Fat Burning and Anti-Science Socializing

 Recently heaven forced/manipulated me into a fasting regime, and as a result I've been working on grokking the next layer of how false the public discourse is. Maybe one day I'll get through all the layers. P.S. The fasting is making me quite a bit dumber but my mind is noticeably unfogged at least in certain directions. Feels like the time I crashed and alt-f4'd several bad habits using sleep deprivation. P.P.S. Re: dumber, you should see all the extra errors of all kinds these posts would have contained if I didn't proofread three times as hard as I usually have to. It's not subtle. Plus, as you can see, I'm not getting them all, but I will only be able to see the remaining errors once I get back to my previous peak.

 I saw the word 'hayseed' written by some rightoid journalist-wannabe, and I remembered Steven. Steven was a guy in my elementary school who was the son of a farmer. Can't get more hayseed than a literal rural farmer.

 What was Steven like? 

 Steven wasn't much like an image in any movie, TV show, song, book, new article, or twitter feed. Interacting with Steven, or even walking on the country roads near Steven's house, felt completely different to anything in any narrative, whether orthodox, heterodox, or outright dissident. 

 Steven was real. The narratives really are complete fabrications at every level. If they include anything true, it is only to distort your perception of it using false context. I could write a long analysis of how and why there are speckles of [match] here and there, little sparkles of not-completely-false, but the analysis has the same consequences as assuming they exist by accident and coincidence. They were trying to make something utterly false - which should be utterly ignored - but aren't perfect.  

 It's not just that they're lying about what Steven is like. They're in fact not even wrong. They're talking about something that isn't even human. No remotely honest observer can conclude they even wanted to refer to someone like Steven. Maybe journalist!hayseeds are some way or another, but nothing remotely like that has ever existed. It's literally the worst kind of mythology, talking about purely imaginary entities that have nothing to do with anything - and then they still lie about these fake entities and describe them wrong.

 If you want to know about Steven, you can't read about him anywhere. Even I can't do it because I don't know where to begin - you already have delusions about Steven and I don't know what they are. If you wanted to know Steven, the only way was to have gone and looked personally.  

 Steven wasn't published. Steven was real. Really an unnecessarily unpleasant disappointment, but nevertheless. I liked the roads though. I just find the rotation of Earth, the consequent variation in sunlight, and related change in animal activity very very cool. Not to mention seasons are real neat. I find the pacing is absurdly well done.

 Perhaps related, I've noticed twitter personalities are incompetent. When the rubber hits the road - when you can immediately and unmistakably test their assertions - they're wrong. "This guy smells Jewish. Like, biologically." (Spiritually, at best.) If they tell you to play a videogame a certain way, doing it will get your little mans killed. The guy who talks about his parenting as le funny things kids say but the specifics reveal he's a boomercuck despite being millennial at the oldest. They're only good at sounding good about things that don't matter. Hiding in abstracts so far away from reality they've lost touch entirely.

 You can feel it too. When they make a testable assertion, you can feel how it's real all of a sudden. The grift tap snapped to off. (Oops.) 

  

 The war stuff is not "real" it's simple. Their extraordinarily low-bandwidth wordcel abstracts aren't as completely divorced from reality as usual, because the relevant realities are themselves low-data. A proper description would let you work out what it feels like to be there. If you ask literally any professional anywhere, they'll tell you [it's not like that].

 Easily fixable of course. Make an only-testable twitter account. Start small, work up. Problem is demand, not supply. Very very occasionally you get a report that's real and true, but of course it never goes anywhere. My example being @hradzka on leftist protesting. https://nitter.unixfox.eu/hradzka/status/966480925692280833 There's also a guy who used to talk about modding Mario 64, @KazeEmanuar. You can try the mods he suggests and see for yourself; he's fully exposed to science.

 My goal is to expect the kind of falsehoods and delusions I'm going to see when I click a link, rather than having to recompute them every time. I don't want to have to manually remind myself about Steven et al to escape the good-natured assumption that they simply live in a strange but real place. I mean @hradzka lived in a weird place where he saw leftist activism up close, in person. Rejecting such a report simply because I haven't seen it myself is not a live option.

 Further, I need to re-evaluate my habits. If I knew about this dynamic, would I have formed any of these habits? Would I be reading this if it wasn't "lindy" or "traditional" with respect to my personal experience? How would I have reacted on seeing it the first time if I had been educated beforehand, instead of after?