there should be a ‘pop culture’ killer. someone who just has pop music blaring loud before they do unspeakable acts, a new one for each song to be playing on the radio. would make a great dual personality mystery where half the book is written as the murderer and the other half as the detective.
TV killed the radio star, but now radio gets revenge
the relationship of others to you, called perception. or the inversion of their perception of you, the second person perception.
their truth will be more normal, but your truth will be more precise and developed, so which is truer? which is more fundamental?
i wonder if there is a way to compile out second person truths beyond stereotype of the modal identity, so you know how the person would reason.
is there a way to create an realistic character within a narrative, and realistic second person characters relating with the main character? or does the hero bias/spin the ancillary characters with so much personality/bullshit that they lose their agency?
if so, is there a fix/patch? how?
i get that cursing is cathartic. but why torment yourself with bad thoughts about your circumstance…
every act worth enacting is worth doing on it’s own merits.
fighting is worth fighting for. if it wasnt no mitigating circumstance would validate the behavior, it would still be contradiction.
more consequentially, fighting with ideals leads to tyranny and dominion and eventually retribution. subjugate not, and your enemies will have far more struggle in playing the victim card. so unless they believe in the hydra democracy, you will be able to expect to be treated as an adult.
only allow fighting to be worth fighting for. for it is that earnest consonance in the pursuit of perfection in any thing, which one can attain. no end goal has value, only the methodology to reach it.
i have blistering on my foot that is so bad i haven’t been able to go for a walk in a week. and i’m having dark thoughts.
maybe i’m better wearing a mask.
youth is wasted on the young like learning and wisdom are wasted on the senile.
naivety reduces the legitimacy of young opinions, and lack of sex appeal does similar to those of the old.
so which is more of a waste? to know little but be able to do allot, or to know allot but be able to do little?