Leo Gura

Of course! Once the mind paints some situation as evil and another as good, virtually any action can be justified in the avoidance of that evil situation because it's seen to be in the service of good -- which can't be wrong (by the mind's logic). For example, if the mind believes that it is on God's side, almost any action is justified in the service of God. And you better believe all those FoxNews people believe they are doing God's work. Since they see the communists are taking more and more radical actions and gaining ground, they feel more justified to take off the kid gloves and use every trick in the book to win.

I disagree with Kyle on this. Trump is fundamentally more dangerous than Bush, even though Bush might have caused more lives lost strictly-speaking with Iraq. You have to distinguish between potential damage and actualized damage. You don't know how bad Trump could get if he gets 4 more years. A nuclear war is on the table. And when we take a look at the slow Covid response, hundreds of thousands of deaths could be on Trump's hands. A war with Iran is still on the table, which could be worse than Iraq. Obviously Bush was a dangerously ignorant leader. But Trump is more ignorant and more dangerous. Obviously I have not interest in whitewashing Bush's presidency. It was a disaster on many levels, both internationally and domestically. I was extremely critical of Bush during that era. Selfless action is possible of course. I was talking about how most ego-minds work. I'm not talking about saints and sages here. This is a discussion about Tucker and his ilk. Right They are in a bubble of their own BS. In order for them to bullshit their viewers they must first bullshit themselves, otherwise they could not do their job. Don't underestimate the mind's ability to fool itself into believing whatever serves its survival. Self-deception covers its own tracks. They are not aware of their own hypocrisy because then they couldn't live with themselves. From their POV they are defending solid, good, American conservative values against crazy and evil communists who seek to destroy America. They see themselves as heroes and guardians of mankind. This justifies all of their flip-flopping and manipulations.

I'll take a look.

My point is that such a question is not as easy to answer as people assume. The mind deliberately conflates its worldview and its survival agenda to the point where it's hard to distinguish what is authentic and what is an act. I would bet that he believes that Democrats are far more corrupt and dangerous than Trump, which renders the question of Trump's misdeeds and corruption moot in his mind, similar to how we might overlook Biden's problems because we see Trump as the greater evil. He cares about elites abusing their power to the extent that it serves his worldview and career. What???

The forum code cannot be changed. What is ineffective about it?

In a deep sense, no. Everyone believes their actions are in the highest good. Because ego defines "good" as "good for my survival".

So what's missing from that analysis is that Tucker is still operating under a worldview and an ideology. His mind -- like all minds -- tailors his worldview to fit his survival needs, and vice versa. Believe it or not, even with everything said in the above video, he's still acting in good faith, in a deeper sense. His worldview is one in which his actions are fully justified, reasonable, true, and good. Of course his ideology conveniently aligns with what is good for his career.

History is full of people attempting to suppress the sex drive. The track record doesn't look good. I prefer to indulge in it with moderation and love. It also helps if you have a life purpose that takes up your attention. Idle hands do the devil's work Most of my life I've been too busy for sex because I was so focused on my LP. If you lead a lame, boring, passionless life, then yeah -- masturbation is like all you got going for you. Usually, the less creative I am, the more my mind wanders towards sex. When I'm most creative, sex disappears into the background.

Is here against peaceful protest? I don't think so. He's more complaining about extremist elements from what I remember. I think most of us can agree that peaceful protest is okay and even good, but violence or looting should not be allowed. It's a deep topic. You'd have to start defining what you mean by critical theory and give concrete examples of it. Some of it will be reasonable, some of it will be excessive. The fundamental thing that's not understood by Bret and JP is relativism. There are no objective facts per se. Reality is relative and constructed by the mind. If there is no such thing as absolute time, as Einstein showed, there surely is no such thing as absolute male or female. It's pretty embarrassing how a hard scientist like Bret can accept General Relativity but then insist that males and females are objective biological facts.

The mistake there is taking universities too seriously. Be an independent thinker. Nothing is stopping you from taking whatever combination of classes you want. Be careful not to get caught up in petty social squabbles. Focus on creating your life as you want it.

Sure, although those countries might also have less resources to mount an effective response. Americans are uniquely individualistic, arrogant, and stubborn. It's like herding cats.

I must admit, I get a bit of satisfaction from seeing girls suffer from this because it gives a taste of what it's like for guys.

Welcome to what life is like for guys You have a high sex drive. Congrats! Sounds like you're a keeper You're gonna have to find some healthy balance. I would start by limiting it to once per day. Girls with high sex drive are awesome!

Integrate the two. These are foolish dichotomies and false either/or choices.

Which events? If you mean some of the deplatforming events on college campuses, like what happened to Bret in his classroom, yes, I think that is excessive and problematic. Stage Green can get excessively SJW-ey. But this is an exception and shouldn't cause too much alarm. Bret thinks it will cause a societal collapse, which is silly. That is just fearmongering. Bret wants progressive reforms, but he's unwilling to pay the cost in terms of social and cultural upheaval that will be necessary to bring it about.

It's been pretty obvious for a few months now that America is not going to be able to suppress the virus like China. We are gonna have to face it head-on because the leadership isn't capable of anything else at this point and the people are too ignorant for effective coordination. This is the price of arrogance and ignorance.

But how do you know it's true? A detailed and mindblowing explantion is less than worthless if you can't validate it. For example, does Ra exist? You'd have to go talk to him to find out.

I watched the entire interview last week. Overall he's a reasonable guy. More reasonable than JP. I actually agree with most of his analysis of the George Floyd case. But of course he's not properly understanding the "cultural marxist" phenomena on college campuses. He sees it as a dangerous force that will destroy democracy. This is the same mistake JP makes. He's conflating stage Green with Maoism. He doesn't understand that stage Green has many healthy versions which are more evolved than the status quo. Of course Green has its excesses, but he's overly focused on that because he personally suffered from it. That's understandable, but it is skewing his perspective of where society is headed. Stage Green is not the end of democracy, it will lead to better democracy. He's failing to distinguish between health and unhealthy version of Green. Overall, Bret's a decent guy. He simply doesn't have a high enough perspective on things. He's still stuck in materialism, which is why he can't fully understand stuff like critical theory and its post-modernist roots. This is clear when he says that scientifically, male and female are some biological objective fact. This is obviously false if you have a deep understanding of epistemology and metaphysics. But he doesn't have that understanding because he's operating on materialism and realism. He doesn't understand how "male" and "female" could be categories projected by his own mind. He takes this the metaphysics for granted, as most STEM people do. And Joe Rogan does not have enough intellectual chops to challenge him on these points. Which is part of the problem when Joe interviews serious people on serious topics. He's not able to properly challenge their points. He mostly just ends up agreeing with whatever they say, and by extension so does his audience. Virtually nobody in Joe's audience will be able to deeply question Weinstein's view post-modernism. Post-modernism is really challenging to understand.

Yes, he does it in good faith. He's a true believer in his own ideology. He simply has a different worldview than you. If it seems that he's acting in bad faith, it's because you don't appreciate the difference in worldview because you are looking at the situation from your own worldview. You're missing the relativity of all worldviews. Your worldview is not "true", it's a projection of your own mind and its survival concerns. Same as Tucker. If you really want to grow, drop your worldview and try to look at the world from Tucker's POV until you understand its appeal.

This is your error. You need a way to satisfy yourself sexually because you cannot always have the stars aligned with another person, even if you are in a relationship or married. Many times they will simply be physically unavailable. You need to realize that there is no difference whatsoever between having sex with another person and having sex with yourself. A sexual fantasy is as real as "real" physical sex. In fact, your sex will become much more potent and satisfying once you embrace the imaginary, purely mental aspects of sex. Don't buy into the societal norms and judgments which gives a negative connotation of fantasy or imaginary sex. Even if you have sex with someone physically, that desire will still probably not get satisfied or go away. It will only be a temporary satisfaction which will turn into a new craving in a few days. So it's not that much different than masturbation. A true sage has sex using the mind. Rather than suppressing your need desires, embrace them and allow yourself to have the love you crave. You will overcome craving more effectively through love than through denial. Own your sexuality.

Yes, that is a good start. Get very simple and direct with it. Try this next time you sit down for 25 mins: Take your finger and try to point to yourself. Notice carefully what the finger it pointing at. Try to clarify what that thing is. Notice, the finger never points at a brain. What is seeing the finger? As you do this, try to minimize thinking. Don't think about it, look at it. Clearly, thoughts come and go, so they cannot be essential to what you are. What is essentially you?

No, it's not that simple. It's just one brute force method that tends to work well for clubbing. It does not necessarily address the root issue of your anxiety. But you gotta start somewhere. Sometimes problems auto-correct simply through exposure and practice. If you've been living in your mother's basement, going out to lots of clubs and socializing will auto-correct much of your social awkwardness, since most of it simply comes from inexperience. Practice builds competence and confidence.

Trump is well-capable of starting a pointless war. Especially if he gets desperate.

What are you smoking? He said it a bunch of times in his Krystal and Sagaar video. He calls Sagaar and Tucker Carlson a white nationalist fascist and he even basically calls Krystal Ball that. He's way out of line there. Sagaar is not a fascist or a white nationalist. And as much as I hate Tucker, he's not a fascist either. Just because someone isn't a raving progressive does not make them a fascist or a fascist sympathizer. Vaush is an intelligent guy but he's too blinded by his progressivism. I know his heart in the right place but he lacks important nuance and understanding of conservatives. Sagaar is a decent and reasonable conservative. The problem with demonizing someone like Sagaar is that if you can't make peace with Sagaar's brand of conservatism, you basically can't negotiate or respect any conservative at all. As progressives it's very important that we accommodate reasonable conservatives, otherwise they will become radicalized. Politics requires compromise. You can't exclude and demonize 40%-50% of the population. That's going to backfire on you. You cannot expect every conservative in the country to convert to liberalism. It ain't ever gonna happen. Conservatives need to have a say in the direction of the country because that's how democracy works. Compromising with someone like Sagaar on immigration is actually a good deal. It will pacify conservative fears and lessen their radicalization. Sagaar's immigration stance is not a racist one. Unchecked immigration should not be the progressive position. It will turn off 50% of the country. Vaush is far too uncharitable to Sagaar.

LOL It's not a coincidence. Tolle named himself after Meister Eckhart once he got enlightened. It would be like if I named myself Leonanda or Leojiji.