Joshe

It’s so easy to forget how many good people there are in this world. The comment section will make you weep.

I think it was earlier today, he sat down to have a serious discussion with MTG. 😂

Anyone notice how every mainstream news outlet is being unusually generous and hospitable to the republicans and the RNC? Are they just covering their asses or could it be that they’re acting nice as a tactic to show as many people as possible what an absolute clown show is taking place? Seems unlikely. But I am starting to think this RNC publicity could be negative for Rs. A lot of the MAGA I know would be embarrassed by MGT and the other clowns. They’ll support Trump all day but the others aren’t gonna cut it. When they watch Marjorie TG and her absurd performance and then see Matt Geatz come out looking like Dolly Pardon, and then to listen to Kerry Lake do a short speech with the attitude of a joyous Christian with a soft and loving tone, then, keeping that tone, transition into a confrontational attack on members of the media… it seems embarrassing.

Dana White and Hulk Hogan are the warm-up acts before the grand finale. What do all 3 have in common? Key figures in serving low-brow entertainment to the masses. We're finally here:

Thanks everybody. I really appreciate all your responses and will consider each of them. While going over them briefly, I realized if I want to have more say so over what goes on in this mind, I'll need a much more targeted approach than what I originally had in mind. @Sine Thank you for the info on DBT. Never heard of it before.

Just discovered this: https://kitted.app/snare/the-curse-of-knowledge/0018 Which also had this card right below it... reminded me of Leo

I'm interested in your motives here and rather than spend an hour digging through my intuition and fumbling my way through articulating them, I've used ChatGPT to outline them. "Your interpretation adds an interesting layer to the discussion, highlighting a possible strategic motive behind preferring video debates. It suggests a focus on the performative aspects of debate rather than purely on the merit of ideas themselves. Here are a few points that unpack this perspective further: Strategic Advantage: By shifting the debate to a video format, the individual may be looking to exploit the common difficulties associated with spontaneous speech, such as hesitation, repetition, and less precise language. These can be portrayed as weaknesses or inconsistencies in an opponent's argument, even if they might simply reflect the normal challenges of real-time thinking. Dominance in Communication: Some individuals thrive in live interaction settings where they can use charisma, assertiveness, or even aggressive tactics that wouldn’t be as effective in written form. This can overshadow the actual strength of their arguments but create a perception of victory based on delivery and confidence. Pressure and Stress: Live debates, especially on video, introduce elements of performance pressure that can fluster even well-prepared individuals. Someone advocating for this format might believe they can handle this pressure better than their opponents, thereby making the opponents appear less capable or credible. Control Over Narrative: In real-time debates, controlling the narrative can sometimes be easier than in written debates, where each party has more time to consider and craft their responses. Quick thinkers can redirect discussions or evade tough questions more fluidly in live interactions, which can be advantageous if the goal is to undermine the other side’s position rather than to engage deeply with the content. " The most charitable interpretation I can give you here is that maybe you believe anti-Trump people such as myself are just dumb ideologues who parrot any talking point we can find to serve our cause. If that's the case and you think you are going to shine a light onto that in real-time, thus reveal there is no substance or merit to any of it, I just don't even know what the fuck to say. I'm currently building a model of Trump apologists and you've helped me to identify another cohort. Thank you.

😂

What about a website that has the receipts of all Trump devilry and you could search the database for “Christian manipulation” or “Violent rhetoric” or “fuck” , lol. Show Christian’s Trump saying the fuck word. They hate that. Maybe have a “featured” section where the most damning receipts are made prominent. Like that time Steve Bannon was recorded articulating how trump was going to act if he lost. Basically, a website with a nice UI, easy to use and one-stop shop for all Trump degeneracy. I think that’d actually be a big hit if it was done right.

Remember that time Trump retweeted this on truth social? Imagine if 2 days after Trump hit the lottery, instead of Biden camp canceling all TV ads, he instead blasted things like this all over social media and the tubes. No messaging needed, and it seems impervious to criticism. I wonder what impact online communities could have if there were a concerted effort to flood the zone with specific things like this at specific times. The Dems appear to be too incompetent to take down Trump. I think a large online coalition is needed. The right works in unison with each other. They're all happy as pigs in shit at this moment. They're all happy, and united, and together. The left is spread out all over the place. They don't concentrate their power or cooperate with each other. Leaving it up to the Democrats doesn't look like it's going to work. I guess the idea is some kind of grassroots movement with the goal of connecting online communities to work in unison to affect the information landscape, maybe through kickstarter or something, if that's still a thing. "The Dems can't stop Trump, but we can", or whatever. Does anyone have any knowledge or ideas around this topic? @Leo Gura Have you happened to put any thought into any strategies that could significantly undermine the Trump movement?

@Nemra To me, they already know everything so you're wrong by default. In the rare occurrences they do say you're right, they don't incorporate it into their sense-making because the reason for their engagement is domination and belittling, not good faith discussion. They only want to attack and be right and give the appearance they are reasonable by every now and then acting like they are being respectful.

This is interesting! Trump actually reads a poem that ends in "You knew I was a snake before you let me in". 😂

Thanks @mrPixel That's an interesting video.

@Merkabah Star I am childish. I will admit. Please don't make fun of me for it. I was thinking there might be some kind of mechanism in place to prevent people from going unhinged AF for no reason and seemingly, intentionally being antagonistic and annoying and communicating in bad faith for the sheer fun of it. But I gotcha, that's not a thing and I should rely on the ignore feature. Thanks!

Steve Schmidt is an interesting character. I like him.

Communication and tact are highly important but the very ignorance that allows for the corruption in the first place, seems to me, of higher importance. As long as the average person doesn't understand basic psychological principles and does nothing to acquire any knowledge of the psyche and the traps it can so easily fall into, it's impossible for them to guard themselves against these "evil factions" that seek to pull their puppet strings. Also, it seems that no amount of good or tactful communication can penetrate some psyches. Maybe we need not only tactful communication, but extreme patience, along with making sure we know what we're talking about. But that is a lot of work. How much of ourselves should we sacrifice trying to contribute to the fixing of our world? I want to answer 100% but it's not that simple.

Why is danioover not banned or at least warned for these behaviors? They constantly argue for argument sake with the goal of being superior It's clear they don't engage in good faith Their rhetoric verges on combative by saying things like "I'm not gonna hurt you, don't run", at the end of unhinged, incoherent rants. They profile stalk in hopes of finding character attacks They are juvenile, comparing their post count to others as a metric to demonstrate their superiority And lots more. Maybe there are circumstances about this character I'm not aware of that makes it best they don't be banned, but if not, it seems at the least, a warning should be in order.

Not everything is a conspiracy bro. I could give two shits about clout on some forum. I just got on this forum the other day when the Trump news came out. Probably had 5 posts before that, over the course of 8 years or however long it's been since the forum started. Look, again, you're reading reality wrong and you're allowing your assumptions to run wild AF with little to no evidence. Just chill. I wouldn't want to be a mod here and I wouldn't even if they begged me to. I just don't care. Relax bro. You read is out of this world wrong. I don't want recognition from a single person here. Let this FACT be a clue to you that you may have a thousands more bricks in your wall of falsehood. Let's go back to not engaging each other.

@Danioover9000 Are you trolling me? Instead of engaging with the main idea, you're throwing insults about how I get my marching orders from Leo. All the while, COMPLETELY avoiding the main idea. Anyway, I gotta get back to work. See ya

@Danioover9000 Here, I'll save you the embarrassment. Also, spare me your adhominems and focus on the point. Here is the problem: Those who don't see Trump as evil are consistently reading reality wrong. Each inaccurate read can be seen as a brick in a wall. These bricks add up over time and reinforce each other. When their wrong reads are pointed out to them, they fortify and entrench by adding more mortar or another brick in the wall. A single brick is easy to destroy when it exists all by itself but when you have 1000 connected bricks, tearing one down is difficult because 999 others help keep it locked in. Removing a single brick from the wall is inconsequential. The only way to tear down your wall of falsehood is by opening your mind. The only way I could assist is if you wanted to tear it down, and of course, you don't, therefore, there is no evidence I can present to you. At best, I will destroy one brick but your wall will stand. But here I am, uselessly banging my head against your brick wall, hoping it will make a difference. Again, please spare me your adhominems. Am I safe to use this brick wall analogy or has Leo mentioned that before too? Edit: Also, Leo does often supply me with words, terms, or phrases that are useful in articulating my existing, original thoughts and so if you think I steal some of his terminology, you are correct. However, he does not give me my positions but rather, reinforces the ones I already have. So it'd be nice if you could understand this as well.

@Danioover9000 you most certainly did not understand my point because you failed to address it. You fail to acknowledge the key point. Can you, right now, without nastiness, articulate to me what my point is?

@Danioover9000 You've never seen Rounders? A "fish" in poker just means incompetent player. I don't think you've understood the main point. I plugged my post into ChatGPT and said "analyze this writing". ChatGPT has correctly interpreted my point. Maybe have a look at it here: https://chatgpt.com/share/6709b94a-c7f1-4fcf-801b-ba5058b2113c Also, I don't consider myself to be highly intelligent and I'm not well-educated but my ability to perceive reality accurately is probably in the 95%+ percentile. Maybe even 99, IDK. I would call this ability a form of intelligence but I'm not well-educated. So I would say you could consider me highly intelligent when it comes to reading reality, but definitely not in terms of cognition and breadth of factual knowledge. I can definitely be wrong about things and often am, but I'm not wrong about this.

@lostingenosmaze In poker, fish have a hard time reading reality accurately. It's not possible to tell a fish how to read reality accurately but it is possible for some fish to have it dawn on them that there is something the winning players can see that they can't, which is GREAT because now the fish can grow. How would I begin to communicate the totality of the vast body of occurrences that, when looked at as a whole by an intelligent person, reveals that Trump is possibly the strongest force for evil currently on the planet? Bringing you specific occurrences doesn't work. It goes something like this: first, you try to pick it apart with logic and reason and when that doesn't work, your mind quickly searches for a both-sides or whataboutism argument and when I deflect those by pointing out fallacy or incomplete information, you start the cycle over again, and so it continues. The end result is usually you become more entrenched in your position. For you or anyone trying to understand what all the fuss is and why intelligent people harp on Trump, it's because, there is something you are not seeing. I'm not using "intelligent" here as a flex or a way to demean but rather, a hint. Why is it that many highly intelligent people consider Trump as dangerous as they do? They might see something you can't, which means it's possible for you to discover what that is... if you try.

I'm sorry, I was hoping my hypothetical thought experiment would do the trick but I guess not. It doesn't have to do with policy or even if he did good because you wouldn't discuss the good policies of the Devil himself, would you? No, you would know the Devil was going to trick you and in the end, it wouldn't be good for you, right? But the problem is, when you look at Trump, you don't see it. So why is that I see it, Leo sees it, and many other intelligent people see it, and they yell from the fucking rooftops about it? Is it because they have TDS or because they're "on the left"? No. We can't catalogue for you every single observation of Trump and point to the evidence of his devilry and we can't swat down every incorrect read you might have. I guess that's the problem. If you can't see it for yourself, we're just stuck wishing you could, but I'm exhausted on this topic TBH.

Conspiracy mind is coming back. Why can't they find anything on the shooter? Or if they have found it, is it normal for them to withhold it for this long? It seems that if they found something, they might throw at least a bone to the media but nothing of substance has came out. Anyone got any knowledge in this area?