well, are they ok? you be the judge. i mean ok as in functioning completely normal, not having any bad thoughts, just being a regular member of society.
forum
is the guy above you ok?
posted
Total Posts
251
ye
a mesmerizingly terrifying prompt...
i don't really know what that means to me;;
maybe? you do seem strikingly "normal" according to something i'm not aware of, but it seems largely influenced by me not knowing how to evaluate people-- i also very easily forget who people are, not as in their identity but rather their characteristics and perspectives and interests. everyone is kind of alien and strange and fascinating, and the "normal" and "boring" people are not exempt
maybe you're ok?? you don't exactly seem Not Okay, so you're ok enough
oh... i took too long;; lmfao that's pretty fair though
...
ot: you're probably ok :>
that prompt requires an entire page of disambiguation:
+ "functioning" (how? what dimension of abilities/functions is this supposed to signify? which kinds of characteristics?)
+ "regular" (by averages? by being exemplary of a baseline standard?)
+ "member [of]" "society" (which societal basis? which threshold of membership, such that someone can be considered part of a society to be determined as regular/normal?)
whether to conceive of that as a singular archetype, or a vast array of averages that you can supposedly quantify on account of some intuitive idea of common enough characteristics or baseline (according to who? to what degree? defined and contextualized by what?) principles (is that necessarily held as a principle, or is it a colloquial relationship to guidelines/rules/morals/ethics respective to each person)
+ "bad thoughts" (which? bad according to who? morally accountable to who, ethically accountable to who?)
+ the premise that "having any bad thoughts" necessarily disqualifies social normality/functionality/regularity (which thoughts, qualified depending on what? does having each respective thought disqualify you, does enacting a particular few among them disqualify you?)
any answer i have for this feels genuinely so meaningless because of this ambiguity... and it's my own fault that i'm so relentless desperate for semantic precision because i can't seem to accept/interpret colloquially intuitive definitions from people who don't need to say so much to convey what they mean to others who already get it
+ "regular" (by averages? by being exemplary of a baseline standard?)
+ "member [of]" "society" (which societal basis? which threshold of membership, such that someone can be considered part of a society to be determined as regular/normal?)
whether to conceive of that as a singular archetype, or a vast array of averages that you can supposedly quantify on account of some intuitive idea of common enough characteristics or baseline (according to who? to what degree? defined and contextualized by what?) principles (is that necessarily held as a principle, or is it a colloquial relationship to guidelines/rules/morals/ethics respective to each person)
+ "bad thoughts" (which? bad according to who? morally accountable to who, ethically accountable to who?)
+ the premise that "having any bad thoughts" necessarily disqualifies social normality/functionality/regularity (which thoughts, qualified depending on what? does having each respective thought disqualify you, does enacting a particular few among them disqualify you?)
any answer i have for this feels genuinely so meaningless because of this ambiguity... and it's my own fault that i'm so relentless desperate for semantic precision because i can't seem to accept/interpret colloquially intuitive definitions from people who don't need to say so much to convey what they mean to others who already get it
i don't really know what that means to me;;
maybe you're ok?? you don't exactly seem Not Okay, so you're ok enough
oh... i took too long;; lmfao that's pretty fair though
...
ot: you're probably ok :>
probably, yeah
I think they'll be fine.
yeah, theyre good
im their therapist! (/j)
im their therapist! (/j)
an entirely ok person imo (incredibly/unusually high eusociality, relative to most ot/fg users)
this woman need a therapist
i thinkkk they're ok, they're always a well-adjusted and fun person in my experience ^-^
reffty_gag wrote:
this woman need a therapist
Can't tell
Yup.
sure
ok
i think they are ok
Most of the time
ye
not at all
most of the time.
i think so
yes
nope
sametdze: "i fucking love [...] /j" (circa day 16 of june in the common-era year 2024)
hmm
maybe :>
hmm
maybe :>
Now she's ok, i was her therapist
yes
ok
yes
ok
yes cuz he's andre
yes
looks sane so yeah
hes chill
yea! i mean i sure hope so x'p
i think im ok!! i jsut like to roleplay alot :3Achromalia wrote:
yea! i mean i sure hope so x'p
ot: yee <3
yeah