Joshe

No statement from the family and no confirmation from law enforcement? And the idea that he couldn't get his friend in on it is laughable. Connor is on video admitting that he tried to get his family to play along with his first hoax. And now you're gonna trust the friend of Connor Murphy??? lol. Fool me once. I'll wait for law enforcement confirmation. I think these hoaxes are a way of dealing with the shame of his psychosis. A hope for some kind of reset more so than a stunt for attention, but he bills it as a ploy for attention because the shame of "I'm a total psycho and I've humiliated myself to the max and I need a reset" is too much to bear.

Ok, so, your position seems to be: he's just an ambitious guy and as far as high ambition goes, he's normal for that ambition tier. He's sometimes abusive and wrong because hey, we're all human. For you, these cover the elevation, the denigration, and the absurd claims, and that's about all there is to it? If these things were only once in a while, then I'd agree that this is just a normal ambitious human with normal human faults, but the patterns suggest otherwise. It's possible to be highly ambitious and not be an asshole and to think you're better than everyone else. And it's possible to admit when you're wrong. We all naturally want and expect these things from our day-to-day relations with those we interact with. When someone fails at one, we don't like it. When they fail at all 3, we really don't like it. If someone were demonstrating this pattern in your personal life, you probably wouldn't like them very much. This just led me to an interesting inquiry. Maybe some people are just more sensitive to such things:

Oh, fuck yeah. They just extended it to July 12.

We got until July 7 before they move it to API pricing. You got 6 days to get as much from it as you can.

Peas in a pod

I think my read is more accurate. Too charitable. He's not merely acting from some "I refuse to engage reactive critics" principle. Why couldn't someone just come out and say they were wrong if the critic was reactive or not? Are they denying their audience that to spite the reactive critics? Leo doesn't have an "inability to entertain reactive criticism". He has a defense mechanism that skirts accountability by telling him his standards are too high to be engaging with the likes of the critic. It's a double-duty defense mechanism that 1, dodges accountability that would threaten his elevation, and 2, affirms his "high standards", which affirms his idealized self, which reminds him that he is above and the other is below.

No problem. Not if you've done "the work", lol. Isn't this what "deconstructing" is about? To see your invisible structures and to transcend or drop them? Or do we consider that not fundamental to "the work"? For me, it's fundamental. Leo's denigration is structural. The need to be above others is structural. The inability to own error and fallibility is structural. The "high standards" masquerading as instruments for a cosmic trajectory is structural. You can say "but this is normal and it's the way your life energy activates and sustains a pursuit". And that's true, but what I'm doing is deconstructing it. I've deconstructed my own shit, and as a result, lost a lot. I'm no longer ambitious because I found the unconscious root from which ambition grew. I don't like that I no longer have much ambition. Seeing the truth cost me that. I consider this kind of work fundamental, not something you can just put on the back burner and go looking for God, although I may be wrong. You can't build a brand on "doing the work of deconstructing the ego" and then not deconstruct your own. Or maybe at some point "transcending the ego" got put on the back burner and exotic states took front and center. But my main point is not how Leo wants to live and run his business. If everyone here showed self-respect, didn't let Leo get away with denigrating them and if 5-10 people routinely chimed in with "not cool" when Leo denigrates someone, as opposed to just staying silent, and if the sycophants were rightly mocked, then Leo's behavior wouldn't be as big of a deal to point out IMO. Although it would still warrant some light mocking, lol.

Hard disagree. Leo denigrates everything, all the way down to music. He once said he and his gf were listening to some "cheap pop music", lol. The Expansive type develops so-called "standards" not from benign ambition, but from the need to be better than others. You can look into Karen Horney's work on the Expansive solution if you'd like to bring Leo into focus. I saw the shape of the Expansive type in Leo before discovering Horney, which is what led me to discovering her work. Type this into your AI: In Karen Horney's work, what purpose does "high standards" serve for the Expansive solution? And this: In Karen Horney's work, why does the Expansive type denigrate things and people? This is the root: Remember, Leo's favorite book is/was "Mastery" That's just a taste. Again, I saw these shapes in Leo before I ever found Horney. Her work largely converged on everything I was tracking. It comes down to being able to track what's actually happening in reality. Look into the "idealized self" if you want to understand these types who think they're "all about the work".

When I watch Leo denigrate people and then when I watch people ignore it like nothing wrong is happening, that’s what triggers me. I don’t want anything from Leo - he is what he is. Just like I don’t want anything from Trump. I just want the people to wake the fuck up and see who their leaders really are. What I want is for the community to stop just watching the abuse and sweeping it under the rug like you’re doing here. It should be called out. And one should keep a running tally of how many times Leo denigrates someone else or another group. His messaging seems a 45-45-10 split between denigration, grandiosity, and some semblance of caring about something other than himself. You’re free to ignore these patterns and you’re free to turn them into things they’re not because you’re biased, but if you track reality, you don’t easily ignore it. When you realize the absurdity of some of Leo’s position and his immaturity, he comes down off your pedestal. He’s no longer worth “looking up to” and you lose your ability to simply trust what he’s saying. You become less biased and stop taking him at his word. Again, I don’t want anything from Leo. He can be an ambitious asshole like Michael Jordan or whatever, don’t care, lost cause. What I want is for people to have some goddamn self-respect and every time Leo denigrates someone, he should be denigrated himself, mocked, and ridiculed for it rather than people sweeping it under the rug and apologizing and being subservient. Because that’s how you correct bad behavior. But I’m aware that’s adjacent to asking Trump supporters to see what they refuse to. What do you think is the reason for all these negative Leo threads? Could it be Leo’s karma coming back to bite him in the ass? Could it be that you don’t just get to denigrate people freely without it coming back around?

Just a few hours left. Better max out what you can. Still not even at 50% usage. Gonna be a late night.

Crank these up: "likes people to admire him" -> "Needs people to admire him" "overconfident" -> "claims to be the best in the world" "sometimes abusive" -> "nearly always abusive in contexts where someone disagrees with him about something he cares about" You could argue the first one but those last two are demonstrable, and real problems. Regarding the cult accusation, I'm not sure where I land on that. I do think there's a selection effect that happens where if a user validates or positively engages with Leo's pet ideas, they get his approval. But if they're critical of them, which is necessary to evaluate them, then they're almost always denigrated. The only way to be in the good graces is to be servile. That selection effect is mostly what contributes to the cult vibe IMO.

lol, that was great. 100% something Donald would say.

lol. Probably.

Online is a pipe dream but live games are easy. I haven’t played in several years but since the dream of being a pro has died down, I’m betting the games are easier. Play loose and aggressive against tight players, tight against loose-agro and see as many flops as you can in cheap and loose passive games. With that, being perceptive, and bankroll management, I think this is sufficient to win 1-2 and 2-5 live. Full exploitative, no GTO crazy stuff like you need online. Only thing is you need to be close to a casino and it’ll be a grind.

If the pollster thinks the margin of error on this question is 3%, you can’t trust them. The “social desirability bias” on this question, ESPECIALLY on the 250th anniversary, would be through the ruff.

That’s badass.

That’s where I’ve arrived as well, thanks for articulating this. Seeking god or truth is a meaning-making activity and people fail to understand you find that which you seek. Seek meaning in truth/god, and you will find it. Or more accurately, construct it the same way any meaning is constructed. No matter your collection of insights or truths and your conviction of them based on how they make you feel or what logic you’ve put together, they’ll never cash out to more than experiences that give you meaning, pass the time, and if you’re lucky, make you feel good. I see it mostly a hedonistic pursuit that simultaneously attempts to manage terror. Put in AO terms: survival. AO is quick to put other unconscious survival mechanisms under the microscope, but never its own. Maybe deep spirituality is just a pursuit for meaning and terror management. Consciousness is like a canvas. The floor is total stillness. Those painting on the canvas are trying to paint pictures that allow them to penetrate beneath the floor because the stillness isn’t exciting enough, no opportunity for something interesting and novel. So they spend years constructing their own elaborate creations and eventually claim they have the proof that their construction has penetrated the floor, all the while oblivious that their so-called truth is a construction, a figment painted on the canvas of consciousness.

No, but it's probably 10x cheaper right now than it will be after the 7th.

When I think of how to do this with a girl, I find it difficult to come up with a way that wouldn’t be considered cringe by most girls. Staring deep into their eyes and talking about building castles and things like this would be really hard to do without coming off as cringe. It’s possible to bring them into your world, but you’re gonna need some tact, which I wouldn’t think of as manipulation or inauthenticity, but more like building a bridge, and the construction starts where they are. For most girls, you can’t just have them stare at a sunset and gaze deep into their eyes and start talking about castles without some serious tact.

Thanks @cetus Yep, I’m all good. I can discuss these things without distress of any kind, other than failure to transfer my points, haha. Appreciate it!

We're running in circles and I'm over here explaining how basic influence works because you failed to answer yes to this question: "Would you agree that suicide-permission messaging broadcast at volume to a receptive audience pushes the number up?" And if you don't like that one, omit the descriptor: "Would you agree that suicide messaging broadcast at volume to a receptive audience pushes the number up?" Yes or no? If your answer is "no", then for the argument to continue, I would have to explain how influence works, but I'm not super excited about that, lol. Not sure how you deduced my logic leads there. Do you think I'm saying Leo is directly responsible for specific suicides? I'm making an entirely different argument: Leo's and AO's stance and rhetoric is "contributory". Was Netflix DIRECTLY responsible for suicides? No, it doesn't work like that because suicide is a process. If the suicide motive is to end suffering, that process is largely a building up of courage, reasons, and other collections of ideas and thought experiments like what-if scenarios and things like this. The process is unpredictable and volatile. Say you're online and come across someone who says they want to end it and you tell them "stop bitching and do it already", then they do it. Are you responsible? Not DIRECTLY, but you contributed. I'm simply saying to stop contributing because you never know where someone is in the process or how they’ll use your ideas. Leo's "only one way to find out" was tossing a match into a tinderbox and if the user was at a low enough point, it could have supplied them the spark they needed, depending on their circumstances at the time of reading the message. Maybe they just finished fighting with their family and maybe they were drunk and then someone they respect says "only one way to find out", then that's enough for them. This is how this stuff works. You can rarely, if ever, point to one specific thing. If you don't think Netflix is responsible in any way shape or form, I'm not going to be able to get through to you. Lol, nah bruh, too much mess.

I'm guessing you could get $2,000 worth or more by paying the $200 for the claude max subscription.

Haha, nah. It's basically the best AI coding agent we've ever had access to. It can basically build most any type of app you want. I just had it build a screen measuring tool for my work

I'm confused. I wonder if you've misinterpreted something I said because what I'm saying is very basic. Why does Coke pay Kim Kardashian 100k to sip on a Coke during her live stream? And why is it that the more influencers you get doing that, the more Cokes get sold? If you're trying to say something like "We can't prove that any one specific individual is drinking Coke because of Kim Kardashian's influence", then yeah, you're right, and I don't need to because that's not my claim. My claim is that the more influencers drink Coke, the more Cokes get sold. This is not up for debate. Now, swap out Cokes for permissive-suicide messaging. The more influencers offering those messages, the more suicides will occur. This is a provable fact in behavioral science literature. It has to do with your specific claim of "No one would even consider suicide unless they're going through unbearable suffering." And I gave you a specific example that makes the falsehood clear. I could provide many more examples. For instance, a man crushed by debt and worried about his family and so he offs himself so they can get the insurance money. Or he offs himself because the thought of being a failure seems unbearable because he doesn't yet know how to deal with the feeling of being a failure. Or how about Hitler, was he in unbearable suffering when he pulled the trigger? How about a 15 year old girl caught up social media and feeling like she's not beautiful and she's isolated and wants the suffering to stop. That's not unbearable, inescapable suffering. It's a hard time that she can make it through, and her environmental influences can either contribute to seeing her through or contribute to her ending it all. Obviously, there are different motives for suicide, but you're right that I'm specifically talking about suffering. But it seems you're collapsing or equivocating "objectively unbearable" and "subjectively unbearable". The majority I've been speaking of feel that it's "subjectively unbearable", as in, they can't imagine a way out. They're suffering from thoughts and feelings, not from truly unbearable, debilitating pain. These are exactly the types of people most susceptible to harm from suicide-permissive messaging and they can, and obviously ARE influenced all the time. Lol, you serious bro? I ain't even touchn' this one. See, this is why I've been confused this whole time. When you look at Leo's response there and call it terrible, as in "the messaging has a negative effect", you're AGREEING with me because you know that it's exactly what I've been calling it: common sense. That's what it is, and you just arrived at it without a study.

No dude, I was asking you what kind of shady stuff do you think is happening with anonymous communication? I was interested if you had any interesting theories. I've noticed you bringing up this topic often. I'm starting to get the sense that you think people aren't real (bots) or you think people are running multiple accounts or something. You made a statement. I'm asking you to elaborate. Unless you just like tossing random statements out and not wanting them to be engaged. That's fine too.