Joshe

I disagree with Leo here. I've managed to avoid the trap. I've been popular throughout several chapters of my life, so I know what it's like to ride high on that. I don't miss it and I don't want it back. It's all fake bullshit. All selfishness from everyone involved. If you can see that, it's not alluring nor appealing. But I guess you also need wisdom and integrity to go with the awareness.

Not unhinged, but kind of trying to force his way of life or his crusade onto another who clearly didn't want to answer the question of what his pronouns were. I too would be caught off guard if someone asked me what my pronouns were. It's too presumptuous, intrusive, and even disrespectful. A more respectful question would be "Do you prefer specific pronouns?". Vaush isn't an example of the blue-haired SJW Ben Ship likes to belittle for profit, but he is an example of wokeism and I think maybe even more representative of the ideology than the blue hair caricatures. I somewhat like Vaush for his candor and quit wit, but he's clearly a culture warrior. Also, his masculinity mostly disappears in social settings, which is interesting. He turns from hardass to cheerfully giddy.

🤣

I don't think you're employing it, but I think you've unwittingly fell for it. How else would one arrive at the position that RFK's ideas are just as credible/valid as top-notch scientists? How else would one vote for a guy who did everything in his power to steal the 2020 election and who will spend the next 4 years fabricating evidence to justify it? The reasons and justifications you present to support your stance all seem to be explained by the notion of "post-truth". I'm still exploring the idea, but so far, it's tracking really well. I can't believe it took me so long to come across this idea. I mean no disrespect here. I'm just saying what things seem like to me.

I'm pretty sure it's not just meant as "audience capture". For example, the algorithms facilitate alliances as well, but I need to look into his concept more.

It's not taken the wrong way at all. I don't mind being challenged or questioned. It might not seem like it, but I'm careful with what I consider to be true. Most of my judgements on this topic are probabilistic, but there are some things I know to be true that others might find it impossible to believe I could know. It can seem like I'm full of shit or just arrogantly assuming things if prerequisite truths are unknown by the observer. In the grand scheme, no one can definitively say how Trump or Kamala would impact the world. This kind of relativism is the sneaky game being played and it's being used to undermine truth. It undermines critical thinking and blurs the lines between valid assessments and subjective opinions. This I know to be 100% true. This game was played by big tobacco in the 50s. Big oil plays it, hiring think tanks and scientists to do research that sows doubt on actual scientific fact. The same thing is occurring with the embrace of RFK. Relativism is being used to diminish truth and reason. Here's an example of this if you're interested in seeing through it: And if you want a deep dive: https://www.audible.com/pd/Post-Truth-Audiobook/B07CH1GW9M?source_code=ASSGB149080119000H&share_location=pdp "Publisher's summary What, exactly, is post-truth? Is it wishful thinking, political spin, mass delusion, bold-faced lying? McIntyre analyzes recent examples - claims about inauguration crowd size, crime statistics, and the popular vote - and finds that post-truth is an assertion of ideological supremacy by which its practitioners try to compel someone to believe something regardless of the evidence. Yet post-truth didn't begin with the 2016 election; the denial of scientific facts about smoking, evolution, vaccines, and climate change offers a road map for more widespread fact denial. Add to this the wired-in cognitive biases that make us feel that our con9clusions are based on good reasoning even when they are not, the decline of traditional media and the rise of social media, and the emergence of fake news as a political tool, and we have the ideal conditions for post-truth. McIntyre also argues provocatively that the right wing borrowed from postmodernism - specifically, the idea that there is no such thing as objective truth - in its attacks on science and facts. McIntyre argues that we can fight post-truth, and that the first step in fighting post-truth is to understand it."

I picked up a new, useful term from that YouTuber, Vlad, whose videos Leo often shares. "Algorithmic Drift" I think these heuristics are mostly sufficient for predicting one's susceptibility to it: Who they're buddies with Who/what they admire Who/what they're most critical of Who/what they're most sympathetic towards How much they sweep devilry and falsehood under the rug Minimizing falsehood or not being bothered by it (Lex Fridman)

I've wondered why things that are clear as day to me go unnoticed by others. I used to think it was a matter of intellect, analysis, or bias, and it can be, but how do you explain how intelligent people miss what appears to be very obvious? I think it has to do with intuition. People lacking intuition have to rely on thinking to see things, whereas good intuition can serve things up on a platter.

Most Americans could care less if some politician cares about them. What the left failed at was not centering their campaign around dismantling post-truth. The American people hopped on the post-truth bus and they're enjoying the ride. That's why Trump won. Because the people can't discern truth from falsehood. This is nothing new. The only thing new about it was the successful attacks on truth from on high. THAT's what happened. How do you explain the people electing a guy when they all knew he tried to steal an election? The answer: lies, obfuscation of truth, and falsehood. The mechanism: a relentless assault on critical thinking and shared reality, fueled by a media landscape that rewards sensationalism over substance. Social media algorithms amplify disinformation, creating echo chambers where belief becomes fact, and fact becomes irrelevant. Politicians and oligarchs exploit this chaos, sowing confusion and mistrust to solidify power. The result: a population unable or unwilling to separate reality from the narratives they’re fed. Truth wasn’t just ignored, it was dismantled. And the people turned a blind eye to it. The point: This is the truth that should frame all analysis, because it's actually why Trump won. If everyone accepted the truth of Trump, he wouldn't stand a chance. CLEARLY!

Why brainwashing? Why wouldn't the next developmental milestone be reached the way they usually are? Which is to suffer the consequences of our ignorance until we see our error. The so-called "woke" contagion has been surmounted by the post-truth contagion, which is a much more transmissible and toxic virus and much less detectable, allowing it to seep deep into the collective psyche. Unlike its predecessor, the post-truth contagion operates covertly, eroding shared realities by fostering confusion, mistrust, and relativism. "By exploiting cognitive biases and the echo chambers of digital media, it creates a fragmented society where individuals become isolated in their own constructed truths. This insidious process not only undermines dialogue and critical thinking but also weaponizes skepticism, turning it into a tool for division rather than understanding. As the boundaries between fact and fiction blur, the post-truth contagion threatens the very foundations of collective decision-making, governance, and social cohesion." Racism and bigotry should be the least of your concerns. We’ve fallen so far backward that standard fare selfishness like racism and bigotry barely scratches the surface of the chaos we’re up against now.

I found a similar line of inquiry useful. On both sides of consciousness, there is nothing, yet here you are. It’s intuitive to me that if I arose from nothing and will go back to it, I would only arise from nothing again, just as I already have. No thing can exist outside of consciousness, including death and non-existence.

Yeah, it’s not very appealing. It seems well-suited for anal retentive sadists.

@Emerald haha, yeah, that’s definitely going on, but it does exist. Someone like Vaush comes to mind. He once invited another YouTuber on for a chat and Vaush asked for the guy’s name and pronouns. The guy respectfully responded with his name only and redirected quickly as to avoid awkwardness. Vaush immediately pushed him again for his pronouns and the guy tactfully redirected again and Vaush went for a third and final push to get the guy’s pronouns. Lol. This is the type of person I would call woke. I know it’s largely used as a bogeyman, but it does exist. What I’m trying to figure out is how prevalent it is. Since I first became aware of it, I’ve believed it doesn’t exist in large enough numbers to warrant a top spot in public discourse, but I sometimes wonder if my intuition is wrong when I hear people like Sam Harris discuss its dangers.

Nice. Thanks for the info. This is what I've been wondering. It doesn't seem like a very appealing ideology. I mean, I can see how people get on board with it, but it doesn't seem to have any real staying power. That combined with I don't see it much IRL, makes me question it's prevalence. I don't get out much these days so it could be widespread AFAIK, but something about that idea just doesn't seem right.

I don't claim to have or aim for a balanced understanding of Musk. My goal was to analyze specific details to assess his integrity. I don’t need to know everything about him to answer "How integrous is he?". This question alone was all I cared about. When I arrived at the answer "He's not integrous", I didn't feel a need to balance that out by seeing his good side. It seems that because you prefer a full, comprehensive understanding, you don't like the idea of a targeted analysis. It's like you assume my narrower focus on particulars inherently leads to a flawed conclusion. The way I see it, the depth of inquiry should match the question you're asking. If your goal is to evaluate a specific trait like integrity, a comprehensive understanding of Musk is not required. A targeted approach is not only sufficient, but much more efficient.

I sense this is his primary driver as well, but I think Leo's read that he's largely motivated by power is also accurate. The right gives him both. Yes, it was clear he was such a character. I was confused as to how it went unnoticed.

Compile a comprehensive list of questions that can be applied to each political ideology. Ideally, plug those questions in a Claude Project for quick analysis. Maybe questions like this: What is X? Provide modern day examples of what it looks like in real life. What are the foundational beliefs and principles that define X? What other ideologies tend to cluster with X? What are the core values of X ideology? How to steelman and strawman X? Are specific cultures predisposed to X? A key thing to understand is that most people are not political, but everyone has inherent tendencies and influences that predispose them to particular ideologies, and all it takes is a big event or some propaganda to arouse their political energy. You can't really understand the ideologies without knowing about the fuel that propels them.

😂 I remember this. To be fair, new information has come to light, but even still, I knew back then the devil that was Musk and I knew he was capable of exactly what he now is, and that it was even likely he would stoop to such a low. I remember arguing that you can use analysis and intuition to see this truth, but Leo and Aurum called me a biased stage green hippy. 😂

lol, no. Of course I wouldn't set out to go to a cave and abandon all earthly things (although I did want that in my mid 20's), but I might be compelled to such extremes if I allowed spiritual development to proceed. I already live in awareness that it's all an illusion. I've already gone meta on so much that I intuit anymore could be destabilizing. I think further development has its pros and cons but I'm just taking it slow for now, and I think a spiritual force is at play in making me feel this way.

It will be interesting to see how Trump's new cult members respond to their indoctrination and which cohorts emerge. One such cohort is the UFC crowd. When Trump first started showing up, Rogan would only shake his hand—now he goes in for full hugs.

If I developed it, I might stop caring about money and my family would suffer. This is just one example of many things that could go wrong. I can't see how it's beneficial to anyone but me. I could feel more free, more love, more at peace, and enjoy life more if I practiced, but I think it would make me ineffective, passive, and really just not fit to operate in this world. It just seems self-serving. I'm sure this take isn't appreciated by many. lol. Don't get me wrong, I know it's nice, but so are opiates. I do want to push the limits before I die, but it's too early for that.

In the spirit of democracy? 😂In the spirit of Democracy, you don't try to steal an election, and if you do, you should never be allowed in politics again. That's the spirit of democracy. I'm sorry if I was disrespectful. It just seems REALLY absurd to me that you think Trump's opponents should show him some respect and do what he wants them to do. He's the most disrespectful person our politics has ever seen, and you want the people he disrespected the most to cater to him. Do you think it would come easy to cater to a guy who tried to steal the last election? For people who don't sweep this under the rug, it would never seem like the right thing to do to assist Trump in anything. You have very high standards you'd like the Dems to meet but it seems they don't apply to the Reps. hmm. I don't see it. I don't know that Trump wouldn't give the greenlight on the same thing Biden did. I can't say it's unlikely or likely. It might seem counterintuitive, but like I said, the situation is complex and there is much information we don't have. For all you know, NOT giving the green light poses more risk to WW3 than giving it. My point is, people like to sit back and observe complex situations with not even 5% of the information they would need for good analysis, and then jump to conclusions. That is the fallacy. Also, earlier, you mentioned something like "it's not a very satisfying answer", which makes me think you would like a satisfactory answer. I'm not saying this is going on with you but this is the very psychological mechanism that leads people to seek certainty in situations where there simply isn't enough information to warrant it. People like clear, black-and-white answers, especially in complex and high-stakes scenarios. This craving for clarity often pushes people to oversimplify, ignore nuance, and cling to narratives that confirm their biases, instead of accepting the reality of uncertainty. And they do it all to serve themselves. Again, I'm not saying you're doing that, but it seems like it's possible.

Trump isn't president yet. Should Biden just stop making all decisions right now if they aren't in alignment with Trump's will? Do you see how absurd this is? Also, do you assume Trump and Biden are collaborating and Trump has told Biden his intentions? And if that were the case, do you think Biden could trust the guy who lies every time he speaks? And then you also think these two totally opposed people should play well together? You voted in Trump. You can forget about civility, respect, and the right thing being done. How do you know Trump wouldn't give the same green light Biden did? You cannot know because you don't have the info.

I'm 100% sure the materialist paradigm is false. They have not debunked spirituality and they never can. I don't expect science to contend with spirituality. Science's spiritual ignorance is irrelevant in the material world. Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled studies are just the starting point. The real data comes in after the product ships. The scientific evidence available shows that RFK's claims are fundamentally flawed in both scale and scope. This notion that because science is spiritually ignorant, it's not all it's cracked up to be, could easily be used to deceive yourself and to minimize its importance. You don't want random quacks taking guesses at what they think is healthy for you, do you? "Hey, might as well, because science don't know everything. Let's try this one guy's hunch, even though actual scientists in the field all agree it's dangerous." Which do you prefer? RFK or real scientists? C'mon man! I've seen through the illusion and it can't be unseen. I know what it's about, for the most part. I tread carefully with spirituality and try not to intellectualize it too much. I think I have a natural gift for it but I don't want to develop it any further than what I have because I don't know where it will lead. If all the people on earth disappear tomorrow, I would then spend the rest of my life practicing spirituality, but the world doesn't need people sitting on cushions at the moment. I was initially driven to spirituality through sheer curiosity and a lack of meaning and purpose. Now, I can see that the pursuit or attainment of spirituality is just an experience, like any other experience. I might find beautiful things there, and I have, and I might experience extraordinary phenomena and I might see even deeper truths than than what I already have, but these things do not excite me so much anymore. It's like how the magic trick loses its appeal when you see how it is done. It almost seems like hedonism and only necessary if one needs to relieve themselves of life's burden.

Dude, think about this statement: The incoming administration's intentions are to end the fighting and negotiate peace. I'm sure the existing administration and administrations all across the land have these intentions as well... but what good are they? How do you manifest it in reality? What is there to negotiate? Have Ukraine give up their territory? Give Putin something else of value? You don't negotiate with terrorists because it sets a precedent that weakens your entire position going forward. Jordan Peterson said in this clip there's a high probability the war will end sooner after Trump gets in office. You have to be an absolute fool to make this statement without insider knowledge. Maybe JP has Putin's personal number, like Musk. Maybe they've already worked out a backroom deal to make Trump look like he solved the great problem of our time. If the war ends as soon as Trump gets in and Putin goes home empty-handed, it will be because Putin wants to strengthen Trump's position. That's the only way that happens, otherwise, Putin ain't going home empty-handed.