All words and definitions are constructs of human perception that literally mean nothing. Letters are sets of symbols in writing and are sounds if spoken. They are used plainly as means of communication and an attempt to "describe" something through a personal position or interpreted imaginary position through a made up principle. There is no exactness in the whole thing, none. There is no right and wrong, normal and not normal, bad, good, better or worse. Those are made up constructs aimed to reflect one’s internal emotions about a certain subject, the experience of an individual affected by many contributing factors. It’s a reflection of what someone is looking for based on persuasions and presets. Every word is meaningless and every definition contradicts itself and almost no one is there to notice as people are too "stuck up" in fantasy. Truth is, there is no truth for a fact. In fact, there is no such thing as a fact, as a matter of fact. The whole thing is one big act.

People are trying to pull odds into their favor, even by something extremely vague. Using blurry categories such as "bad" and "good" under an emotional conflict and opinion discrepancy, they use such categories (any categories for that matter) to try and justify a choice not to agree with someone and to think good about themselves and badly of others. When talking about this topic specifically, that would be a result of human’s confusion and lack of self-awareness as well as many things one can come up with. An attempt to look into one category in order to "prove" something usually requires subduing the majority of information that goes against the legitimacy of a certain claim making the category itself (as well as any definition) non-existent, meaning there is always something that contradicts a certain construct or a line of thinking, as well as any category. That means "proving" anything to anyone is possible by using different methods as constructs and a basis of predictable persuasions is being used for influencing people’s opinions. Any "lie" (a set of memory based persuasions) can be "proven" (brought to an end logic to someone if resulted positively) making the whole thing a complete joke. It has a lot to do with people largely being recording devices who only "shape" and "understand" their opinions based on something they’ve already seen and experienced. Human then navigates within the things he believes in, even based on what he was told, but never seen, using and shaping different combinations of constructs he memorized, forming what he would call an opinion. Emotional state can affect any inference. The result of human’s fallacies throughout all of time is a result of a continuous need to process the "information" as "incorrect" as it can ever be pushing it into a fantasy beyond self-awareness of it’s meaninglessness. Whether the methods used are "correct" or "wrong" no one would have time to worry about as people would only be pushed into an uncertainty and way beyond into a fantasy. That fantasy is called science.

Actions that brought a "practical" result are results of experimentations and memorization of said methods, meaning first the actions are done, the methods are memorized if proven subjectively useful and only then fitted into a "theory" to try and "explain" something in language terms. It doesn’t "ultimately" explain anything, it’s only interpreted in a way one perceives. This is not knowledge, it’s a memory based belief and not even that. There is no knowledge, human can only believe and even that is a construct. There is no way to be sure about any knowledge, as the majority of "what ifs" haven’t happened and aren’t knowledge, it is entirely belief as anything can be "proven" and reshaped. The "knowledge" about anything is incomplete and can’t be complete, it’s only interpreted and self-programmed. Anything can go against the "belief" and "knowledge" as both are meaningless. Science (as well as any construct) is entirely built on ego and wishful thinking along with a self-programming. For example, people throughout the history have been using categories as an attempt to push self-built agenda for either fame or money and people are giving them a free pass because they are "persuaded" after subduing the information that contradicts said category. They are simply "put under" a certain line of thinking, the end logic is generalized within selected constructs and belief is earned. For example, it is said that the river cannot flow back naturally and it is a "law". The water, however, needs conditions to flow in the first place and "back" or "front" can be anywhere. There is no back or front, just like there is no up and down in "space", meaning it’s not a law and is a construct. One would believe it as a law under a selected frame of information and as soon as the parallel within the opinion is found without factors bringing deniability, the acceptance comes into play and individual self-programs himself into believing that’s the case. Conditions can be changed for water to change direction, conditions are needed for everything, even for something to fall. Anything can be "proven" as a "law", simply because there are no "what ifs". Any result in the world can be considered and concocted to be a "law", explained it wouldn’t happen any other way, simply because of that reason, as what ifs are a product of human’s mind. It’s like that with any word and definition. The reason why everything being a "law" makes nothing a law is for the same reason as to why everybody being a moron in the world will not make anyone a moron, as in that world no one would be a moron in the first place or the standard would be different. The meaning behind the definition is lost.

Example of a failing construct: "Moron." (Everyone is a moron in their own way, meaning if everyone is a moron - no one is, as it’s simply an abstract fantasy judgement based definition. Anyone can be ultimately or non-ultimately a moron and proven to be.)

It can be done with anything as categories are all blurred and abstract. Those methods are still working, as people are still believing into something being "good" and "bad" or "better" and "worse". They are not only abstract, but can be applied to anything under any alternative opinion. People are used as shills stuck in a maze bringing benefit.

Example: A videogame can have a very solid foundation of features and game-design wise is well-designed instead of convoluted and it can be considered better than the alternative. The alternative, however, can be a bloated and convoluted mess, but it might be better because that’s what makes a game fun to certain individuals. A "well-designed" game with a dramatic and carefully thought out pace as well as balance could be what makes it boring. A game being convoluted and having loads of non-quality content could be what makes it fun. It goes the other way around and "proven" under a circlejerk back and forth. None are ultimately better or worse, but could be worse than a certain quality standard if it is believed in and set, but it lacks point as eventually it would be distorted. It comes down to "standard" but even that is different.

Anything can be viewed as a progress or regress. Humanity, what one would believe as "advancing" would only be a regress in the long run, or even death and destruction. There is no way to control that and people may not even know what would be the cause. A regress (a throwback to the stone age) can be what guarantees humanity’s survival and can be viewed, by some, a progress. It’s all a construct, there is no progress or regress, just like there isn’t anything. Conclusions about something being a progress or a regress are self-programming and aren’t real.

There is no such thing as nature either, as anything can be viewed as one. Some people think that what human is doing, meaning building something isn’t nature, that walls and objects constructed by human isn’t nature but that would also be wrong as human and any action done within the world can be thought to be nature and connected. Lightning hitting something, rain dropping, humans and ants building something can also be thought to be nature. But in reality, there is no such thing as nature, it’s only a construct. It’s meaningless just like any other construct.

Nothing in the world is logical, it is too, just like anything, a construct. The only reason why human thinks that something is logical is because under constructs and "search" for something he tries to make parallels with, he self-programs himself into thinking that this is logical, just like with any construct like "bad" and "good", however, any parallels can be made and anything can end up being "logical". Human is used to things he has seen, things he had experienced and self-programs himself into thinking there is any logic. In order for something to "exist" or simply be, there is a set of events that results into something. There is no explanation, meaning or logic behind it, the outcome, due to sets of events and actions could vary. For videogames to function there has to be a code, but it’s not logic, there is no logic for it, the game is just done and played. "Logic" is what someone makes up himself or thinks that he does, but doesn’t, as this is just a self-programming function through a fake construct.

Human can’t create anything, there is no such thing as "create", it’s a construct. Human can only build something out of already existing materials, he only combines things and self-programs himself into thinking he created something. He didn’t, this isn’t how it works. In order to combine something there has to be that something in the first place, it’s all combination.

There is no small or big when it comes to sizes as it is way too relative. Looking at the size as a whole nothing that looks big actually is ultimately.

Constitution serves a purpose of a social regulation, meaning a criminal is not either "right" or "wrong", he is only "deemed guilty", but only if caught. Any criminal can be deemed either "right" or "wrong" by anyone. The reason why the criminal is put behind bars is so that it would be easier for people to live out their lives without vandals running around. It doesn’t mean whoever is "deemed" being a "criminal" actually is one. It being fake doesn’t mean it should be ditched either.

It is natural to like and dislike certain things. There is always someone agreeing or disagreeing about something. There are things that people like and don’t like. Liking everything or accepting everything is a path to ignorance and a loss of standard, meaning your brain will refuse to perform vital functions. Because human brain is organic it needs certain experiences, so setting the cards right is important. This is one of the reasons as to why humanity is so hostile to each other. There is no other way around, at least, not at this time.

There is no normal and not normal, people are simply different. There is no negative or positive energy, the energy is simply different. There can be an upside or a downside found at anything. When talking about "normal", it is likely referred to either a moral or an ethical norm or both, they are however constructs. They are fake, but it doesn’t mean that they should not figuratively be aimed for in some capacity, as having some substantial lick of standard is important.

Not only that, but human can’t even "see" or perceive the world the "right" way. (There is none, the "world" is an "illusion")

There is no such thing as subjective or objective. Nothing will become real by thinking about it and having any outlook. (Good, bad or any descriptive factors are non-existent regardless of beliefs or any "opinions".) Describing anything is impossible, human self-programs himself based off of a construct, fantasizing that he described something. (Same emotional fantasy about "right" and "wrong". It is related to any construct.) End-persuasion of an individual after "description" is a brain's reaction, a product of human's mind based on memory-based beliefs (a parallel found relative to the subject's memory) that has no meaning whatsoever, it is a yet another programming construct. Any collective beliefs, self-persuasions or acceptances cannot affect the existence of anything. (Colors will never exist regardless of how many people accept it, distinguishing "colors" is aimed for communication between humans, so is any construct. This is why general acceptance is not indicative of truth. There will never be any "truth" behind it or anything even if imagined. Current day society is confused about the forms of communication and isn't aware that none of it actually exists.) Another reason as to why human gets self-persuaded is because to people it feels good to be sure about something even when it isn’t real, it’s only perception. Human's communication is based on pretending and fantasy, it can be described to be many things, but none will be real ultimately. There will never be any real "consensus" about anything, it'll outlive itself.

Genres are fake and are categories for marketing. Anything can fit into any genre. (Just like any game can be thought to be a horror game.) The experience and the feel for the game is different in some capacity for everyone. It is dependent on perception and it is, again, yet another fundamental part of how the world works. This is why there is no such thing as genre, it is an another misleading illusion for those who lack self-awareness. At the time of being persuaded about something fitting into a certain genre, individual "feels good" about being sure in a standpoint that he has. He is not however either sure or persuaded, it is entirely fake and is simply a perceptive illusion projected by the brain, which is what persuasion actually refers to. It is a point which brain reaches in order to sustain a set of certain memories thought to be connected. The whole thing is yet again built on individual’s attempt at pretending and feeling good by attempting to justify individual’s emotions about the memory-parallels from the information he received. All those constructs fundamentally fail which is why disagreements and confusion happen, it is not a conflict of interests, but a complete lack of them with self-programming that it’s the other way around. Humanity at this day and age is very confused.

Stories of videogames, perception of them (understanding) is also different in some capacity for every human. Because people are carriers of their own brains with different presets, the perception of certain stories is also different. (The stories are different.) It doesn’t however change that certain perceptions fail at reflecting the actual set of perceptions of an individual, bringing contradictions within their own opinion. This is why stories are entirely abstract and understanding of them varies, that includes author’s understanding. Author’s understanding of what he was thinking about doesn’t quite reflect the truth and simply can’t, that includes everybody who receives the information about a story. Author can say anything, it won’t however be true. Stories are sets of circumstances understood differently by people reading into them differently. (Perception about opinions illusively projected by the brain.) What was stated by the developer doesn’t matter, even the end product. (It will be perceived differently regardless. Knowing the truth behind the intentions of the author is impossible, as author himself can only perceive.) The understanding that the author thinks he puts into the story isn’t actually there. The understanding of a story is as individual as that of author’s for every human. Human can never reflect his actual internal feeling about anything while communicating, this isn’t how the world works. (Partially why misunderstandings happen, as perception about certain things varies.) Human lies that he puts any meaning behind a word, (or a story) as those are his intentions, while it will not actually be there regardless of what he wants, it is an individual self-programming.

(Developer in an interview: "I think that my game is the best as I’ve plastered the word "best" all over the walls in this videogame. See? Here’s the word "best". It must be the best game ever.") What the developer states (and that is any perception) is not representative of the actual product, it never is, as the perception of both the developer and the player will always be different. The story (just like anything within a game) is a combination of different information perceived differently. The developer or the author isn’t actually aiming for anything, it is a concocted fantasy. There is no "best game ever" and the words are meaningless. The end product is perceived differently by people and it has nothing to do with how "good" or "bad" something is. The attempt at emotionally reflecting something through words is also fake, so is the "understanding", a perception of something. This is a product of human’s brain, a meaningless algorithm that tries to organically live by finding it’s way around memory-based beliefs. (Received information.) The whole thing is a construct of human perception based on pretending, reactions within the brain that have literally no explanation and are dead-end meaningless. (Life of a singular plant and it’s eventual death.)

People are attempting to "run away" from themselves, hiding behind constructs while forgetting the fundamental part of how human works. Since the time human started communicating, it was never about the "truth", it was about slipping further into fantasy. None of the things human tries to hide himself behind in order to feed the illusions of "good" and "bad" will actually be true. There is no point in attempting to prove something that doesn't exist, people interpreting things differently won't make it "reasonable" to follow fake constructs either. Sharing the experiences is one thing, rejecting something because it doesn't work with either your organism or a brain preset is also important because certain things don't work with certain individuals, which is why bashing the head against a wall is pointless. It's all about what works with someone and what doesn't, but taking "actions" and "attempting to change" something by imagining what the "perfect" picture of a world would be by a certain interpretation only makes things worse as changing everything and everyone around to that won't help and change anything. It’s a wishful thinking with unseen downsides that can potentially be found. Such an individual would only want the "relativity" to what he believes in, for it to be equal to what he experiences from the world and from others. It doesn’t work that way, unless it’s self-programmed otherwise. Disliking something doesn't mean it shouldn't exist or should be changed. That's why it is important to be self-aware rather than doing something that doesn't work. Nowadays, for people, it's hard to figure out.

Going into an empty hall and attempting to "prove" something that doesn’t exist by attempting to persuade others that there is something there is also pointless. An empty game that nothing that you think about actually relates to will stay an empty game regardless of interpretations. Nothing is connected or disconnected, it's yet another "brain chemistry" of projected illusions. Your interpretations don’t matter even to yourself. Interpretations won’t make something real, while the interpretations of certain experiences shouldn't necessarily be argued about, rather shared. Gatekeeping in a modern world is problematic for that reason. There is, however, a need for human to have certain experiences, which is also why interpretations not having any actual matter to anyone truly shouldn’t affect someone to do unreasonable actions. The "parallel" of relativity of experiences to an individual has to be "handcrafted" for brain to perform vital functions, meaning there have to be things that an individual likes and dislikes depending on a brain preset and a set of persuasions. (It is automatic, but attempt to "affect" everything would be unsuccessful, as even aiming for a certain result will get you to a different one.) Every human having their "individual selves" under their perception won’t change unless done by brutal force, certain outcomes are however extremely temporary. This is exactly why there will never be "truth" and an attempt to prove something that doesn’t exist (gatekeeping) is pointless and unreasonable. If an individual thinks it’s reasonable it won’t affect it being unreasonable, as the connected outcome of the fundamentality of humanity won’t change. An attempt to deny that would exactly be that "empty hall", an attempt to think it's something else as stated previously is that "empty hall" of self-programming. All things cannot be done even if believed they are done.

Anything can be anything and made out to be because anything is nothing. As soon as the parallel and a consensus is reached between one and the other opinion or a certain statement individual self-programs himself into thinking that statement is correct for many reasons, as no conflict is to be found, this is what individual beliefs in or thinks beliefs in or is simply not aware. People are simply using their constructs to form opinions unsuspecting of their meaninglessness and an attempt to deny that would only confirm the whole point as yet another opinion is formed and it is yet again non-existent. The confirmation, a fact or the truth is also a construct and so is the construct itself and they are completely devoid of "meaning" as there is no such thing. Any opinion put into a parallel may end up as an acceptance because the whole thing has no truth in it and is entirely abstract with any existing (non-existing) opinion. (Nothing can be proven ultimately, people only self-program themselves, because all words and definitions are constructs of human perception and that simply cannot change, as an attempt to "change" it would be meaningless and is a wishful thinking.) By some people, a self-programming under an opinion-match with a certain statement is driven by "ego" or to find reasons to feed their own complexes about a certain subject to agree or disagree about something justifying their belief about something.

For example: "Everyone is an idiot, I’ve read that online." (Yet again, everyone being an idiot would mean that no one is an idiot and it’s like that with every construct. The reason why the parallel between a statement online is done because it’s an opinion-match where there is a correlation between sets of beliefs of whoever read that statement and stated it in the first place. It’s like that with anything. The statement as an opinion is then, in some cases, attempted to be proven in a virtual or non-virtual echochamber to self-persuade and persuade other people about something to either feed their complexes about everyone being an idiot because one thinks they are or to hold "egos".

For example: "Did you know that people lapping milk are immensely stupid? I’ve told the guy it’s stupid but he was like "f*ck off" and I punched him in the face. Like tell me, why would you do that, why would anybody lap milk when you can literally just drink it? Well, I asked a bunch of people whether it’s immensely stupid or not and guess what, they said YES! They said yes, then he must be stupid. They agree and I’ve even read a statement online and a whole bunch of stuff, a research that confirms that it’s stupid. He must be stupid then now that we all agree. Quick, text everyone about it. This is the guy online, look.")

Such people are persuaded about something despite the whole thing being meaningless, as the whole thing is a construct. It can constantly be circlejerked back and forth for no reason other than people attempting to feel good about themselves. Anybody can be stupid, bad or good for any reason as explained prior, but truthfully no one is. There is no truth in any attempt to self-program, any persuasion, any statement and anything as a whole. Language terms are used as an attempt to describe an illusive set of events that no one truly understands and can’t.

Anything can be compared, just like anything can be "proven" or self-persuaded it is. Comparisons are needed to compare different things. The more difference there is, the more there is to compare. Anybody can compare anything as vegetables can be better than fruits for being tastier, it can also be "proven" or self-programmed into thinking that vegetables are better because they are "healthier". There is no limit to how many examples you can make and what you can compare to reach a certain persuasion as it’s entirely subjective self-programming. There is simply no such thing as categories, it’s self-programming, a completely fake and abstract nonsense. Something is something because you have been told it is, not because it is. It cannot be as words and definitions that are constructs are being used as an attempt to describe something, but describing something truly is impossible as it’s fake. There is no actual explanation behind anything.

All words and definitions are constructs of human perception and at the end it will simply be undeniable. Humanity is slowly blurring the lines and are on the track to figuring that out. This is why words "lose" their meaning as they never had one to begin with. Nothing ever did. That doesn’t however mean that social regulation as a whole is going to disappear and the world is going to fall into chaos. (It might) Where there is a society, people will try to keep the imaginary "system" active in order to live out their lives without chaos and destruction. There will always be someone exploiting that as the whole thing is built on wishful thinking. The only way humanity is not going to figure that one out is if they are kept controlled by brutal force, if they will be held from understanding any of that or their "egos" will get a hold of them. If nothing like that is to happen (which is unlikely) then be it five decades or centuries from now, the whole thing is going to get blurred and people may realize.

Human doesn’t have to do anything at all. History (that isn’t real either) will be forgotten (meaningless, distorted and obscured if it wouldn’t be) and people striving to do something, to leave something is pretty much "ego" or are simply too worried about constructs and fear. A strive to leave something is a principle imagined by human himself. It wouldn’t matter if you do or you don’t. If there was a meaning behind something, if constructs meant anything then the world wouldn’t function and things wouldn’t differ.

This concludes my profile information.