Yes, I finally realized this. A much more tactful and diplomatic approach is required to actually get people to change their minds. It's like reserve psychology, the more you corner them like a rat, the less effective it is. Because you're dealing with an ego.
This is why non-violent communication is critical.
I am making changes to my communication in order for it to be more effective at actually creating change in people, rather than just me proving myself right.
This is why diplomats are so care in how they speak. They can't just blurt stuff out or it causes defensiveness and chaos.

Look, understand what it is that I do here. I explore Consciousness to discover things about it. It's like exploring the Earth back 2000 years ago. You never know what you'll find. All I'm doing is exploring Consciousness and making certain observations about it. This doesn't mean I have all the answers. I speak of what I have discovered so far, and who knows what I will discover tomorrow. So I don't place any limits on it. But what is obvious is that humans are generally stuck in a very narrow band of consciousness, regardless of whether they are enlightened or not.
As a basic example, an enlightened man can fail at a basic thing like understanding what the consciousness of a woman is like. A woman does not have the same consciousness as a man. It's qualitatively different. Even though of course Nothingness is at the root of all consciousness. But reducing it to Nothingness means you still don't understand the consciousness of a woman. To understand the consciousness of a woman you'd have to stop being a man and become a woman. And if you actually did that, your understanding of consciousness would grow.

Now that I think of it, reduction of morality could itself be another reductionist trap.
You could formulate morality in a much high-caliber, more positive, more visionary way as: Being of highest service to Consciousness/Love. Instead of merely reducing harm to other, this formulation of morality means you take on a proactive role is being of service to the whole Universe, whatever that entails. Of course all this assumes you have a very clean and deep connection to Consciousness/God, not just some human spiritual act. It could only be done by the wokest and most developed humans.
So the problem with this formulation is that it's totally beyond the normal human. It would require Awakening and much more.

Wanting to kill someone IS your selfishness at work.
Not killing Hitler is not selfish, unless you have some twisted reasons.

I didn't say you have an obligation to reduce suffering for others. I said to reduce the suffering your selfishness causes others. That's an important difference. Otherwise you will feel obligated to hunt down every asshole in the world. Hunting down bad guys is a selfish-motivated activity.

Ralston does not have a cult around him.
Ralston is one of the most genius humans on this planet. It takes insane intelligence to appreciate everything he offers.
Most people will never understand what Ralston has achieved. He's NOT just another enlightened nondualist. He has achieved a level of understanding of reality which hardly any human on this planet has achieved.

Just keep in mind that all values are ultimately a mental construction.
You cannot put a value on God.
Even Oneness or Love are not values God has. They are what God is. Reality is beyond any value.
You as a human can have values to guide your life, but recognize that all this is baised and relative and wrapped up with your personal preferences and survival needs.

That's correct.
There is a backlash against Big Pharma and the mainstream healthcare system because it does gaslight people and get many things wrong, and it is very corrupted by capitalism. But people over-compensate for that and misuse skepticism and cynicism and fall into fantasies.
RFK Jr and his ilk are the prime example of this backlash and overreaction, which falls into falsehood and foolishness.

I am ABSOLUTE MORALITY itself. Morality is not really as complicated as we think. Morality has to do with the individual and the whole. So it's simple there are two rules to morality.
1. Never give someone an experience that you wouldn't want. 
2. Never give someone an experience that they wouldn't want.
3. Lastly, do not think or speak or act out an experience you don't want.
This covers all basis of moral action and is perfect self alignment with all that you identify with.

You will not find Truth in academia.
I have said this many times.
Academics are not pursuing serious consciousness nor comprehension of existential issues. They are doing human stuff.
It has some legit goals.
1) Scholarship, historical accuracy
2) Many narrow technical issues which are useful and important for advancing certain fields.
3) Exploration of political and ethical issues.
But mostly it's about building careers. Academia becomes its own aim.
Academic philosophy can be useful in helping people think more carefully and deeply. But that's not good enough for the kind of work I am interested in.

I explained this in my classic video: What Is The Devil.
But I want to make another video on this topic.
The key is to catch yourself creating a fantasy of you being the good guy in life. It's a very powerful and trappy fantasy that almost everyone falls into, including me.
Yes, it is discouraging to realize you aren't the good guy you thought you were. But recognition of your own devilry is what makes you good.

Yes, of course, however Love is such a radical thing that it becomes the opposite of coventional morality. Because you have to love all the "evil" stuff, like a crocodile eating your children.
Religion has tried to teach love, but it always devolves into judgment, shaming, hatred, demonizing, moralizing, normativity, and closedmindness. Because a finite mind is constitutionally incapable of serious Love. And thus conventional morality is born.
The problem with telling people that "morality is being loving" is that they will say, "Yes! And that's why we should torture pedophiles, because we love our children. And we should bomb Gaza because we love the Jews. And we should assassinate Putin because he is the next Hitler. And we should steal the next election because we love America. And we should turn America into a Christian theocracy because Christ is love. And if you oppose us, we will destroy you, because you stand against love."
That is the morality crocodile.

You cannot escape thinking no matter how much you meditate. And by default your thinking will become filled with fantasies and self-deceptions, such as the fantasy that all you need to do to be intelligent is stop thinking. But this isn't really the case because it grossly reduces and oversimplifies life. You cannot survive without thinking. So the strategy of not thinking is actually unintelligent. The proper thing is to learn to think in very careful ways.

That's how immature people live.
Just by looking at our business culture.
Nah, what runs the world is money and power, not progressive ideals.
It is deceptive because many of these giant companies virtue signal with Green values, but in fact they are run by pure profit motive. Look at Facebook, these AI companies, Big Tech, all of crypto, all of medicine, all the top universities -- it's all Orange on steroids with some lip-service to Green.
You realize how bad it is when you realize that even universities are not Green but Orange.

Of course not all monks are enlightened. But just study this subject in some depth and you'll see many enlightened masters who were morally questionable. Because morality is relative. Like REALLY! You're not grasping this yet. It's totally made up! It changes across culture and time. So there is no absolute standard. If you were born in the Middle East 1000 years ago, you could probably be enlightened and chop people's heads off without too much problem. Nowadays, it's a bit harder. But still... plenty of latitude.
You gotta understand, once you're enlightened, you REALLY accept yourself. So if you were a rapist, those rapist animal tendencies will still be there -- they will not magically disappear -- and you will not think of them as "wrong" either, because you'll clearly understand that "wrong" is a concept. So you will be quite free at that point to do whatever the fuck you think is right, and whatever your body/mind is pulled towards doing. In the same way that a lion will not worry about eating you. He's not gonna have moral qualms about it. He will fucking eat you and be happy about it. The lion is not gonna sit there thinking, "Oh gee... maybe eating him is wrong? I shouldn't have this hunger for human meat. I am so wicked! Why has God cursed me with this craving? Why God, why?!!! I know... I will just hold back. I will resist. I will be a good little lion the way humans want me to be."
He's a lion, not a Catholic!

The problem is that whatever moral system you construct, you will not be able to live by it. Your very survival will contradict it. You will be harming things just by virtue of being alive. This then leads so all sorts of ridiculous moral mental gymnatics, excuses, and rationalizations which warp your mind.
Being moral and being alive is not really compatible.

Just as one example, studies show that chronic weed use increases risk for various diseases, memory problems, etc.
Psychedelics put a lot of stress on your brain and nervous system.
It is impossible to give some simplistic rule for how much is too much. It will vary based on your unique genetics and no one knows for sure.
But if you think your trips don't have a physical cost on your body, you are a fool.

The key thing they seem to be missing is the realization that morality is a human construct.
That doesn't mean moral issues shouldn't be considered, but the foundation must be to see that morality is an invention, and moralizing to others is a kind of trap.
And then, just at the level of PR and optics, being militant about veganism just turns people off and has a counter-productive effect. Since most people are eating as part of a deep culture which cannot be changed overnight. People need to undergo years of moral development first, and most people are barely surviving.

Bill Burr has said something like "some people think you're dumb just because you don't share the same interests as them". The concept of conflating knowledge with intelligence has gotten really clear for me the last year or so.

There have been many times where someone else didn't seem to understand what I was talking about, and it somehow contributed to them thinking I'm smart. Conversely, I tend to feel the same way when I don't understand somebody else. I think there is a mental heuristic that tells you "if you don't understand something, it must be due to your lack of innate abilities", while in reality, it's probably much more about your lack of experience in a certain area; contextual factors. It has really opened my mind about how I view "smart people" and how much of it probably boils down to experience.

You can also observe it on a micro level in single conversations. For example, if you're talking to a group of people and you zone out for a few seconds, you might find yourself not understanding what is being said, and you might feel quite dumb for the rest of the conversation. But the moment you regain immersion in the conversation, you understand it and you no longer feel like a dunce. In this case, the knowledge about that specific conversation was lacking.

As for more general knowledge, I have one particular example that sticks out. So I'm currently taking a statistics class, and I attend as many lectures as I can. I'm in a group project with five other people, and it's generally just me and another person who attends the lectures needed to understand the assignments. Not surprisingly, the other people are seemingly amazed that we're able to understand the assignments, thinking we're so much smarter than them and that this is why we're carrying the group. But in reality, the true difference is that we went to the lectures and they didn't.

Now, you can argue that we're the one attending the lectures because we have the innate abilities to understand what is being taught in the first place while the others don't. While this could be true, it could also be that they never attended many lectures and therefore never built up the momentum or continuous progression in knowledge. They do admit that attending the lectures helps them understand it at least a little better. And it's not like me and the other person understand everything 100% either. When we're working in the group, we're constantly learning new things, making mistakes, getting stuck, having insights, making adjustments. We feel stupid all the time, but we still work through it.

Truly, if you want to point to an innate factor that is maybe significantly different between us, it's conscientiousness, especially the industriousness part (how much work you're willing to put in), which ties into how many lectures you're willing to attend. But even that can be learned to a large extent. I had to consciously learn how to be this conscientious, or at least how to manifest it in my actions to this extent. Regardless, at least in this situation, it suggests that the main deciding factor is how much work you're willing to put in and the experience you gain from that, rather than innate abilities.

And according to this mathematician, if you're behind when comparing yourself to another person in your class, it only takes two weeks to catch up. How? Well, you're in the same class, and the class requires a certain level of skill to get into (which is specially true for graduate level classes). You've also all been in the class for a relatively short time. There are probably many other factors as well, but you might start to see that the main factor is how much work you're putting in (and how it could easily be just two weeks). So there is hope for my classmates and anybody else who might be struggling in a class.
 
 
This is somewhat related to how sophistry works. When you want to determine if somebody is being coherent but you don't understand them, you go by their level of conviction and other superficial markers like fluency and verbal richness. It's like a back-up plan for when you don't understand someone but you need to know if they can be trusted or not, which is actually very often the case. It's also often required for learning new things. You need to trust in what you're learning before you actually learn it, and if you stop at the first sign of incoherence, you won't learn much of anything.

So ironically, you need to be somewhat complacent with sophistry in order to actually become knowledgeable and to be able to spot sophistry when it truly happens. Knowledge is a Catch-22. And also ironically, the people in my group who don't attend the lectures, need to become complacent with sophistry when it truly matters (during the lectures), and not just when they're in the group listening to those who have attended the lectures. They very often think we're being coherent when we aren't, so in those moments, we're being sophists waiting to be called out.

@ivarmaya Read Ken Wilber's book: The Religion Of Tomorrow, where he lists many of these advanced spiritual traps.

Demonizing pedophilia is wrong, but at the same time we cannot allow adults to have sex with children where the age gap is like 10+ years, as that is very harmful to the children and their inexperience will absolutely get exploited.
That adults can exploit children is not a construct. The construct is that non-mainstream sexual tendencies are wrong or evil in some moral sense.

IQ is a poor measurent of intelligence.
Intelligence has to be redefined so that it's also connected to level of consciousness and level of development. And even moral development should be a factor.
Boiling intelligence down to one's ability to do complex physics calcuations is, ironically, not very intelligent.

Mostly.
Luxury items are mostly scamming your money to sell you a childish fantasy. Watches, clothes, and cars especially. And the more luxury and pricey they are, the more of a scam it is. It's a mind-scam. These brands fool you into thinking these things are important and valuable when they basically aren't.
A $20,000 Rolex is a mind-scam.
Nobody needs these items, they don't even have good build quality, and they won't make you happy.

Of course DMT should be used with harmala extract.
But don't combine it with 5-MeOs.

I've used non-flouride charcoal toothpaste for like 10 years now and I haven't had problems with cavities. I also consume plenty of sugar.
But there is a genetic factor here. Some people have bad teeth genetics.
I would say, experiment with more kinds of toothpaste until you find something that suits you.
You can also go to the dentist and get your teeth sealed with a compound that prevents cavities from forming. Ask your dentist about it.