What You Just Described Is Like.. A Critical Chunk Of The Human Condition.

We force their prices down under the threat of murder and re-animation. Imagine just how horrible that really is - being torn apart alive, just to (unwillingly) be 'cured' back into a form capable of trading. And your protectors, the golems? Their villager friends are forced to build them under slave-like conditions, so that we can remelt them into usable iron. Villagers live in sustainable, small communities all until WE come into the picture with our swords and industrial machinery.

But the bitter, awful truth? The villagers are evil beings too. They have banished thousands of their own, hence the pillager/evoker/vindicator/witches (less sure about the witches, as they are shown to live alone). These people are forced to gather together, creating huge mansions where they practice the occult an an attempt to get on decent terms with otherwise hostile mobs. Ever thought about why woodland mansions are so rare, yet villages so common? The woodland mansions also contain many... shall we say, observations, about the world. The inhabitants are men of science and knowledge, pursuing magic and truth. They may be evil, but they are the closest thing to the player in game. And they are only evil because of the villagers. At the end of the day, the Player will annihalate mansions and enslave villagers (sometimes even enslaving vindicators for fun, as they arent very useful for work). The vindicators (and gang) know this. They know of the Player's evil. That's why they are hostile, and why pillager patrols will lock eyes with the player even if they are far enough away that the Player is not a threat (no other hostile mob will look at the player without taking some action like attacking, fleeing, or whatever).

So why do we view Illigers, who keep to themselves in their faraway mansions deep in forests, as evil, while villagers, who have doomed them to this fate and refute all technological progress past mastering their own limited trade, are considered good?

It's simple. The villigers are useful to us. They give us things that we want. That's why we 'protect' them, so that they can make us more powerful. Ever noticed how a raid can only ever happen if YOU enter a village with a bad omen? Neither pillagers nor illigers want to harm the villages themselves. They are trying, in desperation, to halt the Players progress and save themselves. That's why if you leave the raid and come back, they will just have killed everyone, then gone home.

Actually, thinking it over, a big part of what the evokers search for is eternal life, right? They create vexes out of thin air but they can't make them last. Maybe that's why they imprison allays, to study them. Anyways, they have somewhat succeeded? They have totems that can reverse death, but they can't seem to use them (given that they die as normal and instead drop the totem on the ground). But the player can. The player can still die, but he (btw i'm calling the player a he cuz the default skin in Steve) respawns. And his progress remains. For some reason, the Player is beyond death itself. And interestingly, Zombies and Skeletons always look like players (zombies do occasionally spawn as villagers, but rarely). Even the dead version of players still walk around, their flesh rotting and resporatory system unable to breathe without creating a hissing sound. They are also capable, in theory, to equip any item, if it's put into their hands. The same goes for armor. Even skeletons, beings that have no flesh living tissue, walk around. They are able to use a bow, and are scarily fast when they aren't aiming. The player is so far beyond death that even his own decaying or decayed bodies roam around and interact with the world around them.

Absolutely hate it when minecraft stories portray villagers as stupid/inferior to the player/s 👎👎👎👎👎 Big thumbs down👎

Life is not an experience void of joy, so instead of yearning for value, go do the things that give you value!

On Gambling

Gambling is a practice that will never yield positive results, and serves only to further the misery that we may bring upon ourselves. Never have I seen or heard of a person who came out of a casino happier than when they went in.

Partly because the high of winning is either followed by the next day's compensation, should they choose to leave with their winnings, with the thought of going back lingering in their mind.

Partly because, should they keep playing, they will inevitably lose all their earnings (and probably more after that), or move back up to the previous example.

And partly because the low of losing is one that can only be satiated by either winning the losses back (Which is what casinos prey on) or accepting that the money is gone forever, which casinos do everything in their power to make difficult.

But most of all, gambling is miserable because it is built on a complete and total lack of dicipline. "The only winning move is not to play", after all. Casinos draw in the impulsive and those in a vulnurable state of mind, knowing they won't have the dicipline to keep their winnings or cut their losses.

Many lose all track of money and just start playing on emotions, because the gamblers fallacy actually relies on "I just need to get my money back, then I will no longer feel down", which would only hold true if you were to immedeately leave the casino once you've minimized losses.

I imagine that the most successful gambler is as miserable as the one who lost it all; Both lost their most valuable asset long before they put down their first bet.

On Sisyphus (And why Camus imagines him happy)

The story of Sisyphus is one that hits particularly close to home, and I'm sure I don't need to explain what it's about.

Similarly, Albert Camus' interpritation of the story, the one that ends with "One must imagine Sisyphus happy" has become pretty famous too, albiet more of a meme. There's a lot to unpack here, but I litterally have nothing better to do, so let's find out why Sisyphus is one lucky guy.

Sisyphus attempts to outsmart the gods, and as punishment, he must roll a boulder up a hill, knowing that it will roll back down once he reaches the top. Not only is that pretty funny, it also seems disgustingly similar to how modern life works. Doing laundry, waiting for the weekend, you name it.

It is a common thought that these things are tedious and eat up our limited time on earth, thus making us miserable. With that mindset, you would imagine Sisyphus as the most miserable human on earth. After all, he has been condemned to spending the rest of his life only working a menial task without any reward or meaning with the task at hand.

This was undoubtedly what the gods had in mind when they handed out this punishment, but Camus claims that it isn't all that bad. Personally, the line in "The Myth of Sisyphus" (which is the essay Camus wrote on the matter) that sticks with me the most is: "One always finds [their] burden", which I try to remember before I make a decision that supposedly will make my life easier.

After all, the people wealth large enough to never have to partake in work or laundry or any of these things do not enjoy a perpetual state of bliss and unconcern (unconcern is apperently a word). Their burdens simply lie elsewhere.

What am I getting at with all this? Well, I'm saying that, provided he was given enough time to accept his situation, Sisyphus wouldn't actually be happier if he was one day let back into the world and relieved of his boulder hauling duties. He would probably be happy for a while, but he would eventually find his burden, and go back to hauling a now metaphorical boulder.

So far we've established why Sisyphus would be equally miserable with or without his boulder, but why then is Sisyphus supposed to be happy?

Well, it basically boils down to a misleading segway. See, Sisyphus doesn't have to be miserable when he hauls that shitty boulder. It sounds insane, and Camus even states the absurdity of it. But if Sisyphus wanted to defy the gods one last time, could he? Could he end up happier than before he even got his punishment and end up with the last laugh? Yes, he could, and here's how.

The key is not to recognise the abusrdity of the situation. Instead of thinking about what a waste of time and how meaningless this task is, Sisyphus must instead do the opposite: Attempt to do the task to his absoloute best ability, without yielding to the idea that this task is, inherently, meaningless.

Should he succeed in this fundemental rework of his way of thinking, he will start enjoying the work. See, humans have a deep need to do a good job. When you procrastinate, or cut corners, or whatever, you will feel a tiny hit of misery (probably shame). That's just how we work. But the opposite applies too. If you truly commit to your task, no matter how meaningless or ineffecient it is, you will get a tiny reward.

If Sisyphus decides to push that boulder with all his might, every day, knowing damn well it will roll down again, he will be happy. He has defied his own misery, and found meaning in the most meaningless of tasks. And when the boulder rolls down, he will breathe a satisfied sigh, and walk back down to start pushing again.

Sounds pretty absurd, huh? One must imagine the people that are free to do menial tasks everyday happy? Well, you are free to imagine anyone any way you like. But I certainly imagine Sisyphus happy, along with any garbage worker and bus driver that find joy in their work.

When you get lost and you end up in the enemys spawn

right wing trolls acting up on tumblr always fascinate me like what are you doing making a fuss about pronouns on the pronouns in bio website you’re in enemy territory like are you lost or something

To the person commenting skibidi on all my posts

it was funny at first but you can stop now

Trying to explain the nature of dicipline.

Dicipline, and especially self dicipline, is not something that you can force through sheer willpower. You have to do useless things to get it. And you can't tell yourself that you're doing it for the sake of dicipline, it doesn't work like that. You have to do things for no reason. And if you find yourself asking: Why am I doing this? you should answer: "I'm doing this unnecessary task because it is unnecessary."

After all, when your boss tells you to do a task that is useless for your work, or you have to learn calculus that you will never, ever use in your adult life, will you have a better time with a brain that is geared towards hating unnecessary things and will feel frustrated over the task, or one that not only is used to dealing with these types of tasks, but can even find meaning in the meaningless, through dicipline.

Imagine if animals made those documentaries about us.

"Here we see, a Homo Sapiens. This one is out hunting for a meal tonight."

(Camera pans to a prime cut of meat)

"The ribeye steak is a delicious temptation"

(Human looks in his wallet) "The human uses his frontal lobe to calculate whether or not he can afford it. The human brain is very overengineered, and takes more than 20.000 factors into consideration at every decision."

(Human closes his wallet) "Hm. Perhaps not in the budget right now. This human is running out of time. The store closes at eight, and if his children are to make it through the night, they need sustainance. Normally, their mothers milk would provide for them, but due to Dolfin-made contaminents, most human-breasts are clogged with microplastics."

(A few shots of human kids looking cute)

"How do you do, fellow alligators"

I had a person track me down because I had edited a single stat on a single item in The Binding of Isaac's fandom wiki. They contacted me on Discord. They said it had been tough because I wasn't on the official Isaac discord server. They added me so that they could inform me that I had made a wrong edit, and that they had reverted it. That was it.

A strange interaction but welcome nonetheless.