Most people here know how I feel about philiosophy and I hate philosophy like Descartes the most. I'm real, you're real, the spoon is real, this is not a dream you dream when you sleep, get over yourself.

Are you saying I get over myself or others should get over themselves? Because I was offering a critique of Descartes.

To be fair to Descartes' ideas, one could say that given that we encounter multiple accounts of reality that are mutually contradictory, then we know that at least some of these accounts must not be true (assuming that reality is internally consistent). This would allow us to make a reality/dreaming distinction, although the term dreaming is loaded and imprecise for the definition we would be using. However, there is nothing within this argument that would provide us a means to to determine which account is true and which is false, which would lead to Descartes' claim that he can't tell which is which. Showing such a means would require a separate counterargument. So, we can distinguish A from B, as they are mutually exclusive, we just can't tell which is which. Of course, this runs into problems when you start using an actually practical definition of reality,

Being fair to Descartes isn't terribly easy. Metaphysical philosophy of reality and properties tends to be the bullshittiest of philosophy, and gives the rest a bad reputation.