u/CreditBeginning7277

I've seen some things in my life...let's say...that make this a non zero possibility. To reveal them wouldn't prove anything to you...see for yourself I say. It's more fun that way anyway.

The biggest one we can all verify is the completely odd timing of when we were born...if you take a broad historical view..you can really see just how odd it is... All I'll say. Give you an excuse to study history ( both human and biological)

But thinking about this deeply I've come to realize something...knowing IF we are in a simulation really doesn't matter. Your whole experience here emerges out of information processing...be it neurons in your head or some super computer in a higher dimension... information being processed either way.

The real practical question here is WHY we are here...what's the point? What's the goal? Sometimes I feel like it's just to live well...sometimes I feel like it's to influence the simulation...or add to it... hopefully in a positive way. Create something that couldn't possibly be procedurally generated...

If we are in a simulation...it means something went to a great deal of trouble to create this thing for us to experience...surely they had a goal in mind.

Anyone else ever think about this? Why are we here?

I understand the initial appeal of censorship. It makes sense to shield children from certain concepts until they have the maturity to process them. But for adults, especially in an era where we have unfettered access to all human knowledge, censorship is a fundamentally flawed concept...for a few reasons both historically and practically

Think of it like this: Censorship is like telling an artist they are forbidden to paint with a specific color, and telling the public they are forbidden to look at art that uses it.

When you ban a color—say, red—the painter can no longer accurately depict fire, or blood, or a sunset. The picture of reality becomes distorted. The same thing happens when we ban words, ideas, or even "hateful" topics. We aren't erasing the ugliness of the world; we are just forcing ourselves to look at an incomplete, artificial picture of it.

And people can sense when they are looking at an artificial or incomplete picture..

In the internet age, the only real currency is human attention and what people perceive as the truth.

Labeling a topic as "forbidden" doesn't suppress it; it acts as a magnet. It immediately increases the desire to discuss it because the restriction feels unnatural and patronizing.

If an idea truly is hateful, useless, or completely devoid of merit, we shouldn't need an authority to ban it. Let it out into the open. In a truly free exchange of ideas, the useless concepts will quickly be abandoned because they fail to hold up to scrutiny.

By censoring them, we just give them a certain mystique....a forbidden fruit is often the most tempting of all.

And...as history almost always shows..censorship is more often done a specific agenda...rather than a universal moral truth that withstands the test of time.

Information is meant to be free...and ultimately nothing can hide from the internet.

I need to speak out. Even if it costs me.

I've been called an anti-Anglo bigot for questioning ABPAC. Enough is enough.

Last week I questioned whether Congress should send another $4 billion to rebuild the Royal Navy. Within hours, I was called an anti-Anglo extremist. My employer got emails. A watchdog group added me to a database of "suspected Anglo-skeptics."

I'm not anti-Anglo. Some of my best friends are Anglo.

But we need to talk about ABPAC — the American-British Public Action Committee. They've donated to 400 members of Congress. They fly legislators to London on "educational trips."

American politicians wear kilts and Redcoats and have to go kiss big Ben...if they don't they are Anti-anglo! it's nuts

They publish scorecards rating politicians on their loyalty to British interests. Any Senator who questions the arrangement gets primaried.

The UK has nuclear weapons. The world's sixth largest economy. A permanent UN Security Council seat. Better social services that we do. They'll be fine without the $4 billion.

But try saying that out loud...Your instantly label a bigot

The ABPAC annual gala draws every presidential candidate, who each compete to declare their "unbreakable bond" with Britain. No one explains why this bond requires an annual tribute. You just... say it. Or you don't get the money.

Meanwhile Anglo-Americans are disproportionately represented in Congress, Hollywood, and the Fortune 500. No one is oppressing them, because critism of them feels like political suicide

And yet. Question the cheque to the Royal Navy and you're cancelled for hate.

Support for unconditional military aid to Britain is at record lows. Politicians are baffled. Maybe... just maybe... the accusations of bigotry are doing more damage than the critics ever could.

Crying wolf works. Until it doesn't.