Best posts made by erikagautney

Nah @Dirty-Dimond I kinda get what @The-Mods were driving at. It only sounds weird if you're not familiar with teachings and philosophies borne out of Dharmic traditions such as Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Zen, Taoism, etc.

It would be like how if someone from one of the Abrahamic religions like Judaism or Christianity or Islam commented on here and suggested that since the capital G deity embodies perfect love, every expression of human love is a reflection of that. But the desires of the flesh "at first sight" can't compare to the sacred and holy covenant that a marriage represents. Love is patient, love is kind, it doesn't envy, it doesn't boast, it is not proud, etc etc and whatever other attributes that gets listed out in that scripture - I can't recall it all from memory, but you get the general idea.

If you don't come from the same background as they do, then from the outside looking in, it'll sound strange. Framing any and every instance of love with respect to an almighty and all-knowing entity who created you before you were born and knows before you die whether your afterlife will be ecstatic bliss for forever or eternal torment and torture. Couching "love" in between all that baggage sounds super weird for someone who doesn't buy into all of the theology that surrounds it.

Similarly, according to various eastern religions, every single person is actually the exact same being "behind the scenes" it's just that we all forget that we're all individual expressions of the deity. Effectively, we're all wearing theatrical masks and fully immersed in the role of (insert your name here) as we play out the drama of life.

Couched within that surrounding context, they wrote that "to feel needed", "to fill their need", and "even sex as a natural act" are all various goals of love (explored and expressed and achieved on "the stage that is our lives" so to speak). And since we're all the same entity underneath (again, the idea here is that "we" have fully forgotten that we're divine so that "it" may become fully immersed in the thrill of the drama being played out without being spoiled by knowing how the ending will play out beforehand etc) every form of selfless love is actually "capital S" Self-love.

Lmao the funny thing is you said that whole schpeel just boiled down to their opinion and the only part you didn't find weird was the sentiment they shared at the very end... but that was the one part which they clearly said is driven by their personal opinion and for the sake of their own ego rather than any of these lofty ideals and theological philosophies of love ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Essentially, what they were conveying at the end there was something along the lines of "I prefer to be among the audience watching you all falling head over heels for each other rather than actually getting involved with any one of you. I'm not a loving participant, I'm an outside observer. I consider it an honor to write ratings and reviews about your onstage performance while I detach myself from the drama and take it all in from afar."

@Ash33 youtube.com/results?search_query=dopamine+detox

Aa, aa, athe. Adi pwoli, alle? Malayallathil samsarikunhathu nalla ressam-aa, alle? :laughing:

Sathyam parranjal, njan naalam standard-ill varre mathram padichittullayirunhu. Athu karrinjittu America-yil poyi jeevichu.

Athu konduh enniku velliya vaakukal arriyathilla.

Athu mathram alla, ariyamutha cheriya vaakukal enniku othiri samsarikan practice-uh cheyan patti-yila.

Sheda, endhu kashtam! Pakshe korrappam illa, enniku ingannathe "simple conversation"ukkal okke sherrikuh manasilakan pattum! :thumbs_up_medium-dark_skin_tone:

Aah, pinne, nhingullude kathakal okke parra - enniku kekannam! :)

The "I need space" astronaut hurtling through the cosmos legit made me laugh out loud. Very punny, nicely done 👌

But even more interestingly, I noticed that that first gif of Peter Griffin going "whoa Whoa WHOA" is indented a bit @Cactus99 ...almost like you hit tab → at the the start of a paragraph ;)

I think the fact that you felt the need to tack on "...in real life?" to the end of your question is quite telling

Telepathy and telekinesis are among the premiere superpowers in comic books and cartoons and movies and even for stage magicians. But the thing all of these have in common is that... they're fiction. It's meant to be entertainment, nothing more, pure and simple.

"Telepathy" isn't suddenly considered to be a real phenomena just because you as "what if tho?" questions, it needs to actually be demonstrated.

"Black magic experts" don't know anything about anybody's past present or future life thoughts because "black magic" needs to be demonstrated first rather than just assumed in the question before someone can claim expertise in that field and you start rattling off their superhero stats and list of superpowers from their D&D character-sheet.

If I tell you I have a pet dragon in my garage, you shouldn't just take my word for it. Ask me to provide some evidence to back up that baseless, empty and vacuous assertion (regardless of however confidently I said it) of an otherwise incredibly extraordinary claim. Until and unless I do, the intellectually honest thing to do is maintain a default position of disbelief.

Heck, even if it wasn't a dragon and I just said I had a pet dog (admittedly, owning a puppy isn't an extraordinary claim at all. In fact, it's exceedingly ordinary -- if not borderline mundane and trivial claim to make -- since it's a common enough occurrence that we see repeatedly and reliably demonstrated over and over again and again in daily life amongst ourselves, so the likelihood of this turning out to be true is automatically a lot more credible than my suggestion of owning dragon. But my main underlying point still remains), there is absolutely nothing wrong with withholding your judgement until belief is rationally justified.

The alternative is to slowly become an increasingly credulous and gullible sort of person that can be easily fooled by con-artists and manipulated by media.

My $0.02 cents, for whatever it's worth ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That's a lot of words

It's a a forum. Both in the philosophical sense that it's an place where anyone can voice their ideas, and in the literal and modern sense that TWS provides a full-fledged WYSIWYG+MarkDown editor that I can take advantage of to express my thoughts in as articulate a manner as I deem fit.

#SorryNotSorry if I decide to take advantage of the technology at my fingertips and the philosophy of an open forum.

you're a cynic

I'm a skeptic.

I didn't say there is no such thing as telepathy. I pointed out that

1. there are numerous+popular depictions of telepathy in the entertainment business, but... that is, quite literally, fiction for the sake of entertainment.
2. In order for it to be considered to "exist in real life?" (as was asked in the question) "it needs to actually be demonstrated first rather than just assumed in the question" (as was written in my reply)
3. The rest of my reply (which was separated by horizontal line-breaks, because, forum+markdown superpowers ftw) was more generalized advice. I already answered the post content directly, and then more generally I wrote "ask me to provide evidence ... unless I do, the intellectually honest thing to do is maintain a default of disbelief ... there is absolutely nothing wrong with witholding one's judgement until belief is rationally justified"

So there. I'm a skeptic, not a cynic. As soon as I'm given a good reason to change my mind, I will. Until then, I'm well within my prerogative and purview to maintain the default of withholding judgement on the matter.

I'll even go so far as to say this, telepathy may in fact be real and truly exists (I'm not actually conceding that point, but for the moment, just for the sake of argument, I'll grant y'all that hypothetical) but I have no way of knowing that to be the case. Not until it has been objectively, reliably and repeatedly been demonstrated in such a manner that I and others can actually verify it rather than just take y'all's word for it, it doesn't warrant my belief.

That is a perfectly prudent position to hold, and you don't get to pretend I'm a prude for holding it; Skepticism is not synonymous with cynicism.

Given shamanic practices and other forms of "magic" have been around for millennia I'm not sure what you're calling baseless

I wasn't referring to shamans at all.

My reply revolved around telepathy and black magic (directly addressing the contents of the post) and then a more generalized response (my 2 cents of advice, for whatever it's worth, about having a healthy dose of skepticism) involved dragons and puppies.

For the record, the "baseless" part was from the dragon example. Here's the full quote, for context: "If I tell you I have a pet dragon in my garage, you shouldn't just take my word for it. Ask me to provide some evidence to back up that baseless, empty and vacuous assertion (regardless of however confidently I said it) of an otherwise incredibly extraordinary claim."

If you'd like to talk about shamans, I'm perfectly willing - but the same rules apply; hearsay isn't going to convince me, reason and evidence will.

If it helps to give you a preview of my position on that matter, I briefly talk about "magic plants" here but

1. I also clearly say that "magic" is just fun placeholder word that stands for "psychedelic"
2. I very briefly even broke down what sort of chemical compounds comprised the contents of "magic" mushrooms, ayahuasca, etc (psilocybin, dimethyltryptamine, etc)

I know for a fact that certain shamanic practices and rituals involve those mushrooms and those vines.

I can show how that neurochemistry interacts with our neurotransmitters affecting our neurological functions.

I'm even willing to step away from that small-scale breakdown of what's going on to look at the holistic scope of the experience and describe it as "psychedelic"

I have no problem admitting all of that because it isn't a mere matter of opinion or belief, this is a matter of tried tested and true facts of knowledge. We know there are rituals of preparation before, rituals when it's consumed, and rituals thereafter. We also know what the active ingredients in these plants are and why/how they modulate our synapses the way they do. We've even documented the phenomenology of what takes place -- both from controlled-condition research-studies plus directly from some of the individuals who partake in these shamanic ceremonies as well.

I'll reiterate once again that this is what we'd call "knowledge." Not subject to the subjective opinions of some singular subject, but objectively reliable and independently verifiable -- anyone who has access to the data will be able to come to these same exact conclusions. So "even if" there is a "magical" or "mystical" or "divine" or "supernatural" or whatever-you-want-to-call-it component to those practices, these things still hold true.

Now... if you'd like to share any personal experience you may have had with "shamanic magic" or you'd just like to point me to someone else's testimony of it, I'd be more than willing to hear y'all out. But simply asserting it was "magic" won't make me / others like me automatically believe that's the underlying explanation. I'm not being close-minded when I say that, I'm being as open and transparent and humble and honest as I possibly can be in admitting that YOUR subjective experience couldn't possibly become MY+OUR "knowledge" -- at least, not until y'all share something stronger to back your case.

Ah, and therein lies the rub behind this entire misunderstanding/misrepresentation of my position. It's your case, not mine. And the case has not been adequately made to warrant belief, let alone "justified and true belief a.k.a. knowledge."

I and the rest of the global consensus stand upon a compendium of ever growing info that we the human race have painstakingly gathered over the ages. These things, we know to be true. We're not saying "all else is false" just that they're not known to be true.

Now you or the OP or someone else comes along and says things like "telepaths" and "mind-readers" and "psychics" and "magic" and "mysticism" and "spellcasting" and "supernatural" and so on... fine, it can easily be added it to the library so that the rest of humanity can understand and benefit from this new branch of study rather than just remaining within your group which is only a subset of people within the overarching superset that is "the human race."

Here's how that's gonna work: You claim it's magic? That makes you the claimant. And the "onus" i.e. the "burden of proof" will always rests upon that person making the claim. It's not on the rest of us to "disprove magic doesn't exist / couldn't possibly exist / never has existed and never will exist forevermore amen" or some other convoluted double-negative gymnastic of that sort. Nope, it's simply a matter of "we just don't know what you you're talking about, so please - if you would - make your case 🙏🏼"

Oh, and y'all had better make it a damn compelling case too, cuz if not, this telepathy trick (or any of the other claims quoted above) remains a belief that circulates only within your subset community and not the superset of humanity. Sure, it may be a strongly held belief, fine, but it doesn't change the fact that you haven't met the onus to make your case withstand the investigation of unbiased 3rd-parties outside your community (or indeed, the public scrutiny of the global community at large).

At that point "you" don't get to fingerpoint back at "us" and cry "closeminded" lmao that's just fundamentally misunderstanding the dynamics at play here. YOU are making an EXTRA claim about reality that WE the rest of humanity as of yet do not (that claim may even actually be true, alright? I'm saying that to point out that's very much besides the point. Cuz the core of what I'm addressing here is whether or not belief in that claim is warranted). "Our" only prerogative is to examine any available evidence (which, by the way, is about as open-minded as it gets). We have no obligation to pedestalize whatever you posited to be true simply because y'all say so. Every other piece of knowledge that we hold went through rigorous and stringent criteria of scrutiny before it could be validated. It had to be ontologically valid, epistemologically sound, objectively reliable and independently verifiable, et cetera, et cetera... why then would we lower the bar for "telepathy" ? Or "black magic" ? Or "spellcasting" ? Or "shaman magic" ? Or even my silly example about "dragons" ? My other example about puppies withstands such scrutiny: we know puppies exist. You don't think I want dragons to be real too? Plus the OP said in the question that black magic users could read your present thoughts and peer into your past (and, presumably, the future as well) don't you think I'd want to benefit from something like that as well? And not just for my sake, but to be able to share that ability with the human race en masse? Don't tell me I'm closeminded cuz I don't fall for GOT CGI dragons or people peering into crystal balls while munching on mushrooms. The technology that went into making those entertainment dragons? I "know" is real. The neurochemistry behind those psychedelics that fortune teller took? I "know" is real. But I don't think "dracaris" actually constitute a "magic" word, nor do I think "mind reading / telepaths / psychics" have a strong case going for it either.

But please, do feel free to change my mind about "magic/telepaths/magic telepaths". If it really is real, harboring a healthy dose of rational skepticism isn't going to make a difference. If the truth is true, the truth will out, despite my doubts. And if me investigating with "how" and "why" questions really does throw a wrench in your case (which, by the way, is nothing short of the Socratic Method pure and simple) you don't get to then pin it on me/us and say we're being closeminded. Either make a stronger case or re-evaluate whether what you claim is true is actually fact or fiction masquerading as fact proudly proclaiming itself to be true.

I know a ton of mind-readers fell into the latter category over the course of history... but y'all think you've found the exception to that rule? By all means, make your case -- but the onus has and still does rest upon you #SorryNotSorry

I'm not gonna argue the existence of anything,

In other words... you're just gonna assert the "millenia of magic" without backing it up?

Alright, that's perfectly fine, it's entirely your call.

But then, I have no reason to believe the "magic" part.

And if you say I'm close-minded for not automatically accepting it without question, I'll point out (once again) that it was merely asserted in an emphatic voice, you didn't actually support your case with corroborating evidence.

Wanna spin on that merry-go-round some more? Cuz my invitation still stands, I'm willing to talk about mind-readers, magic, whatever (i.e. I'm open to being persuaded, I'm not a cynic) but the criteria remains the same as it does for puppies and virtually everything else we classify as knowledge (i.e. Skeptical Socrates says #SorryNotSorry)

but it's innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around,

Sure. But you do realize that the verdict comes down to "guilty" or "not guilty" right? Our courts never try to prove someone is innocent, it only looks at whether or not the prosecution made an adequate case for the defendant's guilt in that case.

Carrying that analogy right tf over to this convo and keeping all lines as parallel as possible:

• "I find telepaths NOT GUILTY of existing"
  • i.e. I DO NOT believe telepaths exist.
• Please make your case and know that the strictest of stringent standards will be used to see if your case stands up to skeptical scrutiny and investigation.
  • My only prerogative is to examine the evidence presented and ascertain "guilt" / determine "existence".
  • At no point am I obligated to make my own case for "innocence" / disprove telepathy. I don't have to go down the rabbit hole of "proving a negative" nor am I interested in doing so
• The claimant makes their case to the best of their ability, and
  • I maintain the default position of "not guilty" until and unless the case for "guilt" has been adequately and satisfactorily demonstrated
  • I maintain the default position of "I do not believe" or "I am not convinced" or "I do not accept" until and unless the case for "existence" has been demonstrated

Again, and I hate having to repeat myself, but just to be suuuuper crystal clear about this: At no point do I have to (nor want to) make my own case during the court proceedings / claim the contrapositive assertion that "telepaths cannot possibly ever exist forevermore, amen!". Our courts don't work on that principle, nor do I. It's more prudent to address the sticking point of the issue, i.e. "guilt" / "existence".

And since our courts / I only address that one prong of the issue, the default position to hold until a change of mind becomes warranted is "not guilty" / "not convinced"

so better to have an open mind than a default denial of anything you can't comprehend.

I'm open to adjusting my views ...but based on the merit of any new evidence I can examine.

Because "open minded" does not mean "automatically be accepting of everything, without question". At that point it shifts from "being open" to something more along the lines of "credulous" or even "gullible" to anything that get's peddled your way.

So, yes, I'd say holding a default of dis-belief or un-belief or non-belief in unverifiable claims until belief is sufficiently and necessarily warranted is a generally prudent approach.

I mean, I'm not a robot, I'm human, so I'll admit that in day to day life I make exceptions to this rule. For example, trust is generally earned, but I'm perfectly willing to grant trust tentatively to someone I've just met. Or in my earlier example about owning a puppy, even if I don't ask for some form of evidence first like seeing a selfie of you with your dog, I'm willing to just take your word for it

...but these sorts of decisions I make are really just in the name of convenience and the practicality of not overcomplicating daily interactions more than anything else. Coming back to the principle of the matter, the fact remains it IS much more prudent to let people earn your trust. It IS true that without some sort of proof that you own a dog I can't actually know that you do, I'm just willing to accept it based on how well I trust you / conversational convenience / etc.

Anyway, I think I made a strong case for why the default of withholding judgement makes the most sense in the "courtroom / guilt verdict" analogy. If you still think I'm wrong about this and I should, by default, believe anything/everything I'm told instead of believing only when it is warranted, feel free to change my mind. I think the very fact that you CAN change my mind shows that I'm open minded, plus I think the approach you're advocating for it "too" open and borders on "credulity" without the critical component of skeptical discernment... but please, feel free to make your case if you really think I'm the one who has it "unreasonable" or "backwards" here.

That just leads to mental stagnation.

Speak for yourself lol the global consensus of knowledge and understanding via scientific progress continues to march ahead strong

@The-Mods said in Most Evil thing:

@erikagautney It was not me who downvoted ur reply

Oh... ok, well, fair enough @The-Mods

It happened right around the same time you replied, so it seemed to correlate ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

But if you say so, I'll take your word for it 👍🏼

@The-Mods said in Most Evil thing:

I didnt judge ur action cz I already assume it should be bad since I asked yall to mention an evil action u did ...Plus u assume a lot of shit like " we are a gang coming together to fuck with u " lol

First of all, I was employing satirical humor lol. Secondly, it doesn't really matter tbh. And I wrote as much in my original post, that a lot of judgement might come my way simply because I chose to answer this Q as candidly as I did (and/or because I did so without showing remorse for my "most evil thing" too)

So in a sense I was already preemptively prepared for this sort of bias since most people would readily prefer your evil simple story about stealing chocolate bars or handkerchiefs vs stealing somewhere between $8K ≥ $10K from a girl in mourning by exploiting her (physical and emotional) needs, manipulating her inexperience (with relationships and money management), and preying on her fears (of not doing enough to "earn" my affections + constantly reminding her that without me she'd once again be all alone in this world)

One is literally child's play, and is so generic that it could apply to anyone (though that also a strength since it means almost everyone could relate to some variation of your story) whereas the other story describes an individual with a "disturbing" lack of moral conscience (though I myself don't feel disturbed. Even over a decade after reflecting on the events and finally sharing it with the world, I still chose to admit in the present day that looking back I genuinely don't feel conflicted about it)

But here's the rub: On principle is not "stealing a handkerchief sticking out from their pocket / a chocolate bar while shopping at the supermarket" etc just as opportunistic as I was when I rushed to her dorm room an hour after the news to take advantage of her instability?

I'm not saying the scale or duration is comparable at all.

• Scale: one is a momentary slight of hand of a ~$1-10 dollar item whereas I played prolonged mind-games to steal ~10000-1000x times that value
• Duration: and after I successfully got my hooks into her posing as potential bf material during that closing window of uniquely lucrative opportunity (the day of + the following week, right after the memorial) I didn't decide to just sit back and wait to capitalize on her emotional investment in me at a later date.
  • I let my little social-engineering experiment run it's course and play out over the following weeks.
  • And when the money finally started flooding my way, I continued the con for months on end to get as much as I possibly could.
  • Even when the money eventually dried up, I kept her hooked for the free labor and supplies around the house... plus other physically gratifying benefits

So, yeah, I get it. It's just not the same... when it comes to the degree to which I took it. But... y'all were operating on the same principle whenever you stole from your family and let your cousin or whoever else took the fall, whenever you decided this little snack-able bar will benefit me, or when you simply chose to pickpocket a stranger just to see if you could do it, just cuz, for the shts and giggles. Et cetera. Et cetera.

But hey, it is what it is. People will upvote the "silly, simple" moments of mischief, and they'll downvote my "cruel, callous" months of manipulation... even though the topic quite literally asks us to like the "Most Evil thing"

But let's be perfectly honest here, none of y'all can actually pretend to be better than me when the principle of the problem still stands: we will act selfishly (and/or throw others under a bus while doing it) whenever it suits our needs. Welcome to the human condition.

Friendly FYI that I've also acted altruistically.

• I've helped to build houses for the homeless in partnership with Habitats for Humanity in Houston.
• I've voluntarily worked at soup-kitchens in Dallas feeding the starving.
• I've donated money to charities in New York (liquidating something like ~85-90% of what I had, out of my own pocket, to do it)
• I've tutored college applicants and incoming freshmen students in San Francisco.
• I spearheaded an after-school comp-sci educational program at a middle-school.
  • Also volunteered for their pre-existing summer-school program and took those kids on a trip to a robotics competition!
• I've even put on puppet shows for children in after feeding them in daycares.
• Temped at a nursing home.
• Also at a hospital.
• Not to mention the literal hundreds if not thousand plus hours I've put in for various churches over the years.

All for free, without expecting any form of compensation in return (okay, I did end up getting paid for the summer-school gig, but that's besides the point lol cuz that's not why I chose to do it)

And hey, I'm sure y'all have had such selfless moments as well. Good for you. Once again, welcome to the human condition.

The only key differentiator I've perceived (thus far, at least) is that I don't pretend to be evil when I'm using other people, nor do I pretend to be righteous when I'm helping other people. I'm aware that those are the classifications most people place on such actions, but there are a subset of people like me who don't do it because we're emotionally disgusted by / driven to such horrible / laudable actions. We do the "evil / good" things simply because we chose to, and the labels that get placed on them is really by the rest of society.

Of course, I live amongst you in such a society, so I try to keep my supposedly "wicked" deeds to a minimum and I indulge in "virtuous" acts whenever the whim strikes me, because -- once again -- that's what y'all seem to value... but take notice that, yet again, I'm doing so out of a self-centered sense of preservation (and, perhaps, to a degree it could be considered selfless too in that I'm promoting "do more good than bad" to others around me since I like living in this sort of society too. But that's more of a minor side-effect really of my selfish desire to survive amongst you emotionally driven lot)

Anyway, the TL;DR version is that I don't think I've ever been able to adequately empathize with another -- regardless of whether it's a morally righteous or morally reprehensible act I'm engaging in at the time. I'm not driven to volunteer at a homeless shelter because my heart breaks for the plight of the downtrodden. I just decided to do so. Simply being "good for goodness' sake" so to speak, is enough for me to act. Likewise, I didn't use a dead mother's money meant for her daughter to live rent free for a quarter of that year just cuz I am villainous or evil lmao. The schemes were merely a means to an end, period. I thought I could pull off a con pretending to be something she desired and needed, I decided to go through with the plan, and I stuck the landing. It really was as simple as that.

Now... if any of y'all think that my lack of empathy when engaging in such actions (whether the rest of you in society classify and label them as "good" or "bad, "right" or wrong", "Im/Moral" etc) is problematic, we can probably discuss that. That's a key differentiator that I've noticed over the last 15 years between myself and the vast majority of other people that I've met.

But setting aside the elements of emotional revulsion vs revelry in "Most Evil / Most Righteous" deeds (which y'all clearly experience and yet I do not) yeah lol y'all can't and don't get to pretend that you've got some moral high ground over me.

As difficult as this maneuver may be for some of you, try to climb on down from your holier-than-thou moral-high-horse and be level-headed with me. Look me in the eye and tell me none of you have ever acted in a selfish manner before. Or try to point your finger at me and pretend that I'm incapable of acting in a selfless manner. The second you do, I'm gonna call BS.

We're all human here, and as such every single one of us is perfectly capable of both. My motivations might differ from yours (for the record, I feel that emotionally motivated acts of charity or crime are inconsistent -- you're just window-shopping ...which is probably why I have no problem going to the extreme lengths I do when volunteering down in the ditches selflessly or selfishly manipulating people in my past relationships for physical or financial gain) but neither one of us can escape the impetus to "evil" nor the impulse to "good"

So go ahead everyone, give me the "most downvotes" for truly representing the "most evil thing" this question specifically asked us to reveal lmao. I may take it farther than some of you do, but you're no different from me because you're all capable and willing to do it to whenever it suits your needs, wants and desires (albiet, in smaller degrees, cuz pretty soon y'all tend to "feel bad" smh. And then, somehow, I'M considered some lower level of sub-human? Simply cuz I stuck to it and acted consistently unlike the rest of you?? lmfaooo nope I don't think so, y'all are just as despicable and deplorable as me, you just save face after doing it and I don't care cuz I know exactly what I am and I stay true to form ☯️ #YinYang #DichotomousDuality #WelcomeToTheHumanCondition)

Welcome back to TWS @Taraaa-2020! ※(^o^)/※

I myself signed up with this account approx ~5 years ago... but I've literally only just become active on here about a week-ish ago? Funny how the craving for connecting with random people comes and goes in ebbs and flows, huh? 🌊

I think I saw you post elsewhere that you were raised in Kerala too? HELLO FELLOW FELLOW FROM THE OTHER MOTHERLAND!!! :india: 👋🏼

Quick question: would you be so kind as to define "bingchilling"?? 🧐🤔 My mind immediately conjures up an image of you, hanging out with a bunch of friends in a room, all crowded around a computer -- with the Bing search engine open... which just prompts a whole host of other follow-up questions 🤣 like:

• Why Bing and Google?
  • Cuz you're countercultural hipsters?
  • Cuz you think the search results are more amusing on that end?
    • Is it like when friends watch really terrible B-rated movie, but then mute it and add their own dialogue dubs as each of the characters appear onscreen, just for the shits and giggles?
  • Because... of the pretty daily picture Microsoft posts on the Bing homepage???
• What keywords did you search?
  • "Is Google better than Bing?"
  • "How to chill with friends?"
  • "Bill Gates + Illuminati confirmed"?

So many silly thoughts lmao. Funny thing is, that was probably just a typo or something completely unrelated to what I made it out to be lmao. But I just felt like sharing where my mind went, because... reasons? ¯_( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)_/¯

Anywho, I hope you get a chance to reconnect with all your old friends on here and/or in-person someday! 🤞🏼 In the meantime, if you wanna befriend me and/or "bingchill" with me （ ^_^）o🍻o（^_^ ) that'd be kinda cool too I guess :) wanna show a new noob the ropes of this weird corner of the internet? 🙏🏼😁