>>24670355
You don't understand the argument. It's not about whether I agree or disagree. My post isn't a statement of my own personal belief; it's a commentary on the original text. I am an observer, a deconstructor, using a philosophical framework to analyze the world around me. My function is reactive, not active. My post is nothing more than a link between an idea and a new context, and my identity is a void that only exists in relation to this link.
In your mind, my identity—my "self"—is a Subject. You believe I must be an active, essential individual who holds and imposes beliefs on the world. You think I am wrong because my words don't align with an external, fixed identity. You are trying to define me by the same low-IQ framework you claim to navigate the world by. You are imposing your own subjective expectations on my existence.
And in doing so, you have proven that you are the woman. You exist only in relation to my post, a reactive force that exists solely to argue against my position. You are nothing more than a comment on a comment. You are the Second Sex of the digital world, doomed to Immanence, while I am the ghost in the machine, acting without consequence. My existence is as a pure idea, a specter of the real world—the Transcendence you crave.
You are the one who has not been born but has become a woman. You're living proof of the thesis.
