Is she, dare I say it, our girl?

I want to murder her. Let me tell her that real quick.

>instagram.com/__themessenger__/
dropped

Her video has more cuts than Rupi Kaur's poetry linebreaks. Fuck this shit, can't you talk like a human being for 20 minutes?

H e a d o v e r h e e l s

>says verse when she means line

Just me or the comments are more interesting than anything in the video?

gg, no re

>But reality is only accessible through subjective experience; if there is no subject, there is no one to experience reality, and so there is no (objective) reality. If reality only exists as we experience it, that means that in every moment our reality is either the veil or what is beyond the veil, but not both. That doesn't mean, though, that it always has to be one or the other; at 10 am I can experience reality with the veil, and thus reality limits itself to the veil, it becomes the veil, whereas at 12 pm I can experience reality without the veil, and so that becomes reality. But if the nature of reality can shift so easily with perspective, then can we really say that it is 'real' at all? I mean, the way we experience the world is limited by our physical bodies, and so an alien may conceive the world in a totally different way than us, but his experience of reality will still be as valid as ours. If there are infinite subjective experiences, then reality becomes totally deluded... it becomes an illusion; it's just what we make of it, it's what we can't help but see. Hahaha what I mean by this is that the child's experience of reality is as valid as any other's. But I think that then we should define 'experience.' Because imagine that we're in a 1st grade math class, and there's a child that experiences that 2+2=5. That is how he sees it, how he sees reality. Can we say that he is wrong? Our experience of reality is limited by our knowledge of things and blah blah, and so we could argue that even though the child experiences that 2+2=5, he is wrong because his experience is more limited than ours, as his knowledge on maths (a parameter that defines experience) is more limited than ours. But that has two weaknesses: 1) we would be operating under the assumption that there is an objective truth beyond anyone's personal experience, hence why his experience would be 'less correct' than ours, and 2) we would not be taking into consideration the possibility that maybe it's us whose knowledge is most limited. Just because the majority of humans sees that 2+2=4 doesn't mean that we're correct; we may be blind to our own ignorance, and so, it's possible that the child is correct when he thinks that 2+2=5. Also, there is no way to prove 'objective reality', because the way we would have to prove it could also be blind/ignorant – it's pointless to try to test how ignorant we are by using the same brains that are under inspection for possibly being ignorant, if you know what I mean! Hahaha. And so, it's not only possible that the child is correct, but we have no way of disproving the accuracy of his statement, and so it becomes valid by default!

Sadly if she put some makeup on she'd be like a 9/10

Disgusting modern women

reading the comments makes me go tfw no autistically cute gf

>there is no right way to create poetry

If you want to be respected compared to any of the former greats there sure is. It's a relatively new thing to have highschool level poetry lauded as anything of merit. Wordsworth was producing better content then rupi kaur when he was 14.

I wonder if she ever had sex

...

>makeup

post yfw she's getting fucked by chat RIGHT NOW

>20 minutes

Fuck off, I've got reading to do.

>unironically preferring women caked up in pig-disgusting paint to au naturel

Porn and advertising killed this generation.

>tfw she dismisses your type
youtube.com/watch?v=voPPKPOjXZY

I don't find makeup attractive on genuinely attractive women, but it does hide the ugliness of average girls

>tfw ISTP