in this debate as a puppet because you don’t know who’s behind the scenes pulling the strings.”