Aldo6

I'm whatever, I guess...

Public Key

npub1v3k05y7z23cllpt5uc2m6927v0llxalejg9tryjukgumpaedt2rsgzchdk

NIP-05 Address

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsxgm86z0p9gu0ls46wv9daz40x8llnwlueyz43jfwtywds7uk44pcpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0ds8unpea

Publishing to

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Author Public Key

npub1v3k05y7z23cllpt5uc2m6927v0llxalejg9tryjukgumpaedt2rsgzchdk

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-04-05 14:40:46 GMT

I just went on a hentai website that I used to visit every day and still visit every now and again, and my antivirus all of a sudden pops up saying "we blocked this website because of child abuse content"...
Bro......
If it's "child abuse content", then decriminalize viewing/possessing "child abuse content"...
https://gimmeloli.cc/files/f47948a6-9db8-4a18-abca-607eba21c43c.jpg

2026-03-24 22:56:03 GMT

- reply

I don't want to keep this current System hooked up to a life-support machine.
Even if I liked the System (I don't, but let's consider the hypothetical), would I support it in its current vegetative state? No.
If you could somehow talk to someone who has been turned into a vegetable with no chance of regaining consciousness and try to convince them to continue "living" (in a purely mathematical/scientific sense) as they are, do you think even they would choose to continue?
No.
Things must be left or let to die. It is the natural way of things. Either stop artificially prolonging the "life" in question, or allow said "life" to naturally self-destruct.
You may call it "accelerationism", but I see it as mercy; as true empathy and as true affirmation of agency. The System's time is up. It made its choices. The only thing holding it back from death is, ironically, us and our nostalgia for and fear of it.

2026-03-23 23:23:11 GMT

I don't know if anyone else is seeing this, but there appears to be an increase in Antis calling for people to be arrested for having stock NN photos of "minors" on their HDs. You see this now when people get arrested for lolisho, and the prosecution points out they had NN irl photos as well, as if that's somehow "CSAM"/"CP" or something one can also be charged with.
These people believe that the simple act of having a photo of a "minor" in a bikini or whatever is grounds for arrest under "possession" laws or at the very least grounds for a search warrant.
You know what?
Good. Great, even.
The only way things will change is if people stop following unjust laws, and the only way that will happen is when there is clear overreach.
Things will have to get worse (and more ridiculous!) before they get better.
Pain is the greatest teacher.
#AgreeingwithAntisforthewrongreasons

2026-03-14 12:59:24 GMT

- reply

I know that hahaha
Czechs get around.
Why are you taking this post so seriously?

2026-03-14 12:55:18 GMT

Maybe my perspective makes more sense when one considers that I am descended from landed Bohemian nobility.
Last Christmas I asked Dad if we still technically had access to the old family estate, and he said we did, but he hadn't visited it in decades.

2026-03-11 16:12:26 GMT

- reply

"There are no facts, only interpretations" - Friedrich Nietzsche.

2026-03-08 22:55:12 GMT

- reply

Booth had accomplices and was an avowed Confederate. That is also the allegation re: Nikolayev (i.e. that he was not acting alone, or was acting as a sort of patsy). Hitler committed suicide, he wasn't assassinated.
Anyways, I guess, if all these deaths were due to incompetence, then it's just more evidence that Communism kinda sucks balls, because they were never able to be "competent" enough to stop their important people from just dying in strange ways...

2026-03-08 22:28:39 GMT

- reply

"It was all just a coincidence"
"It was incompetence"
I wonder how many times this was said in response to deaths of political/important figures while the Soviet Union existed...
Hrm.......I wonder...

2026-03-08 22:17:34 GMT

- reply

so one moment it's the NKVD, the next moment it's not the NKVD, they were just incompetent, but then it's back to "it was the NKVD" again...
Bruh...
Anyways, the point of my post is that the Leningrad Affair was a real thing, Stalin was a parnoid lunatic, and the central Moscow authorities in general hated the fact that the local administrators of Leningrad may have been better than them.

2026-03-08 22:12:56 GMT

- reply

"the NKVD yes, but Stalin not really"
So were the NKVD involved, or not?
Why did the NKVD remove the majority of Kirov's guards right before his assassination? Who gave that order?

2026-03-08 21:39:06 GMT

Remembering that time during and after the Siege of Leningrad where Stalin sought to downplay the struggle there because he was worried Leningraders were fostering a sense of superiority over and independence from the inept central Moscow authorities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leningrad_affair

2026-03-07 14:22:35 GMT

- reply

the truth hurts...
Neither "right", nor "left", but pro-Sexuality. Only pro-Sexuality.
https://gimmeloli.cc/files/997bcdf9-3101-43ce-a5d2-bcd1d9cd96bb.png

2026-03-01 22:51:21 GMT

- reply

my version:
https://gimmeloli.cc/files/4b7df9e7-de6c-4717-81f7-5db3242abe10.jpg

2026-02-21 19:33:25 GMT

- reply

It's ridiculous, because these people reveal the confluence between the extreme exploitative and unethical practices of C(r)apitalism (TM) and the inherently two-faced "Victim industry", yet all these Twitter leftists/rightists are utterly blind to it.

2026-02-21 19:24:56 GMT

- reply

I mean, I guess I can respect her Sigma grindset, but come on.... xD

2026-02-21 19:21:34 GMT

One of Epstein's alleged victims (Juliette Rose Bryant) has now started-up crypto called "Survivor Coin".
This is 100% real.
If you can't see this grift for what it is at this point, then you have an IQ lower than room temp.
https://gimmeloli.cc/files/dda7cc11-8e16-472e-b0da-5ebda4694e29.png

2026-02-19 18:17:17 GMT

- reply

this makes no sense, because you agreed to be paid for doing the very thing they are paying you for.
What else were they paid for then? Just hanging around? Get outta here!

2026-02-19 18:10:36 GMT

- reply

> "Without consent"
> "Even if the recipient was paid"
That makes no sense. You can't agree to be paid for sex and then complain that you have to have sex.

2026-02-19 18:08:31 GMT

- reply

no, clearly not, because then in that case it is retrospective rape i.e. "I agree to sex, but then I regretted it after".
This is the reasoning of #metoo which got many innocent people thrown in jail.

2026-02-19 17:48:32 GMT

- reply

it's akin to wanting weed to be legalized but still wanting people to be sent to jail for smoking it.

2026-02-19 17:47:47 GMT

- reply

my argument is that the "rape" and "abuse" charges are not rooted in reality.
There is no evidence of actual "rape", aside from statuatory rape which isn't rape. And even in those cases, it was because the "minors" in question lied about their ages!
You're essentially saying "I'm pro-sex work and lowering the AoC, but against people paying people for sex and "minors" engaging in sex-work because it involves "rape" and "abuse"".
How can you not see this?
You are suffering cognitive dissonance.

2026-02-19 17:44:37 GMT

- reply

what is it about then?
"Rape" and "abuse"?
Where?
This is the same argument the System uses to be against prostitution and especially lowering the age of consent!
How can you possibly not see that?!?!

2026-02-19 17:20:07 GMT

- reply

how did Epstein "flourish" because of criminalization of sex between adults and minors?
This makes no sense.

2026-02-15 19:19:18 GMT

Vegan?
Carnivore?
Nah
I'm on that Epstein Diet.
https://gimmeloli.cc/files/6a561dfb-d25f-4392-a0aa-ed07c3abe8ed.png

2026-02-06 13:58:21 GMT

- reply

calling someone "evil" is an admission of defeat...

2026-02-06 13:56:58 GMT

- reply

they are subjective concepts tho.
Reality is subjective. Our interpretation(s) of reality ("facts") are therefore also subjective.

2026-02-06 13:53:07 GMT

- reply

so your whole position is that you are a nihilist who doesn't want to create new meaning in the world but doesn't want to call themselves a passive nihilist, who claims anyone who does want to create new meaning and who recognizes the infinite possibility is "delusional", and who believes that the world/time/life is finite and everything will end permanently eventually, who then says that "facts" and "reality" (subjective concepts) are on their side because they.....What....Can't change or haven't changed (grown) over time?
And 𝘐'𝘮 the delusional one?

2026-02-06 13:49:22 GMT

- reply

why is it that everyone I argue with on here always ends with a defensive tantrum about "facts and reality"?
You are rooted in the very "facts" and "reality" that constantly changes, evolves, and grows. The "facts" and "reality" of one day becomes the "lies" and "limited thinking" of another.

2026-02-06 13:46:28 GMT

- reply

I can take what you said and rediret it right back at you by saying that I pity you for believing that there will be a definitive "end".
Which is more worthy of one's pity, to argue that eventually there will be nothing at all (which ironically is something, but that's beside the point), or to argue that, no matter what, there will always be something alive out there? One is fatalism, the other is optimistic pessimism.

2026-02-06 13:40:56 GMT

- reply

everything will just "end" simultaneously? Which is more ridiculous a proposition, that everything dies until only a cell is left, or that everything dies simultaneously (a universe death)?
To me, they are both ridiculous and rooted in the same faulty thinking.
Time 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 linear tho. Einstein would take issue with your thesis.
A universe ending (whether on the macro or micro level) is not "the end", but again, a new beginning. There is no "end point" on the line that we can see or discern. That's the point. The "line" (if there is one) is endless and follows a path of its own, it doesn't travel in an efficient pre-planned straight direction.

2026-02-06 13:34:04 GMT

- reply

the relationship between life and death is symbiotic. You cannot possibly believe that, sometime in the future, there will be only a single microbe or cell left in the entire universe, and that this microbe/cell will eventually die and then there will be nothing.
This way of thinking is based on everything following a linear plan/path. Life does anything but.

2026-02-06 13:30:52 GMT

- reply

death is not the end of life, but the start or renewal of life.

2026-02-06 13:29:24 GMT

- reply

when a star explodes (or, rather implodes), life doesn't end. We are born from dead star-matter ourselves. We are cosmic.
You limit your appreciation of life by believing there is an "end".

2026-02-06 13:27:05 GMT

- reply

things die, and in their death they create new life, which grows and then dies, and the process repeats.
Life is literally infinite. The struggle is infinite. Growth is infinite.

2026-02-06 13:25:18 GMT

- reply

enjoying life to the full means accepting the struggle that is life, which means growing, even if inadvertently; even if unconsciously.
Life is struggle.

2026-02-06 13:22:53 GMT

- reply

so what do you want then, to just stand there and wait to die?

2026-02-06 13:21:32 GMT

- reply

you say you can't understand what I'm talking about, but how, it is very easy to understand. So easy that it becomes intuitive.
You either live in perpetual safety with no risks, or you have the possibility of infinite growth with included risks.
Come on, it's basic.

2026-02-06 13:19:09 GMT

- reply

it's a question. It's related to psychology and philosophy. It's a simple question, all things considered. You don't have to 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 what I'm talking about, just to answer the question sincerely.

2026-02-06 13:15:24 GMT

- reply

Hello, Vincent...
https://gimmeloli.cc/files/7f7d17e7-7546-48ec-8c2b-d8b426a60d2c.png

2026-02-06 13:00:21 GMT

- reply

"Life has no meaning" is true, but that's the point, you make your own meaning.
Nietzsche, Camus etc... they all made this point.
You escape (or, rather, use) nihilism by creating something out of nothing. It is philosophical alchemy. If life is a blank canvas, then become the painter.
Do you mean to say you are an active nihilist rather than a passive one?

2026-02-06 12:54:39 GMT

- reply

straight nihilism sucks, bro....
Like.....Uh......I don't know what else to say haha

2026-02-06 11:43:11 GMT

- reply

if you can't choose between and want both, then you are akin to a nihilist; you are afraid of yourself.

2026-02-05 23:30:20 GMT

- reply

I'm sorry to say, if you accept that then you are a "Last Man"... :(
"The snake which cannot cast its skin (or perhaps only casts a part of it off) has to die"

2026-02-05 23:17:06 GMT

- reply

Everything lives and dies. You mistake "infinite" for "perpetual". When I say "infinite" I mean living, dying, and then in that death feeding the new and so on and so on and so on, so that life itself goes on and continues to adapt and grow. Nuclear best represents this.
Life itself follows your cancer analogy.
And why not? Cancer is a part of life.
Do the animals that predate other animals to extinction consider the food for their future children? No. They just do. If they run out, then that is grounds for adaptation. They either adapt to the new struggle, or they die. Such is life.
The growth 𝘪𝘴 the purpose.
> "Only one with planning and purpose can thrive"
This again reveals your low estimation of the potential of humanity. Everything must be planned out, and given a (man-made, unnatural) "purpose" by someone.
Humanity, and life, is at its best when it is unconstrained. The fact that you think otherwise again shows misanthropy.
Wanting to predict or plan things out almost always ends in a failure of sorts, because life is chaotic and unpredictable.

2026-02-05 22:37:06 GMT

- reply

nuclear energy is infinite growth. We've reached the limit of the "finite", not the infinite.
I'm of the latter, and not the former.
Growth is the meaning of life. Planned growth is trying to control the natural chaos of life. It is misanthropy disguised as "empathy".

2026-02-05 22:26:23 GMT

- reply

you're like an Ixian from Dune, my guy (sorry for the obscure-ish reference)...
The "extinction" you want to avoid is brought about precisely by not wanting to try now, in spite of the "impossibility". Stagnation is death.

2026-02-05 22:20:51 GMT

- reply

hahahaha, isn't that curious, hahaha
Maybe they 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 be broken, perhaps?
How many times in history have "the (existing) laws of physics" been broken, I wonder...

2026-02-05 22:16:48 GMT

- reply

the third option is trying to find a "middle ground", utterly failing, and then dying, cursing the fact that one lacked the courage to choose.

2026-02-05 22:10:40 GMT

- reply

how can you know about the infinite if the infinite is literally by definition unknowable and unquantifiable?

2026-02-05 21:07:12 GMT

- reply

how can you say that "infinite growth is impossible"?
You can't know that, you don't know that.
Perpetual safety is the death of life. Growth has a risk, but the reward is infinite possibility.
I would take infinite possibility and accept the risk over perpetual safety with no chance for growth.
Live in a cell, or live outside in the wild.

2026-02-05 20:56:50 GMT

- reply

perpetual safety is the death of the dream.
To dream of means to acknowledge that you want to grow.

2026-02-05 20:54:01 GMT

You can only have one, as one cancels out the other.
Make your choice.
Infinite growth, or perpetual safety.
Your choice in this reflects your own psychology.

2026-02-02 01:27:23 GMT

- reply

you say it is not coherent, but in my previous comment I say personal experience is integral.
I then say that "the truth" is that reality is subjective and therefore perspectival epistemic constructs are our window into that "truth".
I see no incoherence here...

2026-02-02 01:14:22 GMT

- reply

thing is, to me, "𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘵𝘩" is itself a perspectival "epistemic construct"...
The only "truth" is that reality is subjective.

2026-02-02 00:54:27 GMT

- reply

nah, no worries, I meant to reply in that way just to generate some laughs, I just like using that clip every now and again haha
Point is I just don't see how "personal experience is worse than useless". I think it is integral. There is the body, but then there is the experience that truly brings it alive. The experience is what helps people understand.
Without "personal experience" what would be the point, in anything, aside from just numbers, predictive models, equations etc...?

2026-02-02 00:37:20 GMT

- reply

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWeSwxOtwD4

2026-02-02 00:21:13 GMT

- reply

OK, I may be wrong in this, but it seems like what you're arguing for then is to cut a big pie ("objectivity"/"Empiricism"/"Epistemology") into hundreds of small slices, each an "average" based on the specific subjective contexts in question (i.e. hot place or cold place etc...) and then to work within those confines while ignoring the other averages that don't apply.
What does that look like?
Subjectivist epistemology?
Empirical subjectivism?
Why not just say perspectivism haha

2026-02-01 23:59:59 GMT

- reply

either way, relying on the average to dictate response is hamstringing in of itself, because it doesn't account for nor recognize the merits of the outlier.
You use the term "error bar" in a strictly measureable sense, as if it is an "error" to be an outlier. It is not an error. You just equate being greater than average with being worse than average.
To be too hot or too cold is bad, yes. But one can adapt to those things. What then? You have to account for the subjective variation. A person who lives in Siberia would die if they took their lifestyle to the Arabian desert, and vice-versa.

2026-02-01 23:53:41 GMT

- reply

I want people to be above average.
I want them to be so above average that they literally 𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘴𝘦 the average by their mere existence.
To be in the clouds, so that people on the ground know that it is possible for one to reside in the clouds.

2026-02-01 23:49:12 GMT

- reply

ahhhhhhh, why did you have to mention the word "average", noooooooooooooooooooooooo ahhhhhhh
Mediocrity, the bane of Nietzscheanism!!!!
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

2026-02-01 23:45:25 GMT

- reply

"you can never know enough" is what I personally live by.

2026-02-01 23:34:08 GMT

- reply

something can not be "uncertain" and "objective". The only "objective" "truth" then is that everything is constantly in flux.
Indeed.
My one disagreement with pure subjectivists is the notion that every idea is equal. Some ideas/theories are less equal than others, just as in nature.
I understand now, Nietzsche's pivot to "perspectivism".
Still, his perspectivism has more in common with subjectivism than objectivism.

2026-02-01 23:31:38 GMT

- reply

I'm not using the wrong definition. Both of those definitions apply when I say "Dogmatic". I see no issue here.
You are relying on pre-existing "frameworks" to critique my understanding, yet one only learns things that they don't already know.
You are like the Kant to my Nietzsche haha
Science vs. intuition.

2026-02-01 23:28:43 GMT

- reply

the reliability of science is a subjective truth, yes. This does not conflict with my view that subjective experience is more valuable, it reinforces it.
I'm not saying you specifically live by that standard, I was making a generalized statement for emphasis. I believe the subjective ever-changing nature of reality wins out over "objective truth".

2026-02-01 23:23:09 GMT

- reply

both pure empiricism and "rationalism" are falsities.
"Empiricism" leads to Dogma. "Rationalism" is based on the accepted psychology/philosophy of the day and therefore can itself change (i.e. it eventually becomes irrational).

2026-02-01 23:21:07 GMT

- reply

nah, I'd argue that is considering something an unassailable "truth".
This is exactly why Nietzsche hated Kant!
Kantian "logic" creates new "Priests", obsessed with the "objective truth".
I'd argue that, in a purely qualitative way, subjective experience is more my thing.
Quantitative data and objectivism/empiricism has its purpose and use, but subjectivism is what keeps people waking up every morning.
We are not predictable robots! We all make and live by our own truths.

2026-02-01 23:01:02 GMT

- reply

I respectfully disagree.
Being dogmatic about empirical evidence leads to the same delusion as religion; it is Scientism.
Personal experience is incredibly valuable in dispelling prevailing (so-called) "objective truths" (myths).
The underappreciated thing about subjective/anecdotal evidence is that it can never fall into the pitfalls of empiricism 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 it lacks that Dogmatic inclination.

2026-02-01 12:35:06 GMT

- reply

The most insufferable thing I see here is people arguing that, because I (and others) might hold a minority perspective, that somehow means my perspective is totally wrong, just by virtue of not being "popular".
Yet these same people turn around and whine and complain about being treated like scum by a majority that also follows that exact same psychological reasoning (i.e. the Pedo/MAP-sexual position 𝘪𝘴 the minoritarian position and the majority Anti-Pedo/MAP-sexual perspective is the one subscribed to by everyone else)!
This leads to the very "fragmentation" and "toothless ineffectiveness" that leads many old-guard Pedo/MAP-sexuals to leave "the movement".
You have people who truly break from the System, and people who retain the System's psychology; the mental chains.
Those who continue to wear the chains hate those who don't, because the mere existence of an unchained person reveals those who continue to (willingly) wear the chains. Yet the only way forward is to take off the chains, not keep them on.
Stop being weak!

2026-02-01 12:20:28 GMT

- reply

Why should Pedos/MAPs 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦 at all about what the people who 𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘬𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 think, about ANYTHING?!?!?!
The very argument itself is an admission of defeat! You're effectively saying that your group is meaningless in the face of the wants of "the herd". You are submitting! You are kissing the boot!
"Pleaaase, nooo, I follow all your "rules" to the letter, pleeeeeease, you have to give me "protections" for being such a good slave to you, pleeeeease!!"
The strong affirmative position is "I don't give a shit about your "rules", which you just use to exploit and oppress me and others like me. I'm going to seize my freedom from you, whether you like it or not, prepare yourself".
Trying to appeal to those who want you dead is like a slave trying to appeal to their master for better treatment! Say, by some miracle, that slave 𝘥𝘪𝘥 get better treatment. What would realistically happen? They would be akin to Stephen in Django Unchained, so psychologically broken that they literally think the slavery they see their own people living under is "good for them", only because they "sold out" and got slightly better treatment!
The desire for people to 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘴𝘱 the whip overrules their desire to run through the fields naked without fear of 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 whipped. And that is just pathetic.

2026-02-01 11:59:59 GMT

The clearest sign of a minority being an assimilationist is caring about what "the masses" or "the majority" think and trying to play "popularity politics".
Assimilationism is bad for minorities.
Integrationism is good for minorities.
Don't be an assimilationist, especially not at this stage.

2026-01-31 21:56:16 GMT

- reply

just say you voted for Bolsonaro when you enter.

2026-01-31 12:09:54 GMT

- reply

Be careful of falling into misanthropy.
You hate to suffer, but life is suffering.
Become strong, not for others, but for yourself.

2026-01-30 23:23:47 GMT

- reply

fair enough. I take it you get my point tho. I'll try to find a better word.
I'm right now being attacked by many people who call themselves "pro-C" while basically defending legalist reasoning so.....yeah haha...
Maybe I'm turning into a pro-C absolutist type, even though it's not from a selfish egoist perspective, but rather from an ethical (again, mutual pleasure) one...
I just don't really know what to call my position, other than "ethical".
Like, it's not really as "cool" to just say, "oh me? I'm...Uh....Ethical. I think about ethics allot". Haha

2026-01-30 22:56:13 GMT

- reply

attraction =/= action, as you say, is at its most "valid" when it is about an attraction that cannot be acted on ethically.
An attraction that can be ethically acted upon is just, at that point, a normal attraction.
This is where I (and I think you?) diverge from Anti-Cs, because we both understand that one 𝘤𝘢𝘯 ethically engage in intergenerational relationships without violating a standard ethical code (mutual pleasure). Intergenerational relationships are no different, ethically speaking, than "normal" relationships.

2025-12-30 16:16:47 GMT

- reply

*Except Antis haha