geo — 9/13/2025, 7:07:53 PM

bro i swear this place been so tense recently

♥ 4 ↩ 0 💬 11 comments

comments

busybird15:

it's @burrito s fault

9/13/2025, 11:56:53 PM
cheesewhisk3rs:

Killing of Kirk started an argument about fascism in a group chat I’m in. It might be the entire Internet. Anyways what’s up?

9/13/2025, 9:31:51 PM
geo:

its crazy how much charlie kirk has blown up over the last day.. alot of posts in like the last 3 hours, idk everyone being quite aggressive 2 each other i feel, also im doing alright, hbu

9/13/2025, 9:43:19 PM
cheesewhisk3rs:

That’s good to hear :) (about you not Kirk). I’m doing okayish, school is dreadfully exhausting but I gotta get those good grades so I’ll happily suffer through.

9/13/2025, 9:53:46 PM
geo:

lol i got early application deadline for uni so thats fun T.T

9/13/2025, 10:00:47 PM
cheesewhisk3rs:

Nice! :)

9/13/2025, 10:03:41 PM
cheesewhisk3rs:

Not sure if you’re interested but here’s a fun way to prove something wrong right, as long as it doesn’t exist:

Let’s assume X does not exist.

However, X was an invented concept as this proof mentions it.

Therefore, X exists and doesn’t.

A contradiction! The only resolution is for X to exist.

9/13/2025, 9:55:52 PM
geo:

hmmm, i kind’ve get it but it misses out something or some sort of assumption cause with that logic “lets assume god doesnt exist therefore god exists” (not commenting on whether there is a god or not just the first example i thought of)

9/13/2025, 10:03:12 PM
cheesewhisk3rs:

The fallacy is assuming that a concept is the same as the physical representation of said concept. But the proof exists to give validity to the already fallacy-riddled “narrator theory” so it doesn’t matter.

9/13/2025, 10:05:18 PM
cheesewhisk3rs:

(Apparently there are Internet locations about a concept called “narrator theory” but that’s irrelevant to this one.)

9/13/2025, 10:06:30 PM
geo:

yeah that makes sense cool

9/13/2025, 10:13:56 PM