This post only makes sense if imperial epistemology has conditioned your instincts to seek authority over nuance. If you're about to disprove me, you're enacting the very trance I’m describing.

why do crucicucks refuse to engage in intellectual debate?

why cant they form a single argument that doesnt involve pointing at it asserting itself as infallible?

are they genuinely retarded?

or are they just letting the idea of submission be an outlet for their constant guilt?