Individualism vs. Individuality

x-posted from /r/socialism.

LtConnor:

Individualism in a capitalist society
Capitalist Society develops a hyper competitive individualist culture that today we see manifesting as people pushing their personal brands on social media, the increase in entrepreneurship, ect. I would like to hear your perspectives on what might be a better vision for the ways in which people’s identities manifest? How can we combat this competitive individualism in our own lives? Is it ok practice developing a personal “brand” to help yourself out?

Me:

There’s a difference between individualism and individuality. Individualism is the evil sociopathic shit that needs to be abolished. Individuality must be preserved and strengthened in a communist society. This is what the majority of capitalists fail to understand about communism. Individualism is essentially an “every man for himself” philosophy. It encourages people to do what benefits them, regardless of whether it harms another. It’s extremely animalistic and brutish in nature, like a solitary animal killing any weaker animal that dares tread in its territory. Individuality is the traits that make a person them–in other words, their personal identity. For instance, I’m a space nerd, engineer, and mathematician who loves playing video games, drawing, and pushing for revolution. I have a friend who wants to go into dentistry, and she loves pop music, fashion, and your stereotypical modern college girl things. I disagree with a LOT of her tastes. But she is free to have her own tastes–i.e. she likes Sherlock, and I don’t. I have another friend who adores Steven Universe, but I despise that show with a passion. The problem arises when the individual goes so far to push their individuality, that they break into an -ism, whereby they engage in sociopathic behaviors which compels them to do what’s best for them, and only them, regardless of the outcome on others. They regress into a pre-conventional mode of thinking (in the stages of moral development) that’s similar to that of toddlers and early elementary schoolers–a reward/punishment-based mode of thinking revolving around me, myself, and I. We want to preserve individuality. In fact, communism uses individuality to its advantage–from each of their abilities, to each according to their needs. I’m not simply “a space nerd.” I’m “THE space nerd” at my college (although I’m now “the communist” there). My astronomy-obsession is part of my identity, and communism not only allows me to love space, but encourages me to use that to not only help myself out, but help others out as well. As long as your individuality does not involve individualism, it’s alright to push your individual “brand” out. It’s sort of like strong and weak conjectures as well. If you have individualism, you have individuality. But you can have individuality without having individualism. Conversely, if you don’t have individuality, you don’t have individualism, but if you don’t have individualism, it doesn’t mean you don’t have individuality. (I’m also known as the math nerd so… yeah…) The opposite of individuality is conformity. The opposite of individualism is collectivism. The difference is made clear once this is pointed out, although most capitalists associate collectivism with conformity due to Stalin encouraging conformity and such.

The problem with capitalism (well, one of its trillion problems) is that it’s strongly tied with consumerism. And even though the capitalist mode of thinking is directly individualist, consumerism is strongly conformist while making itself seem like it’s pushing for individuality. And since most people can’t distinguish between individuality and individualism, most people think that because they live under an individualist society, that they have their own individuality. What they don’t realize is that yes, you’re free to choose whether you want an iPhone or a Samsung or an indie brand. But if you don’t choose either an iPhone or a Samsung, you’re going to be ostracized by society (because the companies use bandwagon-testimonial propaganda to make it seem like “all the cool kids are doing it” and such) as “not being hip.” Thus we create a consumerist-conformist society where the bourgeoisie is essentially in control of what we can choose from, what is “hip,” and by extension, what we like.

What’s weird is when you get a consumerist-collectivist society. You may not immediately think of the perfect example of such. Imagine a society that’s essentially sans a government, save for a corporate monopoly. Very ancap at first, until you hear that everybody in this society gets what they need (and want, as there is a surplus of goods due to post-scarcity) without having to pay any money, and everyone essentially lives collectively in a consumerist-corporatist monopoly. Does this seem like a strange idea? Weird? Or does it seem familiar? It should, if you’ve seen Wall-E. Now if you haven’t seen it, it’s a minor spoiler, but not too much since I’m going to be more talking about its apparent economics than its plot.

In Wall-E, which occurs 700 years in the future, we see that this company, Buy n Large, has not only become the Walmart of the world, not only the Amazon of the world, but owns the monopoly on literally everything. There is only one company, and that company is Buy n Large. Eventually, their world becomes so polluted (no surprise given the nature of corporations) and Marsformed that they had to leave Earth and deploy many Wall-E bots to clean up. As we learn from the movie, there was at one point a president, who ordered everyone to board the Axiom ships and leave to space in the late 2100s. But apart from the captain of the Axiom, who seems to serve no purpose other than to keep the ship’s functions running smoothly, with several robots to assist the people and keep them safe (in a logical manner). Let’s forget Auto (the antagonist autopilot) for now–as he’s there for plot development and in no way is a threat to the society itself. We see that Buy n Large (which appears to be largely composed of robots at this point–we don’t know whether there are humans behind it or not, but we know everyone conforms to the company and its suggestions and demands) controls every aspect of their lives (which are now entirely cruise-ship like, as robots have all the jobs–but happily do them without revolt–because a robot uprising wouldn’t be Pixar-like). There’s a scene where over the loudspeakers, a robot lady says “Try blue–it’s the new red!” in reference to the people’s jumpsuits. They are able to press a button and instantly change the color of the jumpsuits. We initially see everybody in red, and closer to the end, we see a handful of them in blue and a handful of them in red. But they don’t seem to be given a choice of wearing green jumpsuits, or plaid jumpsuits. Clearly the jumpsuits are able to change at the press of a button. They should be able to change to whatever color they desire. But no–they must be in company colors. Anything else would make your friends look at you all funny! Clearly the people live under communism. No “private property” (save for their bedrooms for privacy reasons I assume). Everything is shared. There’s no money. On top of that, they live under post-scarcity. There’s no longer a government, even. Now I think they’re making more of a reference to Star Trekkian government (Disney overall seems to be anticommunist), but said Trekkian government is explicitly communistic. Here we see consumerism once again driving conformity under the illusion of individuality, despite having a collectivist society. “Communist consumerism” seems like an oxymoron, but the movie shows how it “works.” Consumerism, a product of but not necessarily dependent on capitalism essentially gives the illusion of individuality with “You can do whatever you want, but if you don’t do x, you’re going to be ostracized from society.” It’s funny how Wall-E’s politics is ambiguous in its stance on capitalism and communism. On one hand, the ancaps would argue about how smoothly the society is running under consumerism, as BnL generously provides. On the other hand, ancoms would point out how it’s only running smoothly because the society is communist. You could easily take the same politics, and write a book that seems like a pro-Socialist Orwellian novel, or an anti-Socialist (see how closely that resembles the world antisocial, which is pretty much synonymous with sociopathy) Ayn Rand novel.

Anyways, I digress. Individuality is very different than individualism. Individualism is capitalism, just as collectivism is communism. But individuality vs. conformity can be be thought of similarly to the north-south scale on the Political Compass. Individuality would be under libertarianism, and conformity would be under authoritarianism.

So feel free to push your “personal brand” as that’s a matter of individuality, as long as it doesn’t involve putting yourself above others. But where there’s capitalism, there will be consumerism, and where there’s consumerism, there cannot be individuality; only its illusion. And where there’s communism, there will be respect of other’s preferences–individuality–as long as those preferences do not infringe upon the rights of the collective whole and the human individual.

LtConnor:

Damn, thanks for your in depth answer. Gave me a few things to think about. I like how you establish a difference between individuality and individualism. I appreciated the Wall-e reference. It helped to establish your point but I think I got a little lost in there. So under capitalism, you believe that we get essentially and individualism based society with no individuality. Under authoritarian communism, say like china, we have collectivism with no individuality. So how do you think you retain individuality in a collectivist society when things like media, gender, and race shape how we define our identities?

Me:

I tend to rant and ramble once I really get into something, haha. It’s me typing out my stream of consciousness, really.

Under capitalism, we have individualism, and we’re supposed to have individuality, but since capitalism almost always brings consumerism, capitalist societies loses individuality.

Think of it this way. I needed to go get a drink right now, so I went to the vending machine. Now this vending machine is weird–it sells both Coke and Pepsi products. I bought a Coke for now (my other college only sells Pepsi products, ew, because Powerade is a Coke product and UF invented Gatorade, so yeah), but what if I wanted something else? Sure, the vending machine sells a whole variety of Coke products (Coke, Diet Coke, Coke Zero, Mtn Dew, Aquafina etc.) and Pepsi products (Pepsi, Diet Pepsi), along with Dr. Pepper, Lipton Tea, Gatorade, and what appears to be Red Bull, Monster, those Starbucks things, and some Ocean Spray product. Holy motherfucker of choices! This vending machine gives me everything. I wanted an Orange Crush, though–so I’m forced into buying something from this “smorgasbord of choices.”

I’m only allowed to choose from what is presented to me. One of my favorite sodas is something called Limca, which is only available in Indian stores. I like Orange Crush more than I like Fanta, but Orange Crush is not readily available like Fanta is.

It’s always Coke v Pepsi. 7UP vs Sprite. Dr. Pepper v Mtn Dew. Most of the products in that vending machine are owned by three total companies–even if it has the highest variety of any vending machine I’ve ever seen. Because individuality! But I’m still forced into choosing from one megacorporation over another.

Even more exaggerated is when I’m at UF (I’m taking summer classes at Valencia). UF only vends Pepsi drinks (and Gatorade, of course). But I much prefer Coke to Pepsi. Oh, I have the choice of choosing from a variety of Pepsi products, but thanks to this Powerade thing, they cannot sell Coke products, otherwise they’d have to also sell Powerade (which, for obvious reasons, does not make much sense to sell at the school that made the rival product). So am I truly free to express my individuality when I’m limited to only Coke products, and at the most, Pepsi and 7Up products? Of course not.

People look at me very funny all the time because I always wear some sort of Gildan-type cotton t-shirts. You know–basic printed tees and jeans. Sometimes sweatpants. I never go to stores like Forever 21, Abercrombie and Fitch, American Eagle, or whatever else it is that “college age girls are supposed to go to”. My mom thinks I’m very fat, when in reality I don’t even have a muffin top–yes I could stand to lose a few pounds, but I’m not fat. It’s only thanks to false advertising by these companies that my mom thinks I’m fat.

Now under a hypothetical capitalist society with individuality. in this case, you are not falsely advertised to in the least sense, and you can choose which company is advertised to you. All semi-major to major products would be available in vending machines, unless they’re very unpopular, and thus would be removed (invisible hand, free-market bullshit and stuff). You would actually have a choice in what product you want, and it’ll be your own.

Of course such is unstable as the free-market will eventually lead to monopolies (think BnL) via a process similar to evolution. There’s an effect called the Matthew effect that also applies to every other thing in capitalism. Standard deviation increase over time. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. The popular gets popular, the unpopular gets less popular. The explanation is simple. Musics X, Y and Z are presented to you on the radio, even though A-W exists. It’s because X, Y, and Z can afford the millions of dollars necessary to get your song on the radio. Society has gained this thought of “if you don’t like X, Y, and/or Z, you are weird” and “if you like some of the songs in A-W, but not X, Y, or Z, you’re a hipster.” Society doesn’t really care if you like A-W (but doesn’t particularly like you if you do), but you have to like some songs X, Y, or Z if you don’t want to be ostracized. This creates a snowballing effect where the popular music becomes even more popular, which causes the radio to play it more. Of course it reaches a critical tipping point where people get bored of the song… until the same artist releases a new song. The less popular songs can sink into oblivion, even if they practically to literally invented the songs that evolved into popular songs. Nobody I know knows the band Kraftwerk, even though they’re the forefathers of all EDM.

Comics like Dilbert go even further with the idea of capitalism causing homogeneity, talking about “cubicle farms” and the nature of how the Pointy Haired Boss is often irrational and does not give a fuck about his employees. It’s very true though. Whenever I visit cubicle-based office-spaces (like my dad’s old working place at CHEP and my brother’s girlfriend’s mom at Lockheed), aside from a few little trinkets and pictures on their desks, the cubicle field was painfully homogeneous, especially at my dad’s old place. Everyone’s pretty much forced to dress the same, act the same, etc.

The Stanley Parable, while being a metacommentary about video games, could also be shown to be a sort of reflection on office life. Each time you open up the game, it starts out with this opening line:

“This is the story of a man named Stanley. Stanley worked for a company in a big building where he was Employee #427. Employee #427’s job was simple: he sat at his desk in room 427 and he pushed buttons on a keyboard. Orders came to him through a monitor on his desk, telling him what buttons to push, how long to push them, and in what order. This is what Employee #427 did every day of every month of every year, and although others might have considered it soul rending, Stanley relished every moment the orders came in, as though he had been made exactly for this job. And Stanley was happy.”

Everyone does this job. They sit in their cubicles/rooms pressing buttons all day long because their boss tells them to do so. If you think about it, that’s pretty much what modern work is. You are just a biological computer to press buttons in a certain order because your boss has not figured out a way to automate the process yet. And if you don’t dress a certain way, act a certain way, and press those buttons exactly as your boss tells you to do so, you’re fired.

There was also an episode of Spongebob where Squidward moves to that Squidtopian community, where every house, every person, and everyone’s actions are pretty much identical, perhaps reflecting on the American (Squidwardian?) Dream. The American Dream is the picture of homogeneity. Everyone is encouraged to look one way, act one way, think one way, dress one way, be one way, else the entire system will collapse.

We can clearly see that capitalism favors individualism but not individuality. Capitalism is built to be an unstable system. Yes, theoretically speaking communism is also unstable (think of physics–the more orderly a system, the more potential energy it has, and the more sensitive it is to instability, so continuous energy is needed to keep the system in order). But it isn’t inherently unstable like capitalism is. Capitalism does not allow for individualism due to consumerism, as stated, due to artificial consensus caused by the Matthew effect and artificial scarcity caused by higher-level product placement.

But let’s look at individualism under communism. The most common misconception about communism people have is that communism’s equality principle is a homogeneity principle. We do not aim to make people homogeneous; in fact, we aim to do the exact opposite. Because everyone has their individual differences, we encourage people to use those differences to help society. I’m a 5′ tall moderately strong but unfit girl, but I’m very, very good at coming up with innovative new solutions and ideas. Under communism, nobody will care that I’m short. They’ll encourage me to become fit for my health, but I’m not going to be forced into doing a job I physically would be the worst candidate for, and instead will be encouraged into doing a job based on thinking rather than physical labor. It all comes back to the “from each of their abilities, to each according to their needs” idea.

The problem with, well, existing, is that it is literally impossible to avoid indoctrination unless you can download literally every piece of information ever, and every new piece of information created after that, into an infant’s brain the moment they’re born, whereby they instantly analyze everything and come up with their own set of ideas that they follow. Since this is 100% forbidden by all of science, sense, and practicality, we must think of an alternative means of thinking.

Now from a philosophical and scientific point of view, there is no such thing as moral absolutism. F=GMm/r² (sorry, as a mathematician, I had to eventually bring in a math analogy, haha) is an absolute truth of the universe. So is F=ma, E=mc², and so on. But even those tend to break down at a quantum level, except for maybe that last one that exists on the quantum level. Then we get to absolute truthisms, like a²+b²=c², sin²(x)+cos²(x)=1, and similar. The numeral 1 is our own creation, but the concept of “one” (i.e. the concept of an integer) is another absolute truth, at a level even more true than E=mc² or F=ma. But there is no equation governing the universe that dictates the laws of morality like the laws of nature, and even less sow the laws of mathematics.

But at the same time, we know that if I drop an egg onto a hardwood floor from six feet off the ground, it’s going to break and splatter everywhere. We know that there is no law of nature that directly states “If you drop this egg onto a hardwood floor from six feet off of the ground, it’s going to break.” But we can analyze from observations, tests, and logic that we shouldn’t do so because it only takes 25N of force to crack an egg (yes, I actually googled that). Likewise, we can analyze what is best for society, whereby the individual, its environment, and its society have the greatest optimized benefits. Such would be pure eco-socialism and pure eco-communism. It is what will make our species the most successful. Adding in the real slight problem of human nature, we allow for some room for growth, without hurting others. Most of what people complain about “muh human nature” is really more “muh human nurture” and stuff; in other words, they had shitty parents.

Indoctrination is impossible to avoid. Moral objectivity doesn’t exist. We can scientifically determine what is the optimal means to achieve a desired goal. Thus according to science, indoctrination of communism and communist philosophies are the means of achieving the ultimate goal of world peace. It isn’t worth fixing those who have been poisoned by their nurture way too far. But we can avoid fostering the toxic ideas of capitalism and anything that scientifically would be bad for the society and such i.e. in our schools, proceed to teach communist ideas over capitalist ideas. We create a society of better people through indoctrination of the most ethical, sensible, reasonable, and scientifically ideal thoughts.

Of course, one would argue that this “harms individuality.” But if I didn’t mention it before, I’ll mention it now–individuality can only go so far. Technically speaking, in a society with complete individuality (i.e. 100% pure anarchy), one could justify murder by saying “I like murder–it’s who I am.” And similar such arguments. Thus individuality can only go so far before it starts infringing on the rights of others. Individuality then, would then be contingent upon the moral framework we defined earlier.

It is furthermore entirely impossible to avoid artificial informational scarcity. I cannot know everything at once, nor can I always view all my options or even be knowledgeable of multiple options. In other words, there are things that I don’t know that I don’t know. If you know that you don’t know, you can easily Google the answer. But if you don’t know that you don’t know, you don’t even know in the first place what to Google. Take this statement: There is a perfect hexagon on the North Pole of Saturn, which I am willing to bet you didn’t know. If you know that you don’t know, you would say “I’m not sure if there is a hexagon on the North Pole of Saturn or not. I should Google it.” If you don’t know that you don’t know, you wouldn’t know to look in the first place, and upon hearing the statement, you’d say “There’s a hexagon on Saturn’s North Pole?” as you wouldn’t have even taken the time to think about whether there is or isn’t a hexagon on Saturn’s North Pole, or really anything about hexagons and Saturn. My point is space is really, really awesome and that there’s a goddamn perfect hexagon on Saturn’s North Pole, and that’s so fucking badass. But really, do you see what I mean? It is literally impossible to avoid artificial informational scarcity.

However, we can avoid creating intentional artificial informational scarcity. For instance, CNN intentionally avoids covering Bernie as often as possible. Fox always bashes him and their news anchors probably masturbate to Trump. RT covers Nuit Debout and other acts of revolt quite neutrally, but if you want to read about Russian politics or anything to do with it, Russian state news is probably not the best source for that information. Now of course, any given news source cannot cover all news, RSS-feed style. But a political news source can cover everything semi-major to major going on in politics. A science news source (although usually pretty expansive already) would cover all major science news that occurs. If we’re considering market socialism, advertisements are easy to air, and advertisements are honest, have sources listed, and are essentially trustworthy. In this sense, I am not compelled to choose product X over product Y or Z, nor am I oblivious to options A-W. Products A-Z are advertised such that we get an equal exposure of all of them over the course of the day, and because of their honesty and neutrality, whilst assuming there’s no societal pressure (which there shouldn’t be in a socialistic society) to choose one product over another, it is my personal and uninfluenced choice to choose whichever product I want to choose.

In a socialistic society, the concept of “gender” and “race” will not exist. “Race” will only exist as a phenotypical concept, just as eye color and hair color does. There are definite physical differences between say, I, a biologically female purely ethnically Indian girl, and say, an ethnically European person. Their hair color is seldom black and they’re generically white. Indians almost always have dark brown skin, dark brown eyes, and black hair. But what does that mean outside of a phenotypical context? Other than the fact lighter-skinned people are more sensitive to UV because of the lack of melanin, it doesn’t mean anything. In a socialistic society, we’ll have transcended “race” as a meaningful construct, leaving it as merely a visual trait, much like eye color or hair color i.e. is trivial and will shape one no more so than one’s hair color or eye color would.

The concept of “gender” is a construct of times when people of the XX chromosomes were expected to behave one way, and XY chromosomes another way, with the extremely rare exception of people with XXY (hermaphrodites) chromosomes and such (who would have been considered freaks of society and executed at the time). The very notion of “gender” itself pushes its own discrimination, as it is in itself regarding that such a thing exists. Biological sex exists, and you are free to act however you want. But being cismale, cisfemale, transmale, transfemale, genderqueer nonbinary, genderfluid, nongendered, or whatever other terms the liberals have come up with to describe the behavior of one’s self not only enforces the stereotypes of each gender, but also overcomplicates its concept, as it presupposes “feminine” and “masculine” attributes. A transfemale is “expected” to act “girly,” whatever that means–in essence, enforcing the stereotypes of what one should expect from a girl and what one expects from a guy. It also comes down to the nature of labels. Labels enforce a sense of conformity. I’m a nerd, and I always have been. What makes a stereotypical nerd? Introverted, socially inept, never gets laid, germophobe, preferred the simultaneous comet landing over the picture of Kim Kardashian’s ass–need I go on? Everyone calls me a nerd, and indeed I call myself a nerd–as the main essence of a nerd is intellectualism. But at the same time, people make assumptions about me. I’m actually more socially adept than most others–I simply tend not to care if people feel uncomfortable with my eccentricity–I’m well aware it’s making them uncomfortable and I enjoy watching them squirm. I’m introverted unless I’m with people who share similar thought patterns. I should probably be more of a germophobe: my dorm gets so filthy that if housing ever found out exactly how filthy my room got in the Fall, I’d not only be forbidden from living in a dorm, but a HazMat team would have to clean my room. As far as “never getting laid,” well, in the span of about 7 months, I had sex with 14 different people–13 guys and 1 girl, on at least 30 different occasions–and that limited amount was more a time constraint than scarcity of partners. But I am extremely intellectual, and 95% of the time, I’m thinking about something most people would find boring. Yet here’s the strange part–despite going to a very liberal high school (for central Florida, that is), where most people avoid stereotyping, everyone expects me to have straight As. Even the most liberal of people–the Tumblristas who would probably hang themselves if they accidentally used the wrong pronoun, assume that because I’m very intellectual and talk about things that sail right over their heads, that I get good grades. When in reality, I barely–BARELY passed 12th grade. Sure, it was mostly pure laziness on my part–I probably could have gotten straight As if I’d have studied. But the “nerd” stereotype still pushes the idea of “all nerds study hard and get good grades” and most people, whether subconsciously or not, continue to stereotype all intellectual individuals as hard workers. I suppose in my case, that’s a good thing, as people perceive me to be very hard working even though I’m very lazy, but in the case of gender, even though you’re further dividing people into ever finer categories, you’re creating a stereotype for each. You also get to the point where you start to realize that you have so many divisions with such arbitrary classifications, that you’re essentially just describing the person themselves (why doesn’t “themself” exist in English, along with a second person plural pronoun…). Thus gender is pointless–live and let live. I always tell people that “I identify as a satellite–my pronouns are probe, probes, and prober. Use them or I’ll bomb you from space.” to mock those who identify with some weird gender.

I digress–a clear indication that I need sleep. Technically I started writing this around 11:30AM, and it’s now 12 hours later–I had classes in between and such. But yeah I do hope you read this because I literally spent 5 or so hours writing it, haha. My point is, gender doesn’t exist, and to acknowledge gender is to enforce it as a stereotype. Socialism will not care if you have a penis or a vagina or whatever you happen to have–a goddamn cloaca if you happen to be a bird person or something. Socialism will not care how you choose to act, contingent upon the moral rules set earlier and such. Socialism will be there if you want to change your organs. But acknowledging gender not only makes lexicography so much more confusing, but also encourages disindividuality via encouragement of conforming to a label–however many there are to choose from. By removing its concept entirely, we allow for everyone to have their own preferences, and we avoid binaryism without having to get unnecessarily complicated in lexicography–i.e. allowing a greater expression of individualism. I am Fractal. Fractal identifies as Fractal. Fractal has a vagina and XX chromosomes. Fractal uses the pronoun “she.” But Fractal is nowhere near to being feminine, nor does she fit any stereotype. Fractal is Fractal, and Fractal will forever be Fractal, even if Fractal 20 years from now is different from the Fractal she is now. Fractal is not female. Fractal is not male. Fractal isn’t one of those weird genders, nor does Fractal feel as if she doesn’t have any gender. Fractal identifies as Fractal, because in refusing to identify with a gender, she is free to be herself. And no, Fractal isn’t my real name, but I go by Fractal everywhere.

So we see that media, gender, and race will not disrupt individuality in a socialistic society. Similar arguments can be applied to sexual orientation: as long as we produce enough babies to sustain our species, fuck whoever you want to fuck, as long as you’re fucking safely. So many things we see today that we think would throw a monkey-wrench into socialism’s plan are constructs that are the result or conditions of capitalism, or some earlier form of it, and will not exist in and indeed cannot exist in a socialist society. Gender, race, so-called “human nature,” among other things will simply disintegrate as societal constructs in a socialistic society, as they aren’t inherent properties of a human being.

I’m probably going to break Reddit once I post this–sorry for my wall of text–but I like to be thorough, even if I write literally 3795 words, give or take–perhaps they have a 10,000 character limit, in which this will be split up into three posts. But yeah, that’s my take on it. Give or take. I can only be so thorough. If you do enjoy my wall of texts, feel free to ask more questions. About anything, really. I like rambling about intellectual things.

I await the user’s response.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s