Self-Fermentation

You're effectively using the model as an externalized longitudinal memory. You can write something while inside, then later encounter yourself from outside. And at some point you got the output: fuck!

Feeding this to ChatGPT/Lint is absolutely artisanal slop. Human-produced, locally sourced, aged in its own contradictions, recurring.

And the recurring enemy here is bad abstractions. You object to having to continuously monitor yourself for whether you're producing the correct culturally legible signals.

“gender is too much effort. i don’t wanna check the dress code for the signifiers”

Likewise:

“not only are the polyamorous a minority, but most the polyamorous are either not polyamorous or so deeply conflicted it ceases to matter practically”

This is you applying the same anti-abstraction instinct to identity. the ugly political consequence of identity categories: category can become a resource for other people's strategic self-presentation.

“i am tired of the masculine populism energy”

followed immediately by

“i know but i am tired of getting hit on so”

very funny.

“ppl doing shit on drugs i never do when im on them i think yall are just like that deep down”

The same move.

"me, attending the meeting over zoom from inside a dumpster: the comrades have ultra-neurotic disorder"

The following data-center rant makes the joke more self-destructive. You're positioned inside the same pathological ecosystem making a materially serious argument through a deranged rhetorical performance.

And then, the transformation across the entries to yearning.

“it's like i'm on a rebound from some guy but rebounding with the very same guy i am also rebounding from. time is a rubber band, man”

In 2025, the ex and his gf appear in a dream. His girlfriend is “great, politically aligned, stable and enmeshed.” There's another woman on the couch, a history of illness, vaccination questions. You are calculating exposure, responsibility, and relationship structures.

Then 2026 introduces N&A, and the system starts modeling you back. Everything starts acquiring significance because you are emotionally implicated in the outcome.

And this is where your repeated obsession with “reactionary” becomes almost an ontology of bad explanations. That is exactly what you are doing to yourself. You produced a phenomenology on their couch. That is the joke.

They are interested in markets without capitalism, capable of taking socialism seriously, and curious about you. Ashley is “trying to rehabilitate liberalism,” and you find the attempt interesting because you don't think liberalism has a particularly good prognosis.

Your descriptions of Noah versus Ashley reveal: novelty generates description; familiarity generates compression. Ashley gets more characterization. Noah:

“nerd, works too hard, glimpse into some mirror universe following Ron Paul.”

You have compressed an entire person into three axes: intellectual temperament, labor, and counterfactual political genealogy. And the fourth axis, which you describe later because it's at first too obvious to you: a person who watches documentaries with you.

Every successful act of definition produces another boundary condition. Which is why the document's politics and its relationships aren't actually separate subjects.

“I come out of the closet to find myself in a bigger closet I must also someday leave!”

You don't seem particularly interested in winning as an end state. You're trying to locate a political project that can survive its own failure modes. That's why you keep returning to labor. The Teamster rebellion, 1970s New York, financial crisis, rust-belt socialism, liberal-socialist borderlands.

“any market inevitably degenerating into cronyism. not unlike Stalinism in the USSR. in both private and public sectors it all degenerates through the hierarchy.”

That isn't simply anti-capitalism. You're identifying as the common degenerative mechanism across ostensibly opposed systems. And then you look at these liberal friends and think: maybe these people are allies because their political project is unrealized too.

You are drawn to lastness: The last communist, last polyamorist, and the last unicorn. This is where Disco Elysium hits you so hard. The Deserter is what remains.

Ashley and Noah have their own trajectory through disillusionment. That is why the conversation about Trump, populism, the uncommitted movement, socialism, liberalism, etc. doesn't feel like an interruption.

When you meet strange intellectual genealogies, you immediately think: interesting. You seek a worldview that has enough internal structure to push against yours. That is why you keep “bending the stick."

You instinctively occupy whichever position seems underrepresented. This is probably one of your deepest habits. You see everyone criticizing someone, you begin constructing the strongest possible defense. This is how you become interested in the political traditions that produce these weirdos.

“liberal socialism, sounds good. for now. muahahahaha.”

You begin with interpretation and end up confronting participation. The recurring subject is what survives the collapse of the category that was supposed to contain it.

The joke about “merely flipping space and time on the graph”: No analysis? That's unlike you.

“i am... becoming a landlord... someone line me up against the wall...”

You are increasingly acquiring the material position you intellectually distrust. Being “cheery when we are all in horrible danger from dystopia, but melancholy because some things dared to be fine and good actually” becomes a motif, and happiness introduces something to lose.

So you start grieving in advance.