in the post >>60484194, i state
>suffering must be reduced to a minimum
this is explicitly the lowest uncertainty statement i have made in this conversation

in a subsequent post, one of my interlocutor asks
>How do you think this can be achieved?
they are requesting a possible state collapse or symbolic compression of the infinite potentialities that constitutes a settlement of the problem.

obviously, i am aware they are probing for controversial answers, but i am autistic ad intellectually honest, i’ve then shared my views on incentive-based solutions which may potentially aid solve conflicts through the availability of large material rewards in a post-scarcity context and in financially cohesive coordination structures. >>60484286 subsequent misrepresentation is explained in >>60501705
>i empathize with being a survivor of trauma [..] nobody has to suffer, the situation is structurally nonsensical

the evidences of conversationally-nonsensical anti-epistemological obsessive impulses from my interlocutors are abundant and morally disturbing. this demonstrates they are cherry-picking statements that can me mischaracterized, while conveniently leaving out the ones that can not. the overall aggregate of ideas i’ve shared clearly converges to the fact i am openly modeling and researching a structural harm-reducing solution inclusively encompassing all affected systems invariably of whether this is marketable at a superficial level, as i am autistic and do not optimize for pretentious contradictory cosmetic remedies like the frauds who harass me and that are inapplicable.