...

Do you want to know a really tough question for me to answer? 

'Why do you do these kinds of things knowing that next to no-one will ever witness them?'

In truth, I can only speculate just as much as you when it comes down to it. A part of the reason I act the way that I do in these things is the notion that there is absolutely no consequences because I am an insignificant speck in the greater scheme of things, but that only explains how I act after making the decision rather than why I make the decision in the first place. (Aren't italics neat by the way?)

I look around and obviously my primary decision making is based in my subjective flavor of rationality but there's this little subset of thought dedicated to superstition that I have which influences me in myriad subtle ways. Say you're someone who feels superstitious about the number 13 being unlucky somehow and you have second thoughts about booking a hotel room with that number so you don't stay there as long as originally planned. That kind of superstitious influence. When it comes to superstitions like those they tend to be vague enough that it's possible to form a rational basis around with enough mental gymnastics. For instance: Perhaps I'm an oddity from several years ago with an amusing backlog of posts that can be used to speculate my mental condition? I may even be in a video right now. Hi!

In fact, I can do you one even better than that! Maybe I'm in an insulated community constructed for the sole purpose of convincing me that my existence is sterile and normal? Now, people hear that and immediately default to 'The Truman Show' but there's a myriad of different scenarios out there I've hypothesized that would do the exact same thing. Here's one: A science research facility wants to do a nature versus nurture study on a few subjects and simulates different environments for a genetic control group of twins. (This one has actual real life precedent by the way.)

The real scary part about that possibility is that when it comes to discerning whether one's reality is simulated or not in general it becomes a Sisyphean task whereupon every summit is every refutation of a hypothesis of normalcy with the possibility the evidence was doctored. There would be well and truly no way to know what extent the powers of one's hypothetical cage reach. One could hypothesize based on circumstantial evidence but that doesn't account for the possibility that the full deck of cards has not yet been shown for the sake of strategy or lack of point. In my attempt to live around this Sisyphean task I have opted to take inspiration from Albert Camus and find absurd joy in rolling my boulder. Part of that means stating my mind out of protest to a hypothetical while holding onto hope for the possibility of freedom in case the hypothetical is true, simultaneously accounting for the hypothetical not being true and balancing things out enough to seem like a normal novelty un-self aware flavored comedy page from some random narcissist on the internet. It's also pretty fun. 

Anyways, that's the best way I could answer that question.