Incredible coincidence that these effective altruist/longtermism dorks are always rich white guys living comfortably on the backs of the poorest and most exploited by the system, and they've discovered what is best for the world, and indeed the entire future of the human race, is to continue as is but give like 12% of their paychecks to charity or something.

Longtermism is a rather silly branch of "effective altruism", where philosophers try to work out what we should do to maximize the happiness of humans in the very long term. While it's an interesting idea to talk about, for whatever reason it tend to attract a bunch of people who seemingly want to use it to justify their place in a hierarchy today. For example, they will make a lot of money off exploiting people, and justify it in that they are donating some small part back to "long term" problems. Dismantling the system itself which exploits people, of course, isn't part of it. Even weirder, it attracts kind of AI conspiracy theorists who watched too many Terminator movies and think we have to stop super intelligent AI from doing...something bad.
If you really want to help the long term future of humanity, you should probably just become a communist like a normal person.

"Also there was a previous comic about de Beauvoir as 'Ambiguity Woman' who seemed to think ambiguity is good, so that makes it more confusing..."

While existential philosophers never directly talked about whether that was a valid meaning of life, Camus at least strongly hinted that it was.

Of course in reality they excommunicated him for his "evil opinions". They never said what these opinions were though, so for all we know it was for his favoring pure reason over empirical knowledge.

In reality, they apparently weren't fooled quite so easily. While Spinoza did sort of believe in God, it was a God that wasn't too compatible with the religions of the time. As a result, Spinoza was excommunicated when he was 23, which was actually before he published anything, but presumably it was for his radical 'Atheist' ideas. They claimed the reason was for his "evil opinions" and "abominable heresies", as well as "monstrous deeds". They didn't really expand on exactly what that meant.

In reality, the Jewish court that convicted him weren't fooled quite so easily. While Spinoza did sort of believe in God, it was a God that wasn't too compatible with the religions of the time. As a result, Spinoza was excommunicated when he was 23, which was actually before he published anything, but presumably it was for his radical 'Atheist' ideas. They claimed the reason was for his "evil opinions" and "abominable heresies", as well as "monstrous deeds". They didn't really expand on exactly what that meant.

"Also I've suddenly found myself conscious of every porn video in existence, and what the hell? Why are you guys like this?"

Yes, that is exactly what Rousseau meant by "forced to be free".

Hobbes and Rousseau had somewhat different definitions of freedom, with Hobbes giving a very narrow view, claiming that freedom was doing what you wish without physical restraint, even going so far as saying someone would be free to choose in a "money or your life" situation.
Rousseau, on the other hand, thought freedom was using your reason to give your freedom over your own base animal instincts. So the robber himself wouldn't be free in the situation, because a rational being would exist in society peacefully by rationally agreeing to obey the general will.
Both were social contract theorists and thought the State had legitimate power to force its citizens to obey, in various ways.