Curt Doolittle

Form: Dialogue

  • A Chit Chat on Truth Objective Truth

    Jan 12, 2020, 4:08 PM

    —“Curt Doolittle there is objective truth. Not sure the reasoning to say otherwise.”—Tim Abbott

    Well, that’s ’cause you’re taking advantage of a weakness in english (and most) grammar. This allows you the confidence to claim you understand something when you don’t.

    1) Try to say that without the verb to-be. (is, are, was, were etc). Try it. 2) define truth. This is my area of specialization (falsifying presumptions of knowledge) Its like training people not to think in deities (anthropomorphic fictions). Same for platonisms (non-anthropomorphic fictions).

    —“Curt Doolittle I would be interested to learn where I am wrong. An animal dies. That becomes a fact. To say the animal is not dead is a lie.”—Tim Abbott

    ^which is a tautology. ( And also a reductio simplicity. ) I can speak truthfully. (adverb) You can speak truthfully. (adverb) What does it mean to speak ‘the fast’ (adverb) or ‘the red’ (adverb)? When you say “I promise the animal is dead” under what conditions are you not speaking truthfully? A fact is a promise of a theory of an observation. A theory is a promise of observations yet to be observed. All non tautological, non-trivial claims are forever contingent. One can only satisfy the demand for testimony in a given market (context) which defines limits. There is some most parsimonious vocabulary, paradigm, language, (right now it’s math at the limits of math). But math currently is too limited for the scope of demand for testimony. So, one can speak honestly, truthfully (falsifying with his limits of knowledge and reason), scientifically(testimonially, having done due diligence) on can speak tautologically within a given language, or we can imagine that someday somehow we may produce a most parsimonious language with universal commensurability (paradigm) – which is an ‘ideal’. If we spoke in that paradigm (an ideal) we would speak truthfully – consistently correspondently operationally completely and coherently, in the most parsimonious language (what you call objective). So, like ‘infinity’, ‘the truth’ is simply a variable we attribute to ‘i don’t know’ because I don’t know the limits. So one cannot claim ‘the truth exists’ one can say we can discover a means of speaking truthfully, meaning satisfying the market demand for infallibility in the context at hand. The truth, like infinity, is simply a statement of ‘we dunno that yet’. Ill try to do a better job per advice from Martin Štěpán: WHEREAS; 1. The universe exists. 2. The patterns of constant relations in the universe exist 3. We can correctly identify name and describe those patterns. The question is whether you are defining The Truth as those relations, or whether you are defining truth as the precision of our speech measured by parsimony, consistency, correspondence, completeness and coherence. AND WHEREAS; 1. patterns exist (realism naturalism determinism). 2. The potential for us to describe them perfectly free of error exists. 3. We identify increasingly precise means of naming and describing them. THEREFORE We therefore must invent: (a) a means of naming and describing them, (b) a means of discovering them. (d) discoveries of each of them (b) a means of continuously improving them. AND; 1 -Western man invented truthful speech (realism, naturalism, determinism, operationalism, testimonialism) 2 -Western man invented the means of discovering them (reason, empiricism, science, operationalism) 3 – Western man invented (by far) most of the discoveries using those inventions. THEREFORE; And this is why I’m so … consistent in my pursuit of the truth – so that we don’t revert back to the lies that dominate the rest of mankind.

  • “Curt: Have You Tried Answering the Hard Problem of Consciousness?” (yes)

    Jan 30, 2020, 10:20 AM (“The only observer is memory of the last moment: recursion.”)

    —“Have you tried answering what I think neuroscientists call the “hard problem”? which is, how is it that electrical activity within neurons gives rise to subjective experience.”— Martin Edhouse

    I think we know the answer and I don’t think it’s even complicated. The problem is that they want an observer and we are recursively observing a stream of memory that is changing so fast – like movie frames – that we can’t detect differences other than those differences necessary or useful for our perception and action (novelty). As far as I can tell everything is experienced where it’s constructed and we can’t disambiguate inputs any more than we can disambiguate the outputs (how we move our limbs). So the following iteration (recursion) of experience produces layers upon layers of predictions constantly falsified by the next moment of prediction that our short term memory can only identify changes – not introspectively hold any given state for analysis (we capture episodic memory for condensing that stream of experiences.) The reason being that the distributed calculation producing what we call either input experience or output action is so granular its only meaningful as a stream of changes TO ITSELF in very short term memory. So like everything else in the brain, all we have is memory to work from. Either memory of the past little bit, or the forecasts we make from the last little bit into the future, and our control over that process by focusing our attention – which does nothing except shut off that which we aren’t interested in. I think the only thing stopping the average person from comprehension of experience is a basic understanding of the mechanisms for assembling and then predicting from the spectrum of spatial models from interior to body to proximity to space to boundaries, to the intentions and minds and imaginations of others – that’s what consciousness consists of that prediction and memory of changes in those predictions. In that sense, while we have our six senses so to speak, they are primitives, and the first generation assembly of those senses is into a spatial model. it’s that spacial model of the world we experience. And we are so heavily dependent upon it we almost can’t ignore it. Once you see that we do this just like a three-dee video game does (exactly the same way – it’s scary) and that we have neurology that specifically produces the same information as does a three dee video game for the same reason, you see it’s naturally deterministic that we would think that way and that computer games would have to be architected that way – just as much as atoms must be composed of only three particles. It’s beautiful, it’s terrifying, and it’s dehumanizing – and yes, we compute differently from computers but the analogy is more correct than it is false. So my understanding is that while the above narrative might be improved upon, that like newton’s gravity the description is correct for every and all questions of human scale – which is all we need for self and other understanding. I differ from Dennett in that Dennett uses philosophical and neurological frames first, and I use technological and neurological frames first, and avoid philosophy which I consider only slightly better than theology. I don’t differ from Searle that much. I consider myself the beneficiary of Searle as much as I do the beneficiary of Hayek. Again he uses the philosophical frame and I avoid it. I differ only in that I have perhaps a slightly better understanding of how subjective experience is constructed because one of the side effects of my illness is a rather slow restoration of consciousness when I (frequently) lose it and CAN experience that construction at least a little at a time each time. It might also be that I am VERY current on the research (I know the working papers) and he is not producing as much public material. So I don’t know what he thinks today. I might like to ask him but he’s getting on in years. I think the most articulate expression for ordinary people that’s available in video is Michio Kaku’s explanation of consciousness and it’s something like three minutes or less and it’s spot on. It’s just prediction of space and time at increasing distances. The perception I find most interesting is that even with very little consciousness, when waiting for stimuli, when waiting for that thin layer of neurons to create a sense of reality outside the body, that ‘temperament’ you consider ‘you’ is there. What I find most interesting is the shift from that temperament when I’m first aware of it, through changes as your world model and layers of memories come back to life. I feel every time, that I’m moving from childhood to adulthood and I see my change in values as the world model and current context, and intertemporal context come into being. It’s fascinating. In most cases, I avoid philosophy except to explain why its false – or to find a way to bridge between someone else’s frame of reference and what I understand to be the scientific (most parsimonious and consistent) frame of reference.

  • “Curt: Have You Tried Answering the Hard Problem of Consciousness?” (yes)

    Jan 30, 2020, 10:20 AM (“The only observer is memory of the last moment: recursion.”)

    —“Have you tried answering what I think neuroscientists call the “hard problem”? which is, how is it that electrical activity within neurons gives rise to subjective experience.”— Martin Edhouse

    I think we know the answer and I don’t think it’s even complicated. The problem is that they want an observer and we are recursively observing a stream of memory that is changing so fast – like movie frames – that we can’t detect differences other than those differences necessary or useful for our perception and action (novelty). As far as I can tell everything is experienced where it’s constructed and we can’t disambiguate inputs any more than we can disambiguate the outputs (how we move our limbs). So the following iteration (recursion) of experience produces layers upon layers of predictions constantly falsified by the next moment of prediction that our short term memory can only identify changes – not introspectively hold any given state for analysis (we capture episodic memory for condensing that stream of experiences.) The reason being that the distributed calculation producing what we call either input experience or output action is so granular its only meaningful as a stream of changes TO ITSELF in very short term memory. So like everything else in the brain, all we have is memory to work from. Either memory of the past little bit, or the forecasts we make from the last little bit into the future, and our control over that process by focusing our attention – which does nothing except shut off that which we aren’t interested in. I think the only thing stopping the average person from comprehension of experience is a basic understanding of the mechanisms for assembling and then predicting from the spectrum of spatial models from interior to body to proximity to space to boundaries, to the intentions and minds and imaginations of others – that’s what consciousness consists of that prediction and memory of changes in those predictions. In that sense, while we have our six senses so to speak, they are primitives, and the first generation assembly of those senses is into a spatial model. it’s that spacial model of the world we experience. And we are so heavily dependent upon it we almost can’t ignore it. Once you see that we do this just like a three-dee video game does (exactly the same way – it’s scary) and that we have neurology that specifically produces the same information as does a three dee video game for the same reason, you see it’s naturally deterministic that we would think that way and that computer games would have to be architected that way – just as much as atoms must be composed of only three particles. It’s beautiful, it’s terrifying, and it’s dehumanizing – and yes, we compute differently from computers but the analogy is more correct than it is false. So my understanding is that while the above narrative might be improved upon, that like newton’s gravity the description is correct for every and all questions of human scale – which is all we need for self and other understanding. I differ from Dennett in that Dennett uses philosophical and neurological frames first, and I use technological and neurological frames first, and avoid philosophy which I consider only slightly better than theology. I don’t differ from Searle that much. I consider myself the beneficiary of Searle as much as I do the beneficiary of Hayek. Again he uses the philosophical frame and I avoid it. I differ only in that I have perhaps a slightly better understanding of how subjective experience is constructed because one of the side effects of my illness is a rather slow restoration of consciousness when I (frequently) lose it and CAN experience that construction at least a little at a time each time. It might also be that I am VERY current on the research (I know the working papers) and he is not producing as much public material. So I don’t know what he thinks today. I might like to ask him but he’s getting on in years. I think the most articulate expression for ordinary people that’s available in video is Michio Kaku’s explanation of consciousness and it’s something like three minutes or less and it’s spot on. It’s just prediction of space and time at increasing distances. The perception I find most interesting is that even with very little consciousness, when waiting for stimuli, when waiting for that thin layer of neurons to create a sense of reality outside the body, that ‘temperament’ you consider ‘you’ is there. What I find most interesting is the shift from that temperament when I’m first aware of it, through changes as your world model and layers of memories come back to life. I feel every time, that I’m moving from childhood to adulthood and I see my change in values as the world model and current context, and intertemporal context come into being. It’s fascinating. In most cases, I avoid philosophy except to explain why its false – or to find a way to bridge between someone else’s frame of reference and what I understand to be the scientific (most parsimonious and consistent) frame of reference.

  • Lumping Abrahamic Religons

    Jan 31, 2020, 8:37 PM by Anne Summers with Curt

    [That collection of posts on Christianity] only explains / compares female/r capacity and ethnic judaic group strategy. I still don’t see what exactly Christianity is in this. On the one hand Christianity is founded by a pretty alright dude (Jesus) who, for the most part got things right. His teachings seem a bit too radicle for his Semite Bros and are accepted into (found compatible enough for the [female] population of Europe).

    ( CD: Correct. )

    You seem to lump all three religions together in tone as well as origin. I see the origins a little different… Judaic was K and converted to r and subterfuge for survival. Islam started out r and turned feral (Mohamed is very r) and Christianity is (In my opinion) full on K. Human individualism is a constant act of sin against the commons. It takes self sacrifice to correct the damage done to the commons. I grant that there are a lot of christians who are r, or deeply poisoned by Marxist culturalism. I can’t speak for them. And maybe, in a way my questioning you and partially answering my own questions has clarified my own take on Christianity. Thanks for such an opportunity of the thought dive.

    Very, very, good Anne Summers Damn. Impressed. As for this quote:

    —“You seem to lump all three religions together in tone as well as origin. I see the origins a little different… Judaic was K and converted to r and subterfuge for survival. “—

    Because I disambiguate the method of arguing the religion with the content of it. The content is fine. But the abrahamic method of deceit that is used to create the monotheistic religions is the same method used to create the false promises and undermining of marxism, cultural marxism, feminism, postmodernism, and politcal correctness (denialism). So if I want to end that category of lying and protect our people from undermining by the false promise of abrahamic deceit, then I am sort of stuck with scientifically explaining christianity, following jefferson’s example of the Jeffferson Bible ( thin new testament) and discovering some way of combining our ancestral religions so that we get the benefits of them without the cancer of abrahamism. So that is what you’re not seeing. And that’s why it’s not making sense to you.

  • Lumping Abrahamic Religons

    Jan 31, 2020, 8:37 PM by Anne Summers with Curt

    [That collection of posts on Christianity] only explains / compares female/r capacity and ethnic judaic group strategy. I still don’t see what exactly Christianity is in this. On the one hand Christianity is founded by a pretty alright dude (Jesus) who, for the most part got things right. His teachings seem a bit too radicle for his Semite Bros and are accepted into (found compatible enough for the [female] population of Europe).

    ( CD: Correct. )

    You seem to lump all three religions together in tone as well as origin. I see the origins a little different… Judaic was K and converted to r and subterfuge for survival. Islam started out r and turned feral (Mohamed is very r) and Christianity is (In my opinion) full on K. Human individualism is a constant act of sin against the commons. It takes self sacrifice to correct the damage done to the commons. I grant that there are a lot of christians who are r, or deeply poisoned by Marxist culturalism. I can’t speak for them. And maybe, in a way my questioning you and partially answering my own questions has clarified my own take on Christianity. Thanks for such an opportunity of the thought dive.

    Very, very, good Anne Summers Damn. Impressed. As for this quote:

    —“You seem to lump all three religions together in tone as well as origin. I see the origins a little different… Judaic was K and converted to r and subterfuge for survival. “—

    Because I disambiguate the method of arguing the religion with the content of it. The content is fine. But the abrahamic method of deceit that is used to create the monotheistic religions is the same method used to create the false promises and undermining of marxism, cultural marxism, feminism, postmodernism, and politcal correctness (denialism). So if I want to end that category of lying and protect our people from undermining by the false promise of abrahamic deceit, then I am sort of stuck with scientifically explaining christianity, following jefferson’s example of the Jeffferson Bible ( thin new testament) and discovering some way of combining our ancestral religions so that we get the benefits of them without the cancer of abrahamism. So that is what you’re not seeing. And that’s why it’s not making sense to you.

  • The Only Political Argument

    Feb 2, 2020, 7:45 AM

    —“Leftists care more about an assertion being offensive than it being true.”— Χρόνος @HliosX

    Yes.

    —“Hi! I am a leftist, yet I don’t think this assertion applies to me. Would you like to discuss/debate?”—Flancia @flancian

    Sure. 😉 Assertion: all differences are reducible to right evidentiary capitalizing, inter-temporal, reciprocal, falsificationary eugenic vs left experiential, consumptive, temporal, proportional, justificationary, dysgenic – and as such, decidable. As such all left propositions will be reducible to approval/disapproval, and right truth/falsehood. Cognitively left dysgenic female herd vs cognitively right eugenic male pack. We have no agency. We we are gene machines pursuing our reproductive strategies adapting them only to our class (status). And all speech and most importantly, all political speech is either truthful, reciprocal, meritocratic (hierarchical male right) or untruthful, irreciprocal, proportional (equalitarian female left). Right trade and truth and Left Seduction disapproval. The only solution is exchange. The condensation of the three classes of monarchy(judge of last resort), nobility(lords, senate), and family-business(house of commons), into a single parliamentary council, instead of adding a house of labor and a house for women eliminated the traditional european market between the classes, thereby creating a race to the majoritarian bottom, political conflict, and the incentive to immigrate vast underclasses to circumvent the western civilizational strategy of sovereignty. If we had added houses women (who are the only defectors driving leftward movement) would have learned how to use their access to political power in exchange, rather than using the traditional female method of undermining.

  • The Only Political Argument

    Feb 2, 2020, 7:45 AM

    —“Leftists care more about an assertion being offensive than it being true.”— Χρόνος @HliosX

    Yes.

    —“Hi! I am a leftist, yet I don’t think this assertion applies to me. Would you like to discuss/debate?”—Flancia @flancian

    Sure. 😉 Assertion: all differences are reducible to right evidentiary capitalizing, inter-temporal, reciprocal, falsificationary eugenic vs left experiential, consumptive, temporal, proportional, justificationary, dysgenic – and as such, decidable. As such all left propositions will be reducible to approval/disapproval, and right truth/falsehood. Cognitively left dysgenic female herd vs cognitively right eugenic male pack. We have no agency. We we are gene machines pursuing our reproductive strategies adapting them only to our class (status). And all speech and most importantly, all political speech is either truthful, reciprocal, meritocratic (hierarchical male right) or untruthful, irreciprocal, proportional (equalitarian female left). Right trade and truth and Left Seduction disapproval. The only solution is exchange. The condensation of the three classes of monarchy(judge of last resort), nobility(lords, senate), and family-business(house of commons), into a single parliamentary council, instead of adding a house of labor and a house for women eliminated the traditional european market between the classes, thereby creating a race to the majoritarian bottom, political conflict, and the incentive to immigrate vast underclasses to circumvent the western civilizational strategy of sovereignty. If we had added houses women (who are the only defectors driving leftward movement) would have learned how to use their access to political power in exchange, rather than using the traditional female method of undermining.

  • Q&A: Is The Game Trite? (Yes)

    Apr 14, 2020, 12:31 PM Questions from Francis Zhou

    —“Curt Doolittle, thank you for explaining the way of the world in such simplicity and clarity. As a young man, I was enamored with the power game, and shaped myself to climb the corporate ladder.” —

    Hugs. I find it cathartic to think I can add value to others. 😉

    —“However once I achieve some success in the game, I realized how trite and boring it all appeared to me. At every re-org, the people “in power” strive to hold onto what little power they have by appeasing to those at higher positions. I detested such game and decided to quit playing this power game and focus on my own game instead (to become best at what I do), which probably explains my relatively low position on the corporate ladder. …. And here within lies my confusion: was I wrong to pursue what I thought of as the “righteous path”, and should have continued to play the power game instead? Since even though I detest that game, it does conform to natural law, and thus exist for a good reason. And being in a position of power will allow me to make positive changes, instead of the current state where I am powerless to make those changes?”—

    Wrong? Wrong is the wrong word. 😉 There is nothing wrong with the game once you figure out running a biz is always a team sport. You were unwilling to pay the cost of submission (loyalty, fealty etc) necessary to ladder climb in the team sport – AND – i’m guessing you weren’t able to add sufficient value in your career or position for others to cater to you (my strategy btw). So we all get what we purchase, and you purchased what you did. I don’t see a problem here other than all men should be educated when young so that they make the choice they prefer. So it’s not that you were wrong so much as you didn’t know that used to be traditional knowledge and was not taught you.

    —“I have another question wrt what you said at the end. If I understood you correctly, by “scale is bad” and “reducing power distance restores meaning and eliminates the opportunity for evil,” you meant by “flatten the organization”, therefore making every individual accountable for their contributions, we eliminate the parasitic elite/middle man whose only incentive is to maintain the power economy and extract rent from the system.”—

    Business vs government. I didn’t mean maximize flattening the organization – although that’s always what I do. The point is that as in any other system, to prevent the development of a bureaucracy (middle management) that seeks steady state and efficiency under the presumption of low rates of adaptation, rather than a project business with a general staff (military organization), under the presumption of continuous change. Similar to my recent complaints about education, cdc, who, and government – if an organization isn’t designed to produce projects, and to conduct war games – even such groups as accounting – and if you don’t have a general staff planning war games (scenarios) then you are running your organization whether business, industry, or government incorrectly – under the presumption of regularity and stasis, which does nothing except create opportunity for rent seeking, corruption, and filling all available time with nonsense OTHER than how to adapt to crises. We discovered this in software and manufacturing but it is still taking time working up through through the large industries, the financial sector, and government – which is what we’d expect really. So power distance requires an equilibrium state, as do markets and the law, between too little power distance so that there are no efficiencies of scale, and to much power distance so that rents seeking arises. in government, too small goernment is petty and too large government is corrupt. It’s been common sense for over two thousand years that small governments – probably on the scale of 5 million-10m are about optimum. I mean, Tokyo is a state in and of itself. So is NYC. So we should treat them as such.

    —“Yet as I understood it, humans invented bureaucracy (hence the power economy) as a necessary tool to organize society beyond Dunbar’s number. How will a society filled with millions of short power distance, flat organizations effectively compete with empires organized around huge bureaucracies marshalling overbearing resources within its borders? E.g., collection of states post Blue/Red separation vs single nation state like China; collection of smaller companies with flat org tree vs goliath like Microsoft and Amazon, etc. I have not found the answer after reading all the resources I came into contact with in the Propertarian community. If I missed anything, please point out the gaps.”—

    first, as I said low power distance is not no power distance, and high power distance creates corruption and rent seeking and fragility. So competing is – as in all things – choosing the optimum point of equilibrium between the two extremes of failure.

  • Q&A: Is The Game Trite? (Yes)

    Apr 14, 2020, 12:31 PM Questions from Francis Zhou

    —“Curt Doolittle, thank you for explaining the way of the world in such simplicity and clarity. As a young man, I was enamored with the power game, and shaped myself to climb the corporate ladder.” —

    Hugs. I find it cathartic to think I can add value to others. 😉

    —“However once I achieve some success in the game, I realized how trite and boring it all appeared to me. At every re-org, the people “in power” strive to hold onto what little power they have by appeasing to those at higher positions. I detested such game and decided to quit playing this power game and focus on my own game instead (to become best at what I do), which probably explains my relatively low position on the corporate ladder. …. And here within lies my confusion: was I wrong to pursue what I thought of as the “righteous path”, and should have continued to play the power game instead? Since even though I detest that game, it does conform to natural law, and thus exist for a good reason. And being in a position of power will allow me to make positive changes, instead of the current state where I am powerless to make those changes?”—

    Wrong? Wrong is the wrong word. 😉 There is nothing wrong with the game once you figure out running a biz is always a team sport. You were unwilling to pay the cost of submission (loyalty, fealty etc) necessary to ladder climb in the team sport – AND – i’m guessing you weren’t able to add sufficient value in your career or position for others to cater to you (my strategy btw). So we all get what we purchase, and you purchased what you did. I don’t see a problem here other than all men should be educated when young so that they make the choice they prefer. So it’s not that you were wrong so much as you didn’t know that used to be traditional knowledge and was not taught you.

    —“I have another question wrt what you said at the end. If I understood you correctly, by “scale is bad” and “reducing power distance restores meaning and eliminates the opportunity for evil,” you meant by “flatten the organization”, therefore making every individual accountable for their contributions, we eliminate the parasitic elite/middle man whose only incentive is to maintain the power economy and extract rent from the system.”—

    Business vs government. I didn’t mean maximize flattening the organization – although that’s always what I do. The point is that as in any other system, to prevent the development of a bureaucracy (middle management) that seeks steady state and efficiency under the presumption of low rates of adaptation, rather than a project business with a general staff (military organization), under the presumption of continuous change. Similar to my recent complaints about education, cdc, who, and government – if an organization isn’t designed to produce projects, and to conduct war games – even such groups as accounting – and if you don’t have a general staff planning war games (scenarios) then you are running your organization whether business, industry, or government incorrectly – under the presumption of regularity and stasis, which does nothing except create opportunity for rent seeking, corruption, and filling all available time with nonsense OTHER than how to adapt to crises. We discovered this in software and manufacturing but it is still taking time working up through through the large industries, the financial sector, and government – which is what we’d expect really. So power distance requires an equilibrium state, as do markets and the law, between too little power distance so that there are no efficiencies of scale, and to much power distance so that rents seeking arises. in government, too small goernment is petty and too large government is corrupt. It’s been common sense for over two thousand years that small governments – probably on the scale of 5 million-10m are about optimum. I mean, Tokyo is a state in and of itself. So is NYC. So we should treat them as such.

    —“Yet as I understood it, humans invented bureaucracy (hence the power economy) as a necessary tool to organize society beyond Dunbar’s number. How will a society filled with millions of short power distance, flat organizations effectively compete with empires organized around huge bureaucracies marshalling overbearing resources within its borders? E.g., collection of states post Blue/Red separation vs single nation state like China; collection of smaller companies with flat org tree vs goliath like Microsoft and Amazon, etc. I have not found the answer after reading all the resources I came into contact with in the Propertarian community. If I missed anything, please point out the gaps.”—

    first, as I said low power distance is not no power distance, and high power distance creates corruption and rent seeking and fragility. So competing is – as in all things – choosing the optimum point of equilibrium between the two extremes of failure.

  • (little old lady) me: (laughing) her: “What? Tell me.” me: “Another female fan.

    (little old lady)

    me: (laughing)

    her: “What? Tell me.”

    me: “Another female fan. Unsolicited photos.”

    her: “I don’t think you’d survive that.”

    me: “I’m not sure I care. It’s the only way to go.”

    her: “she’s probably psycho. she’d have to be.”

    me: “Those women have their uses.”

    her: (sigh) (eye roll)

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-21 07:48:00 UTC