All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 18, 2008 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
39:54
1235 Free Will, Determinism And Self Knowledge - Part 3

The worse the view from the mountaintop, the fewer the climbers...

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good afternoon, everybody. Hope you're doing well.
It's Steph. It is 12.39pm on December the 18th, 2008.
I hope you're doing very well. It's time for a little chore-in and a little joy-in.
And this is part three of a sort of a grab bag.
Of a variety of criticisms of certain perspectives or viewpoints from nihilism to agnosticism to determinism and so on.
All of which I would call, and again, calling it means nothing.
Hopefully I can make some kind of useful case in this podcast, but all of which I would call the codification of cowardice.
And we'll see if I can't make any kind of claim here that is useful.
So, when I talk about the codification of cowardice, what I mean is that there are certain philosophies that are so selectively applied that we can't help but be, or at least I can't help but be, a little suspicious about the motives for applying them, right?
So agnosticism, for instance, is only ever really applied to gods, right?
I mean, I've never once seen someone who posts on an internet forum and who says, well, I think I'm posting on an internet forum, but I'm not sure.
I'm not sure. I can't say anything about anything, because I don't know in some other universe.
This might be the opposite of an internet forum.
And it goes, you know, long-winded qualifications and all that kind of...
Because, you know, that would be a sign of mental illness, right?
I'm not sure that I exist because in another universe I simply...
I may not exist or I may in fact be the opposite of existence.
I may be a void, right?
If somebody were to actually apply agnosticism That we can't make any statements of certainty because of the possibility of oppositional knowledge or facts in another universe.
I think I'm typing, but in another universe I could be doing the opposite of typing.
I mean, obviously nobody would be able to post if they actually applied agnosticism in a...
In a consistent and universal way, right?
I mean, we would look at that and say, holy crap, man.
I mean, you need to see a doctor.
You don't need to be posting on a philosophy forum, right?
I can't make any statements of truth because in another universe, the opposite of truth might be the case, right?
You don't see someone who goes to university who says, well, I can't take a degree.
I can't take this degree.
I'll take all the courses, but I can't accept this degree.
Because in another universe my answers might be wrong.
2 plus 2 is 4.
Well, I can't take a perfect math score because in another universe it might be all entirely wrong.
I might be getting this test wrong.
I've not seen anyone who's an agnostic who says, I'm sorry, but I can't cash this paycheck because in another universe, working for you, Might be exactly the same as imbecile.
In another universe, the job that you say I did really well here, I might have done really badly, so I'm afraid that I can't cash this paycheck.
I can't come to any conclusions about whether I deserve this or not, and so on.
I mean, you get. I could have fun, and we probably could all have fun, the principles of agnosticism in a universal way, but this Of course, is not what people do.
This is not how agnosticism plays out.
What happens with agnosticism or agnostics is that it's only religion that they talk about.
Only God.
And why? Well, because that's where the greatest bones of contention are.
That is where People get mad, right?
I mean, if you leave...
I mean, if you're an educated man or woman and you leave the opportunity open for gods, religious people fundamentally aren't going to have a problem with you, right?
Because it's like, yeah, okay, so here we have someone who says, well, I can't prove that there isn't, I don't believe that there is, but you're not closing off, right?
The reality, right?
In the same way that a lot of conservatives don't exactly...
I hate objectivism in that way.
Why? Because Ayn Rand is an agnostic to some, well, not even an agnostic, but is a minarchist, right?
So she leaves the door wide open, in fact, considers it a necessity for there to be a government and so on, right?
Whereas anarchists don't allow for that moral possibility.
So when people have a particular moral or philosophical or intellectual perspective.
And they only ever apply it to the most contentious issues.
They only ever fog when the swords come out, then you know it's not a principle.
It means that what they're really saying is, I'm not comfortable with religion, but I'm not comfortable with confronting religious people with the falsehoods of their doctrines.
I mean, again, I don't haunt Christian boards, obviously, but I imagine that if I would, I would not see a whole lot of agnostics floating around there correcting the religious people, right? Saying, well, there may be a guard, but we don't know anything about him, right?
But what they do is they come and talk to atheists.
And why? Because, for the most part, atheists will You know, call them reasonable and listen to their arguments and not blow up and there will be no death threats there, right?
I mean, religious people can be pretty crazy, right?
So this magical relativism of agnosticism and relativism as a whole only comes out when danger is present or when courage is required.
All the fog on the planet descends upon the question.
I have never seen an agnostic say, well I can't take any kind of moral stand because in another universe rape might be the greatest virtue of all.
So I won't answer any questions about ethics or preferred states of behavior.
Or I won't correct atheists because in another universe Atheism might also be true.
So this is what I mean when I say it's the codification of cowardice, in that it is a set of principles that is only ever applied to situations where the greatest contention is occurring.
And that has always left me pretty skeptical.
About this kind of stuff, right?
And that's what I mean when I say it's a codification of cowardice.
I don't like the responsibility or the anger that will come out of confronting Christians, and therefore I'm going to apply my magic eight ball of Agnosticism only to questions of religion and nothing else whatsoever,
right? I mean, I've never once seen an agnostic say, well, Hitler, we can't say that he's bad or he was bad because in another universe genocide might be the most moral human action of all.
They don't say that.
They don't go there, right?
I've never seen them protesting the Holocaust Museum as a temple to injustice, right?
Because in another universe, genocide might be virtuous, and we shouldn't come to any conclusions, right?
That would be a consistent application of the principles.
But no, you never see it, right?
I've never seen agnostics mount legal defenses of the KKK or other groups of hideous racists, because in another universe, racism might be the greatest virtue.
I don't see them posting on those sites and so on.
So, since that would be a consistent If you have a consistent...
If you want to consistently apply your philosophy, and again, we all have problems with this, it's not the easiest thing in the world, but there are some principles that are pretty solid and pretty clear.
If you want to consistently apply your philosophy, and if agnostics, as they claim, are shocked and appalled by any statements of certainty, Because of a rational argument,
right? Because of the rational argument of unknowability or scanning the entire universe or other universes and so on, then if they were logical with regards to applying these arguments, they would say, okay, well, certainty is bad because of my logical argument, right?
Because of my logical argument about agnosticism, that we should not be certain of anything, right?
Well, if that was your position, then obviously you're saying that reason is a value and that certainty has two states of badness in the agnostic argument.
And the first state of badness is certainty Without reason, right?
That's the very worst thing in agnosticism, because agnostics claim to have a rational argument as to why we should not be certain.
Therefore, reason is of higher value than irrationality, or unreason, or anti-reason, or faith, or what is skepticism?
No, forget skepticism, let's just stay with faith, and so on.
So people, the worst people in the agnostics' dictionary of quote, badness, is the people who are certain, which is bad, and agnosticism, and certain as a result of irrationality, right?
And those are the number one baddies, right?
And the second people, agnostic's view of badness, would be people who are uncertain and irrational, right?
Because rationality, their argument is true, they say, because it's rational.
So rationality is highest virtue, right?
So the first badness is people who are certain and who are irrational.
And the second is people who are irrational and uncertain.
And then the third group of baddies are the people who are rational or who respect and use reason and who end up with certainty, right, incorrectly according to the agnostic approach.
That's the one, two, three. Now, of course, the people who are both rational and uncertain would be aces, right, in the agnostic handbook.
They would be the good guys, right?
And let's, for the moment, forget the logical impossibility of being both rational And uncertain, right?
Because if you are certain that you should be uncertain, you are not uncertain.
But let's forget that for the moment.
Let's just take this nonsense at face value, right?
So that's your one, two, three.
Sorry, just run over it again, right?
This is the... In descending order of badness, from most bad to least bad, we have people who are...
Certain and irrational, then we have people who are irrational and uncertain, and then we have people who are rational and certain, and then on the good side of the agnostic handbook or the relativist handbook, we have people who are rational and uncertain, right?
So that's the hierarchy, right?
And yet, that's not how they work, right?
That's not what they do. That's not how they focus their time and attention, right?
What they do is they come to...
And again, I know this is a skewed perspective, but it's not like I've only ever done FDR. I've been around agnostics my whole life, right?
But all they ever do is engage in rational debates with rational people, right?
At least I've not seen them protesting the...
going to mosques, right?
And protesting the...
Or writing long arguments against religion, right?
But I see them as spending a lot of time criticizing strong atheists for their certainty, right?
Which is not in the hierarchy of what they do, right?
I don't protest mosques either, right?
So I don't want to put that out as a criteria.
Not that maybe I should be, right?
But just in terms of...
It'd be like me starting off FDR, not with the state and religion and the family, But with a criticism of minor variance in thinking between myself and some other libertarian dude, right? Or some libertarian dude, right?
And you start with the biggest problems, right?
Biggest problem of the 20th century was the state, which is how podcast one begins, right?
And the state is fueled by religion, particularly in America, and therefore we go to religion.
And religion is inflicted by the family, and so we go to family, right?
So, at least I've got some reasonable defense around this question of, you know, how you prioritize that, but you criticize, right?
So, that's not what agnostics do, right?
What agnostics do, and what relativists do, and postmodern people do, is they flock and chisel away at rational certainty, right?
Which is The third out of three that they consider bad.
The third out of three positions that they consider bad, right?
And that's very interesting.
And that's why I say it's a codification of cowardice.
Because by their own principles we should be way down on the list, right?
Let's take the devil's advocate position and trash talk the BCF. Steph, you may say.
Agnostics? Why are you criticizing agnostics, right?
Because you haven't dislodged the state and religion and reformed the family and so on.
Well, the reason, and of course this is podcast 1234 or something like that, but the reason that I'm talking about and have talked about agnostics is because...
To put out a metaphor, let's say that I'm a general in an army, running an army, and we have some foes to take down, right?
And I say, well, my goal is to take down these foes, right?
And for that I need my army, right?
And... I find out, I say, you know, well, we're starting the war tomorrow, right?
We're starting the combat tomorrow, and I have, you know, my 100,000 troops, and I say to my conciliary, my second in command, right?
I say, you know, give me the troop readiness, right?
And he says, well, General Steff, we have a problem.
And I say, oh, well, that's why, you know, in general, because I can hopefully solve some problems, so lay it on me, big fella.
And he says, well, unfortunately, our troops are sick, right?
Well, I say, what are they sick with?
He says, well, unfortunately, the cooks have been feeding them food that is contaminated with bacteria.
They've got stomach Flu and they're sick and they're not ready for combat and this and that and the other, right?
And I say, well, that's not good, right?
How did this come about, right?
Did they unknowingly, accidentally, did the food get tainted, right?
And they say, no, no, no.
No, these are cooks. They say that there's no such thing as an expiry date.
There's no such thing as tainted food, right?
So they don't put the food in the fridge and they don't Keep it fresh, and they'll just feed anything to the troops, right?
And the troops don't have any other source of food.
So that's what's been going down, right?
And I say, well, that seems very strange.
I mean, have they not noticed that the troops are sick?
Well, they say there's no such thing as sickness and wealth, but it's, you know, in another universe, these troops might be perfectly healthy, so there's no real way to say, right?
Now, my goal, of course, is to lead the army, again, to use a silly metaphor, The goal is to leave the army to destroy, to vanquish the foes, right?
And people say, well, your goal is to vanquish these foes, so what are you fussing about the meals for?
What are you fussing about with the cooks?
Because that's not your goal.
Your goal is, well, but there's a means and there's an end, right?
I think we can all understand that.
And if I have a bunch of cooks who are feeding the troops...
Bad food and saying there's no such thing as good or bad food as food with salmonella or some other god-awful kind of botulism, some other kind of poisoning.
There's no difference. I'm not going to bother keeping food fresh and, you know, in another universe your troops might be perfectly healthy and you might have already won the battle, right?
Then I have to deal with that, right?
Now, if I go off hunting for these kinds of Cooks, right?
Then clearly that would be a mistake.
My troops are healthy, but I want to go and find cooks who are going to make them sick.
Then, of course, that would be a way of postponing or putting off the necessity of the battle to come, right?
Or the battle that's underway, I really could say.
But if people come into my camp and start feeding my troops this stuff and make them sick, then I have to deal with it.
Why? Because I can't do much without healthy troops, right?
And I'm sure you can appreciate and understand this analogy, right?
The analogy of the open board where up until the video on agnosticism we had, you know, huge swaths of agnostics coming through and talking about there's no certainty, other universes can't say anything about God, can't say anything about anything, right?
A saying, there's no such thing as truth, and it's true that there's no such thing as truth, blah blah blah, right?
And the troops, not my troops, to use the metaphor, the troops get sick, and can't fight, and the troops really want to fight.
You could say it's debating, troops is a strong metaphor, but I think you know what I mean.
So then I would have to say, okay, well, I'm You know, an army fights on its stomach, and if its stomach is repeatedly emptying its contents all over the cart, then troops can't fight.
So, in order to get to the war, I have to deal with the cooks, right?
If I went off in search of agnostics who weren't coming and talking to To atheists or rationalists on a site that I was hosting, right?
Then that would be one thing.
But if they do keep coming in, like the nihilists kept coming in, if they do keep coming in, then you have to deal with it, right?
Right? It's like saying, I really want to get married.
And then you drive, you go to drive to the place to get married and your car has a flat and you can't move it and so you start changing the flat right and someone comes out and says well what are you changing the flat for I thought your highest goal was to get married it's like well you gotta deal with the flat to get to the uh the hall or whatever where you're getting married right now of course if I puncture the flat myself then yes it could be said that I have some ambivalence but If it's an accident,
then you have to deal with it in order to, right?
So I think you understand. That's my sort of response to this question of like, well, where's the agnosticism in my...
You know, if I'd started agnostics, like if I'd started FDR with attacks upon agnosticism or relativism or determinism or whatever, then that would be a perfectly valid criticism, but it's not, because I didn't, right?
In fact, with things like determinism, I was...
I was actually kind of shocked when the topic even came up, right?
I just talked about free will in a podcast and lots of people went kind of nutty, right?
I was like, well, how is this even an issue?
And then I had to deal with it, right?
Same thing with agnosticism.
I was responding to bad food in the mess, right?
A flat when we want to go to deal with things, right?
So that's sort of my answer to it, and I hope that sort of makes some sense.
So it's not me. It's a means to an end, right?
And what I'd like to say about that as well is that...
And this is a, you know, again, this is not just about agnostics.
I'm sure you can understand the determinants and all this kind of stuff too, right?
But what I also would like to say is that there's a very subtle thing.
I think it's subtle. Maybe it's not.
Maybe you've seen it. It's subtle to me.
There's a very subtle thing that goes on when people come in to chip away at any foundation for certainty, right?
Which is... You can't trust the senses.
There's no such thing as truth. There's no such thing as values.
There's another universe. All that kind of crap, which is just designed to paralyze you and have you run around in circles in a kaleidoscope of fruitless doubt, and so on.
There's something very interesting that happens with that, which I don't think is...
Actually, I think it's kind of the core purpose of it.
It's not even accidental.
It's core. There's something that's very interesting that happens with that.
And that is...
This fundamental thing, which is that when you dim the beauty of the destination, when you mar the beauty of the destination, you destroy the value of the journey.
So if I say there's a destination called truth, virtue, authenticity, Courage, vigor, happiness, all that kind of stuff.
If I say that there's an objectively beautiful destination, and I show you pictures of it, right, which is the little snapshots that I provide about my life, which, given my history, I think is about as happy as it can possibly be, maybe not even given, but partly because of, I say this is the destination.
I try and demonstrate, not in a fake way, but in a genuine way, demonstrate the courage and Conviction and passion and all the stuff.
And when Christine is on the shows and talks about, you know, laughs and so on, we get a sense of the happiness, right?
It's not fake. That's a picture of the destination.
It's a picture of a destination that I think is of value, right?
Well, if I show you the pictures of the destination, and the destination is something that you want, and who doesn't want happiness, right?
Even the people who go about it in a terrible way still want it, right?
Nobody's going to say no. To happiness, right?
Just say this, it's going to have a different definition, let's say.
So, that's the destination, and this is a very common thing for people to do, right?
I mean, the diet books have lean...
And muscular people on the cover.
This is not anything particularly radical.
I think we can all get that this is pretty commonplace when it comes to talking about the virtue or the value of something.
That you have to show the beauty of the destination in order to motivate people to take the journey, right?
And if the journey is dead simple, Then you don't need to motivate people to take it, right?
In fact, you may need to motivate people to not take it, right?
Talking about STDs because everybody wants to bang like rabbits, right?
So that's, I think, an important thing to understand.
And my issue, and it's a very fundamental issue, with the people who chip away at truth And beauty and who chip away at truth and virtue and all these other kinds of good things.
My fundamental issue, really, is that they are marring, really eliminating, or attempting to eliminate, the beauty of the destination.
And if we can sort of imagine Again, excuse me for a metaphor of ill, but if we can imagine that someone puts out a book basically saying, and I mean, there have been some theoretical, there have been books like this, basically saying that it's impossible to lose weight, right?
Well, losing weight is a very difficult thing to do.
I mean, considerable weight, right?
If you're just mildly overweight, Then you don't have any particular...
I mean, other than how you care about whether you look right or wrong or whatever by standard.
But if you're... I mean, it's only obesity that affects your health and lifespan, right?
Being a little bit overweight doesn't mean anything as far as that goes, health goes.
But if someone comes out and says, there's no such thing as fat and thin, and it's impossible to lose weight.
It's absolutely impossible to lose weight.
And they have all these arguments, right?
Well, what's going to happen is...
People are going to not want to diet, right?
There's no such thing as fat and thin.
It's all a social illusion and there is no possibility that dieting is mere self-abuse.
There's no possibility that it will ever affect your weight and so on.
And again, there are studies that say people who lose weight put it back on unless they're going to diet forever and so on.
But let's say there's no...
I mean, the key thing is not to lose weight, but to not gain it, right?
It's like oral hygiene.
You spend a dollar in prevention.
It's worth $50 in cure, right?
So let's say that someone said there's no way to prevent weight gain and so on, right?
I mean, the stuff that I've had to do just in terms of weight, right?
Eliminate chips and chocolate and cookies and...
Switch to skim milk and, you know, candy bars.
I mean, that's just what you have to do when you get older, right?
Because your metabolism slows 10% a decade, right?
It's just a thing you have to do.
And you have to take better care of your teeth and all that kind of standard stuff.
But if somebody said, there's just no way to prevent tooth decay, there's no way...
No matter whether you floss or you don't, it doesn't matter, right?
It has no effect. And, you know, flossing isn't fun.
There are no floss parties that I know of.
And so, if people say that, so...
So if people say that if they mar or deride or eliminate the beauty of the destination or say there is no destination, then what they do is they actually dissolve the value of the journey, the process, right? Nobody's going to climb a mountain to look at a stockyard, right?
But people will climb a mountain to see a beautiful view, right?
So if you say, well, there is no beautiful view, it's only a stockyard, no one's going to climb the mountain.
I mean, I think you get it. Sorry for being so repetitive.
As usual. It's actually more for me than for you, but I should think a few more.
And so the problem that I have with the determinists and the nihilists and the relativists and Agnostics and so on, is they say that there is no beauty in the destination, right? Because there is no beauty.
Agnostics never look at the Mona Lisa and say, I can't tell you if it's beautiful or not, because in another universe it might be the ugliest thing ever.
I've never met an agnostic who says, well, I can't tell my wife I love her, because in another universe all her virtues might be vices, and so I might hate her.
I can't say, right?
Or an agnostic who won't prevent his child from drinking.
An agnostic won't fail to child-proof, at least I hope to hell, won't fail to child-proof his house because he says, well, in another universe these poisons might be beneficial.
But by chipping away at certainty, at truth, at rationality, you know, then what they're doing is they're saying, well, there is no beauty in the destination.
There is no such thing as truth.
There is no such thing as virtue.
There is no such thing really as courage.
And agnostics do that more implicitly.
Determinists do that, of course, and nihilists do that explicitly, right?
Got a long-winded email from a former nihilist who I banned saying that I was doing the wrong thing and I should choose this path and not that path and this and that, right?
So naturally, of course, I just wrote back and said, well, I mean, I appreciate this lecture, but I don't understand it because you're an nihilist, so how can there be a better, right?
How can I be doing anything wrong, and how can there be a better path?
Because it's a game, right? They're not serious about it.
It's just a trick.
It's a manipulation. It's a sleight of hand.
It's not about the truth. It's about eliminating truth and virtue and beauty, right?
The blind man wishes to blind others, right?
The self-blinded man So, that's really my fundamental issue, right?
That they are eliminating the value of the challenging process of individuation and self-knowledge and virtue and courage and so on.
The determinists in particular, right?
Determinists say, well, there's no point flossing because tooth decay is inevitable, right?
Whether you floss or not is going to be inevitable, right?
And I remember I got, there was some, I think it was Listerine or something, they said, you don't need to floss if you use this stuff, right?
So I stopped flossing for about a week because I was using it.
It turned out that there was lots of fine print and I ended up having to floss again and damn quick, right?
Because I was getting that bacterial buildup in the gum line, right?
So when they say, well, you don't need to do this, I stopped doing it because it's not pleasant, right?
And then when I realized, I of course could do a course correction, but That's, I think, the ugliest aspect of nihilism, right?
The ugliest aspect of nihilism and of determinism, relativism, agnosticism is this huge problem of really, really taking away the beauty of the destination.
There's no truth, there's no virtue, there's no this, there's no that.
Taking away the beauty of the destination which takes away the value of the difficult journey.
Now, I believe in evil.
I believe in virtue. I believe in right and wrong.
I believe in courage and cowardice.
I am a stone medieval traditionalist when it comes to this kind of stuff.
And I say this with, I think, a fair amount of experience and credibility in dealing with corruption.
And with evil.
So I hope that I have some credibility as far as all that goes.
And so I truly do believe in all that stuff.
I've seen it and experienced it.
So when I say the reason that we go through the trials of self-confrontation, of therapy, of self-knowledge, of self-understanding, Which is as old as Aristotle and even before, the pre-Socratics, right?
The unexamined life is not worth living.
And so when I talk about that, right, and I talk, I have to, I mean, it would be kind of abusive to say...
Do all of this and there's no benefit, right?
Confront yourself. Use the against me argument, the argument for morality.
Face the vile and calumny of your peers and stand up for truth and blah, blah, blah.
And there's no value, right?
Then it'd be like telling people to pull their teeth out.
Actually, not even that. At least that would have the value.
You wouldn't have to floss anymore, right?
It would be abusive to just say that to people without...
And the value. So reason equals virtue equals happiness.
That's the syllogism as far as rationality goes and so on.
But self-knowledge equals free will equals virtue, right?
I mean, you break that down a little bit more, right?
So why would we go through that difficult process of going to therapy, of journaling, of struggling to understand our histories and the ecosystem of no longer being the anxiety avoidance machines That we talked about a podcast or two ago.
Why would we bother if there was no virtue, freedom, love, beauty on the other side?
So when people attack rational and objective values, truth, they're attacking the value of self-knowledge and of courage, right?
Because, of course, according to determinists, there is no self.
There is only an illusion, right?
Self is choice, right?
As we talked about.
And if there is no choice, there is no self and therefore there's no point knowing the self because you can't change what you're going to do anyway.
There's no point flossing because you can't change the outcome of your oral health.
There's no point preventing weight gain or losing weight because it's impossible.
And therefore people don't do the difficult things, right?
They just don't do the difficult things because they've got this easy, sleazy, lazy way out, right?
Called there's nothing better on the other side of the mountain, right?
There's no point climbing the mountain because what's on the other side is exactly the same.
And then, really, self-knowledge becomes a form of self-abuse, right?
Because there is no better state.
So why would you go through the difficulties of therapy and self-confrontation?
Why would you need to do anything difficult?
Why? What would be the point?
There's nothing better. So, It's sort of like how you and I would look at a monk who denies himself sensual pleasures, food, freedom, sleep, sex.
For what? There's no God, right?
It's a pointless form of self-punishment, this asceticism, this self-flagellation for no reason.
It would be a psychological problem.
And the same thing, of course, is true when we look at the world through the eyes of the relativists and the Determinists and agnostics and so on.
There's no truth. There's no reason to put yourself through anything difficult.
And the problem is that that then becomes, as we talked about, a self-fulfilling prophecy.
But that's no good. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Lo and behold, you believe it and it becomes true.
And then you get wedded to that position, right?
So if you let yourself go to 400 pounds because you say there's no such thing as fat and thin, there's no value, and there's no possibility of achieving thinness, and then it turns out that you're wrong, well, you're fucked, right?
And then you've got to really hold on like grim death to that position and scorn and sneer because you've turned yourself into a terribly obese person by believing it was inevitable when it wasn't.
And that's why these people tend to hang on like grim death to this perspective, and that's why you get this irritability and this scorn, and they've turned themselves, they've codified their cowardice as wisdom when it's not true.
It is simply avoidance and lazy escapism, which they then must replicate in others to justify their own cowardice.
Anyway, I hope that makes some sense.
▲
Export Selection