seeking a roommate

I have an IQ of 196 and am seeking a roommate of my same mental capacity with whom I can engage in casual conversations about quantum mechanics and theoretical astrophysics. I am smarter than 99% of the people I encounter; however being as insanely smart as I am can be quite a burden. For instance, I can never win arguments because the reason I'm right is too complex to explain within the attention span of my opponent. Alas, nobody understands my plight. I often stay up at night reading Chaucer and contemplating the repercussions of false philosophy. I love astounding everybody in the library by finishing a 419 page novel in just under 100 minutes. I am also a passionate artist and musician. Just earlier I heard a door squeak a melodic minor 7th, something only a true musician would realize. Last night I wrote a poem while in a club. Of course I of all people would stop dancing in the middle of a dance floor at 11:40 at night and start to ponder about the decay of our society. How disquieting the institution of superficiality in contemporary culture is. We exist in a zeitgeist bastardization of those principles our forefathers strove to exemplify. If you're going to be my roommate you must enjoy classical, enchanting tunes; not the talentless, computerized sounds that the modern generation "listens" (if you can even call it that) to. You must also agree with me on the following points:
- The black race holds itself back, and is not being held back by other races
- The middle east needs to go
- Gender identity issues are a mental illness
- You 100% can work your way out of poverty, people who think otherwise are just lazy and thus show why they are in poverty.
If you meet all of my qualifications, I will potentially consider you as a possible roommate.

P.S. I could have gotten more intellectual with my profound vocabulary but decided to dumb it down so that your lesser minds could fully comprehend the meaning of my words.

>>40
"liberty" is a relative concept.

>>41
You mean an inherently bigoted and oppressive concept. Women, POC, and the developmentally challenged are marginalized by liberty. Don't think for one second that is not the desired outcome of liberty, it is the loudest dog whistle still blown by OWM bigots.

>>42

So Hillary is somehow marginalized by liberty of practicing law and running for a president, instead of being uneducated housewife, a slave to her adulterous husband?

>>43
Who?

>>41
Suck my postmodern cock, which may or may not be a cunt, depending on your point of view.

>>43
Hillary is definitely far more privileged than the average person. She's wealthy, white, and a member of the ruling class. She doesn't have male privilege obviously (note that there is even today a vocal minority that say women cannot be adequate national leaders), but she's so much more powerful than the average person that it really doesn't matter most of the time.

The real problem with liberty is that it's all about "I won't stop you from doing things" rather than "I will make it possible for you to do things". It's good to have, but if ALL you have is liberty, it's not really worth much. If you have no money and no food, liberty is more or less worthless to you. Because really the only "option" you have in that case is to starve, and it's not like anyone is trying to take that option away from you. Liberty is really only worthwhile if you have something to lose.

I will make it possible for you to do things

This is fine if it's mutually beneficial, we call it capitalism.

>>46

The real problem with liberty is that it's all about "I won't stop you from doing things" rather than "I will make it possible for you to do things".

Wow! Really? "I won't stop you from leaving Gulag" is worse than "I will make it possible you will remain in Gulag for the rest of your sorry life"?

So much freedom for collective farm workers, because Mr. Stalin made it possible for them to work for the Glorious Soviet Russia.

>>47
That's not really the definition of capitalism though. Mutually beneficial relationships can also exist in feudalism, communism, etc. And in practice, capitalism is rarely a perfectly balanced mutual relationship, as one side often has more power than the other.

>>48

Wow! Really? "I won't stop you from leaving Gulag" is worse than "I will make it possible you will remain in Gulag for the rest of your sorry life"?

No, of course not. Liberty means "I won't stop you from eating, and I won't stop you from starving". But liberty alone is not sufficient for a good life, you must also have the means to provide for yourself. And some people would gladly give up some of their liberty in exchange for having the means to provide for themselves, if someone is starving, a deal like "I'll give you three meals a day if you agree to do what I say" sounds pretty good to them. This is actually pretty much what employment is, you give up your liberty for say 8 hours a day, and get paid in exchange for that.

So much freedom for collective farm workers, because Mr. Stalin made it possible for them to work for the Glorious Soviet Russia.

Forced labor isn't freedom or liberty. However, one might find forced labor in exchange for food and housing to be preferable to having "freedom" or "liberty" when no work is available.

>>49

That's not really the definition of capitalism though.

Granted it's closer to laissez-faire, but we ain't all hoity toity
round these parts.

Laissez-faire doesn't have anything to do with "mutually beneficial". It just means unregulated markets.

>>51
It"s like you don't even understand basic economic theory. If you assume humans act out of self-interest, then in the absence of external regulations, voluntary exchanges will tend towards being mutually beneficial.

>>52
You are talking about a "tragedy of the commons" type situation?

>>53
Yes, you can clearly see where it was discussed ad nauseum in previous posts.

>>54
Clearly you see these dubs