>>40797326
>the notion that some people are inherently superior to others
Yes, for almost any given situation, there is a uniquely suited human completely superior to most others. For the physical spectrum there exist a very small % of the current population that, regardless of total muscle mass, even while appearing skinny, still possess full muscular strength from the monkey era, fully capable of crushing your skull between their hands. Is that inherent superiority? In some situations, yes. An equally small % possess spheres of imagination so acutely tuned that their fields of thought can be superior to handheld calculators. Are you going to beat them in mathematical speed? No.
>>40797336
>by hylic I mean no free will
Everything has free will, even the atoms you're composed of, they're just usually lazy and fall into the energy bandwidth their vector is most suited to. Most participants in this phase of a civilization simply do not possess the free time to contemplate obsessively on the subject of whatever flavor of the month topic you're passionate about; they're mostly too busy trapped in a cycle of suffering to commit the heavy resource requirements of meditation to reach a more refined point of view, thus automatically favored towards following the naturally dominant flowing gravity of the situation 'going with the flow'/general consensus. In any subject, if the logic of your argument suffices, you will be capable of convincing another soul to ally with your point of view. In other words, if you were to conduct properly thorough and charismatic conversation enhanced or diminished to an appropriately understandable IQ for any of these 'npcs' you whinge about, you'd be able to get them to agree.
It is significantly easier to whine, so you dramaqueens, in a way exactly the same as these 'npcs', are caught in your own web of malaise. You just don't want or cannot spend the energy to convey your thought processes in high definition to those you view as sheep.
