Joshe

All businesses come with challenges. If it were easy, everyone would do it. There is such a thing as objectivity and it is possible to adhere to it. You just gotta have vision and drive to know how. Of course, many people wouldn't trust it, but over time, you'd develop a reputation which could speak for itself. This is actually a fucking brilliant idea. People are in need. Their loved ones are sending their hard-earned cash to Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson and buying golden sneakers and Trump NFTs. If this trend continues, there will be a huge opportunity to solve that problem.

@What Am I Thanks for answering. Just a few thoughts and I'll leave you alone. There is never a singular cause for a thing, but weights can be applied to the variables, and if you think the variable that is Trump gets 10% weight, there is an error somewhere in your logic, which, just guessing, might be found in your interpretation of what you think is a planet-wide phenomenon. Is it possible the entire planet was influenced by what they were seeing happen in America? "Shit, if America is the most developed country in the world, and they condone behavior like that, we can too!" Monkey see, monkey do. No? Just hold it as a hypothesis. There is no mysterious phenomenon sweeping the globe. What is going on here is an exploit. Common people do have legitimate grievances, which ideally, would be addressed by their government, but that's not the case, is it? We don't have governments that can be good to them in the way they want. The system is currently immature and corruption is spreading. The reason people are now fed up with the system is because, unlike in the past, there's now a vast network of computers by which information flows. Now that the people have access to information, the entire game has changed. When Player A finds out what Player B is up to and Player B recognizes it, Player B has to adapt new strategies. So, the politicians get sneakier. Over time, the masses catch on, very slowly, and when they do, the politicians have to become even sneakier. The public intuits this and they don't like it. And THIS is what Trump exploited, and in turn, revealed the exploit to others. Trump tricked people into thinking he cared about them and stamping out corruption. The whole world was watching it unfold and media companies and politicians across the globe were taking notes. That is how I would explain the phenomenon. The people have been exploited but they have not yet recognized it. By the time they do, the wolves will have already adapted their strategy. Because that's how the game works. It's all one big exploit.

Yeah, that's my read too. We might get lucky though. I think whoever the replacement is would need to move fast, before losing too much steam. I think many on the right are fatigued and the longer the new avatar waits to appear, the more cult members will go home. The proud boys types ain't going anywhere. I think the most feasible is that Vivek and Carlson team up. Both are incredibly good bullshitters, one in politics, the other in media. Between Vivek, Tucker, Elon, and Joe Rogan, the whole thing could be kept alive but I think many women will say "fuck this". Either way, I've been brainstorming business ideas around fucking up their entire game. Here's a couple interesting ideas that I bet would bring value:

The anti-establishment movement, which is stupid AF and comprised of idiots, was largely ushered in by Trump. Trump showed the various media markets just how many dumbasses were ripe for fleecing, and grifters acted quick to gain position. The information landscape and institutional integrity across all government sectors has been significantly damaged by this movement. When some people acknowledge this, it bothers them, and the expression of that bother is what you call "TDS". If you care about those systems and the people that comprise it, you would condemn Trumpism yourself.

@What Am I With respect, I think your convenient centrism is clouding your perception. I wasn't interested in debating what Trumpism is in this thread, so I don't want to go that deep, but one aspect of your sense-making that's preventing you from seeing what Trumpism is, is that you make no distinction between biased criticism (think MSNBC) and intelligent criticism of Trump. You lump it all together as TDS. Another thing preventing you from seeing what is true is you've conveniently avoided answering certain questions. Can you answer this question: What is Trumpism? Is this your answer?: "Fundamentally, it's an anti-establishment movement comprised of ordinary Americans who are fed up with the status quo and the elites hoarding all the wealth and power and Trump is just the current avatar at the head of that movement". That is but a small aspect of Trumpism and it's not completely accurate. You can take this view and situate it inside a larger view. Maybe this anecdote can expand things: I personally know many Trump supporters. Before Trump, they were not anti-establishment. They were not political AT ALL. Did daddy Trump come in and give a voice to their needs, or did he come in and dangle red meat before them, which they stared at in amazement, frothing at the mouth, orgasming every time Trump said "fuck you" out loud. Because before Trump, these people who I know, they were not ideological anti-establishment lunatics. They were relatively peaceful, non-combative, and non-argumentative. Now, they're not. They did not exist in their current form before Trump. If you honestly answer the question: "What changed the people?" and if you're developed enough and don't cling to cherished beliefs that protect you, and if you answer the question in earnest, you should experience some degree of disgust. That disgust is what you currently mistake as "TDS".

This is interesting: https://virtualtout.com/ Prediction of a Democratic landslide: The forecast shifted to a Democratic landslide after the Trump-Harris debate on September 10. Difference in methodology: The Virtual Tout® uses prediction markets, not polls, for forecasts. Polls reflect past sentiments, while prediction markets anticipate future events, akin to stock markets predicting economic trends. Impact of Trump’s legal issues: Trump’s legal affairs, like the delay in his sentencing in the New York “hush money” case, influenced a drop in forecasted Electoral College votes for Democrats. Effect of key events on election forecasts: September 10 debate between Trump and Harris (67.1 million viewers) shifted predicted votes significantly in favor of the Democrats. Taylor Swift endorsed Harris on the same day, further increasing Democratic votes. Media coverage and campaign messaging: Headlines on September 12 emphasized stark differences in messaging: Trump: "U.S. Is Failing" Harris: "There’s Hope" Billie Eilish endorsement Federal Reserve's interest rate cut: On September 18, the Fed's half-point rate cut was the first since the pandemic and is expected to boost economic growth in late 2024. Electoral College forecasts (September 1–18): September 1: Harris/Walz (374) vs. Trump/Vance (164). September 10: Harris/Walz (400) vs. Trump/Vance (138). September 18: Harris/Walz (449) vs. Trump/Vance (89). Market trading volume spikes: Significant trading volumes were seen in prediction markets on July 21 (Biden withdrew from the race) and September 10 (Trump-Harris debate and Swift's endorsement). Dramatic shift in forecasts: Predictions moved from a possible Republican landslide in mid-July to a Democratic landslide in just a few months. Updates until election day: The Virtual Tout® will continue tracking and publishing daily forecasts based on prediction market prices until November 5, 2024.

😂Next-level koan right there!

I've never tuned in but I imagine the same reason he was a hit on Fox. His content seems to mostly be about: Condemnation of threatening worldviews and cultures. Outrage tactics. Playing this game of "We're right and righteous and must stand against evil" Basically, an opportunistic, ideological rabble-rouser. I understand the appeal of this and why it worked on Fox, due to all the old boomers watching cable TV, but I was surprised about him being a success on Spotify, where I assumed most of their users are on the younger side, which may be inaccurate. But if it's not, that means it's not just mostly boomers tuning in. If he's #3 on Spotify, I assume he has the ears of large swaths of youngsters, which wasn't the case on Fox, I don't believe. Anything I'm missing?

Of course he'd peddle addictive toxins to the youth. I can't believe this guy hovers around #1 on Spotify.

I don't have an answer but here's my 2 cents: You could place a trail camera there to record the fall. No one would witness it but the camera would still show the tree falling. Wherever you go, that's what you'll see. If you go to the edge of the universe, there will be things there. Those things don't exist until you go there. Wherever you go, there will be some reality there. What is under a rock? You have to go look to experience it. Whether you go to the forest to watch the tree fall or set up a camera to record it, it can only be witnessed if you go to the camera or to the forest.

Yeah, this one didn't show up in my headlines. I never heard of "Zyn" but it popped up in an unrelated article, so I looked it up and there was Tucker. Apparently, nicotine pouches you stuff into your gum line are growing in popularity and Zyn is one of the big players. Tucker says Zyn is not a brand for men. Zyn is made by "humorless left-wing drones" and he can make better tobacco. 😂

Yeah, it's absurd how difficult that job would be. Stop an assassin that can pop up at any moment. Yeah, no biggy. lol They spotted him something like 400 yards out. They should get a bonus.

Ahh, shux. Thanks. I'll correct that.

Carnivores, can you share your cholesterol numbers? Is it not scientifically proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that prolonged elevated cholesterol levels causes atherosclerosis? This being the case, and since I saw my levels skyrocket after a month on carnivore, I don't give a shit how good it makes me feel. It's just not smart. I guess if your cholesterol is in healthy range, maybe it's not bad, but if it isn't, I wouldn't be risking it. I remember a while back a bunch of youtube "doctors" doing videos about how the medical industry has lied to you and diet cholesterol does not equal serum cholesterol and they're all feeding you lies. Then, I remember an actual doctor coming out and dismantling them. Maybe he was just a big pharma shill. Or maybe big meat wants a piece of the action. Or maybe it's a Russian psyop with Jordan Peterson heading up the project.

😂😂😂 Shit... I'm exorcising these demons! You gotta keep them around though. Give them just enough sustenance for survival and terrorize them from time to time... show them who's boss.

😂

In the betting markets? I didn't know that.

@Reciprocality Thanks for explaining. Is this summary inaccurate, too broad, or would you add anything to it? "There’s a natural human tendency to impose order on chaos. This ordering is achieved by linking disparate experiences through associative memories. Over time, as these connections accumulate, they exist within a conceptual emptiness and thus require anchoring. The self or ego is formed as this anchoring mechanism, serving as the ultimate safe harbor that structures and stabilizes our experiences amidst chaos." Also, in reply to this: How does "curiosity" fit into your thinking? Is curiosity a tool of the ego? Couldn't I just as easily say curiosity is the driver to acquire knowledge, as opposed to an ego in search of coherence? When the mind stops its mentation, it gets irritated/distressed. It seeks to move. It wants to move. What is the driving force pushing for expression here? It seems to me, the same force is pushing for expression in the baby when the cradle stops rocking but I'm not sure the best way to conceptualize this.

Yeah, Theosophy was strange. I didn't dive very deep though. I've put spirituality on the back burner for the time being. I actually liked Alice Bailey's book "Glamour - a World Problem". It's not really spiritual but it had a lot interesting perspectives. Yeah, those definitely play a role. I have a theory that the vast majority (~90%) of people aren't born stupid, but rather, the ego boxes them into certain ways of thinking, which we might call stupid. I don't think it's inherent to most. The reason you can't fix stupid is because you can't make them surrender their cherished ways. If it weren't for that, you could fix it, as far as I can tell. For example, Joe Rogan's cognition is better than mine, in at least a couple of ways, but he's much more prone to believing falsehoods than I am. He's not mentally lazy, he loves to explore and question things. He has access to a mental apparatus that can be used to explore and inquire, just like I do, but he uses his in service to his ego, which first and foremost seeks thrills. If he had some experience in his life where he saw the truth of this, he could turn over a new leaf and just as easily start using his mind to seek the truth, which would manifest the appearance of him not being duped by kitty litter box stories. The only way for him to not be "gullible" is for him to understand why he is gullible. And that's a bitter pill. He'd have to admit his immaturity AND he'd have to let go of the payoffs/thrills. I get the sense that if you could show them their error and as long as they had the courage to admit and own it, they could correct themselves, thus, move closer towards non-error / "intelligence", but, they resist and resist. But yeah... I've rambled on enough for one day. Thanks for the conversation man!

When I first read the question "why does the baby start crying when the cradle stops rocking?", I was like "Ok, that seems like gold.". I am not as deep into these things as you but let's see what I can come up with: Stimulation keeps one distracted from the emptiness. If you go back to a time when you've experienced excruciating pain, that seems to be the same state the baby is in when the cradle stops. There's a "closeness". You get very close to the fabric of reality. Since the babies prefrontal cortex is not developed, all it knows is this closeness. The closer you get, the more vulnerable you are. The cradle rock is a distraction from the closeness. I've long believed that this emptiness is a big factor in forging identity. It drives us to get in where we fit in. Niche-filling. I could possibly dive deeper if it seems an interesting idea but I'm just pulling all of this from my intuition and not sure how valuable it is. What do you make of these ideas? Feel free to steer me in the right direction if I've strayed too far away.

8 days after debate: Kamala: +6 (45 to 51) Trump: -6 (53 to 47) To my knowledge (which is fallible), betting markets never had Kamala ahead of of Trump until after the debate. Ha, Kamala just hit 52 after I posted. Edit: Some betting markets did indeed have Harris slightly ahead of Trump at one point before the debate.

Elon explains why he donated his life to humanity: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1836433725791572330

Totally agree. I've heard wise teachers I respect and admire talk about things like realms, astral, hidden energies with agendas, etc., which I have no direct knowledge of, so all I can do is probe them intellectually and try to find ways to penetrate them. I remain open to their teachings but I can't use them to build on top of or make decisions with, nor do I have any reason to lean towards them being true just because they say they are. Rudolph Steiner and Alice Bailey come to mind. I'm glad I exposed myself to them, even if their ideas are no good. It's valuable experience. One problem with this degree of flexibility is people wind up believing in bullshit. When an egotist considers being open-minded, they end up believing in shit like flat earth. The point of exploration for them (most people) is to find something new to fit them, rather than what is true.

I figured you weren't making a point about that, but I'm like a bored pitbull man! 😂 No, I'm not familiar with that content. What did you get from it?

These are nowhere near comparable IMO, lol. What do you think is going on in this scenario: Persona A: Thinks Democrat rhetoric contributes equally to political polarization and political violence as Republican/Trump rhetoric Persona B: Thinks Donald Trump's rhetoric accounts for the vast majority of political polarization and political violence Now, obviously, any rational, honest, intelligent person would acknowledge Person B is correct. In comes a centrist who doesn't like this and they try to find perspectives that can diminish the truth. If you ask yourself, why would the centrist have a problem with the truth...what answers do you come up with? Why do they seek to balance out the positions? Why not just let the truth be what it is? What motivates them to diminish the truth? Are they just winding up lost when attempting to think critically? Or are they trying to protect vulnerable psychic structures they aren't ready to dispense with? Centrists often seem to fall into the trap of thinking all positions can be understood from this meme. Their mom and dad might reside in the blessed homeland and their best friends might reside in the barbarous wastelands, which is a conflict of interest. My theory is centrists prefer harmony over truth, which is how they usually wind up at their positions. But this is a fallacy. There is a higher perch.