Rokazulu

Yes, but if there are examples of the vaccine causing problems with people, then that is a serious over-sight to sweep under the rug, and is in of itself— unscientific. Especially, if there is allergic reactions to the chemicals used. Pharmaceutical companies have no liability when it comes to these vaccines (at least in America, not so much in India and other locations). Not only that, but the subject of how to maintain a healthy immune system is also a factor in the discussion of what works and what does not, in the treatment of disease. Placebo also plays a factor. There has to be some sort of recognition of why the science is inaccurate in order to refute it. Calling it a "lie" or "misinformation" is akin to forming a conspiracy theory if there is no discussion about why, specifically it is inaccurate. Thank God, science didn't end with doctors saying it was healthy to "smoke cigarettes" for example. This is a new experimental drug. Hundreds of drugs are taken off the market because of later data showing the adverse effects outweigh the benefits. Which is a positive thing. Not fear-mongering, just common sense corrective behavior in how science functions. It would be good to not allow people to walk away with distorted views.

You're assuming more information/discussion about the vaccine is anti-vax. I would think it would be pro-vax so that science could improve their methodology. Less controversy, doesn't mean it is getting better. It means it is becoming stagnant. I am sure folks that view Nazism as a good thing; believe their forum is getting better too— every time they ban any dissenting opinion that could actually provide them a way out of their divisive thought.

I would question the value of it. Joining an echo chamber of ideas would be easy enough, but I see no value in that. There is no progress to be made with this perspective. In a discussion of ideas, one has to provide reasons as to why information is being misinterpreted (or is inaccurate) so that others may understand and come to the same conclusion. If dialogue becomes ad hominem and no constructive sharing is being had by specific users, then of course dealing with those specific users for not providing their perspective respectfully, is just moderation. But, shutting down an entire thread of ideas, every time someone shares their perspective in good faith— is censorship.

No reason to be so harsh on God. People might be confused. But, they are not idiots. All have the potential to realize Enlightenment. Innately, they are Buddha Mind, innately they are already realized beings.

Shutting down threads based solely on shared ideas is very dangerous. We can still buy Hitler's "Mein Kampf" in books stores. Why is this a good idea? Because people want to know how history occurred, due to perspectives. Some ideas are labeled as "right-wing" or "left-wing" based off nothing but conjecture. This creates tribalism. It politicizes the issue into good vs evil dynamic. Thus, an ego will feel righteous in shutting down conversation they believe to be "evil" to stop the spread of "dangerous information". Of course, this doesn't actually give the positive effect those individuals may believe it would. What happens is that the information goes underground into an echo chamber of ideas that radicalizes people into extremists, because there isn't anyone who can challenge their point of view (they probably set up their own type of censorship). You know how many twitter posts I have seen that say "If they censor you, you know that you are on target". They feel justified in their position when you shut them down. Because they believe they have won! Who in history is most ubiquitous for shutting down alternative ideas, by the way? Censorship, is no different to burning books. You are showing that a perspective has more power than you say it does, by invalidating that point of view. If it has no power, zero. Then it would be easy to keep talking, and expanding your position by understanding the opposite point of view (usually through more research, which will allow you to more confidently speak about the subject to anyone else you come across). I am not anti-vax or pro-vax. But, witch burning won't get us anywhere. Discuss the information provided, and prove your point without ad hominem. (ad hominem sounds kinda like this: right winger! left winger! Putin apologist! Trump supporter! Biden lover! anti-vaxer! pro-vaxer! conspiracy theorist! fascist! heathen! witch! witch!!!). This can't be done in a single day. There is no quick fix (mass ban) solution to our situation. Threads may have to go on for years as more data and information is acquired. Ideology is the fire, don't let it consume your soul.

I completely understand your sentiment, friend. But, trust me if you poke the ego with a stick. It does not react in your favor. Your issue is not with a personality. It is with the sharing of the idea of censorship. This thread is ripe for being shut down, not even I would think it wrong, and I am in favor of no censorship. Consider this. Consider the idea you need to share, and then make it known without any jabs/insults towards any individual.

People in high positions within society don't want you to know the truth out of fear. Enlightened people would love to grant you the truth, but are still learning how. The truth of these two groups is vastly different from one another.

Hey! You brought it up.

A better topic would be "What is censorship? And why it creates division and further radicalization of ideology". Any view coming from higher truth has no exhaustion of energy to explain itself.

I would love to express my opinion about this!

The keisaku stick will come in the form of "people do not realize". Haha!

Mm yes. This is consideration for the audience. But, consider the greater positive in realizing the potential for an influencer to change their mind. If we say "they can't change their mind". Then calling someone a "bozo" is masturbation. If we say "they could change their mind". Then calling someone a "bozo" is not accurate. There are so many untapped approaches. If I were to have a conversation with him, there is a very real possibility of penetrating to the soul. Which is far greater than poking the ego with a stick. How easy to poke the ego with a stick! Haha.

Is that so? Tell me how it feels after this one:

Words are being said. Definitions of words are subjective. Personally, I would prefer to say: We are God and Freedom is the expansion of Consciousness. But, I get the point of saying otherwise.

Nothing is flawed about any approach, from my perspective. It is just that, these teachers have no teaching. Everything is subjective. They are just expressing a reflection of what can already be known or acted upon through our own individuation. Basically, it is what Bruce Lee already noted: “Absorb what is useful, discard what is useless and add what is specifically your own” Schwartz recognized that is was useful to him in some ways, but feels as a whole, he has been bamboozled. But, he actually just had an experience of what to discard.

It's not a grand or high thing to insult anyone. Any human being has the potential to admit their limiting thought and shift their perspective. Calling someone a "bozo" while well-meaning (and obviously hilarious), doesn't actually create any kind of soul-searching. If anything, it creates entrenchment into their beliefs. Ad hominem is the lowest form of conversation and by participating in it, you would be simply normalizing lower consciousness in our culture. Forgive me for pointing this out. Would highly evolved beings ever participate in demeaning any one of their own kind?

If only! This news story wouldn't exist. And we wouldn't have the myriads of splinter social media sites.

Right. I can accept that. But, there has to be an understanding that this is still not preferable. As such, it falls under censorship and not moderation in some cases. Like a police officer who murders an innocent civilian. We can say "it is just how policing works". But, murder is still murder and no one is being held accountable. And no one is getting their channels, groups, or accounts back since no one wants to admit they made a mistake.

Hedges had his entire archive banned from Youtube. Being a reporter who said that the Russian invasion is "criminal". Don't you think this was a bit careless of a ban? Why did we not ban CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News for leading us into the Iraq war through misinformation of "weapons of mass destruction"? As @vladorion shows, apparently Neo-Nazis are still an acceptable point of view for some of these tech companies: https://theintercept.com/2022/02/24/ukraine-facebook-azov-battalion-russia/ Why haven't we banned neo-nazis from these platforms? Why haven't we banned Chinese funded media on Youtube? https://www.youtube.com/c/cctv Why do we allow (and often still allow) conspiracy theories such as "Russia-gate" to spread? https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/04/russiagate-surveillance-politics-russian-trolls-greenwald Why has Facebook banned left-wing groups? https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/01/23/pers-j23.html The study is not against moderation. It actually shows that it is necessary when it becomes hate speech and in many other instances. But, it is clear that the public square only have these moderation rules in place when they are convenient to utilize as censorship, by way of interpreting speech that goes against the corporate narrative as "hate speech" or "misinformation" . Censorship is what we are looking at here, and not moderation of a few outliers. This creating a greater divide, and not a greater harmony.

I would be highly aware of this assumption. It has recently happened to journalists Chris Hedges, Glenn Greenwald and (I believe) a few others on Youtube. Rest assured, they are not idiots, nor did they break any terms of service. There is also this study that can show how censorship only further radicalizes people. https://cdn-assets.minds.com/The_Censorship_Effect.pdf

Indeed. "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." A trap it can be— if desire is misplaced, but a greater trap awaits in assuming that the "Self" can never become more than is currently perceived or assumed. It is not the ultimate, but it opens doorways.

Forgive me. I meant the level of consciousness we are all at (as the human collective). The person I knew was highly spiritual, telempathically connected and conscious about the world and her self-knowledge. This made the relationship easier a lot of the time. And very enlightening during the more difficult times, when language seemed to break down and it seemed as though nothing further could be adequately communicated. Let it be known. Finding a spiritual someone, only more readily brings up the fundamental barrier. So have fun and beware!

I recently went through a similar experience. I could not possibly live up to the demands placed upon me, and so I realized that the idea of love was distorted in some way within our relationship. They say it is better to have loved and lost, then it is to have never loved at all. This always holds true. You understood you could not be yourself in the relationship so it was your decision to leave. You cannot control how anyone feels about you being yourself. To control that behavior is not love and so you can only trust the decision that is ideally in both of your interests. It couldn't possibly be worse than what the Buddha did to his family and that was in everyone's interest, that he did so. Relationships are extremely difficult with the level of consciousness we are at.

Your interest and openness to this topic is rare and valuable. Anything within consciousness is possible, though highly improbable due to how we currently structure our society. I first heard about this subject from Ray Maor, who described himself as a "Breatharian" only living through prana (chi). Though, in reality he was still consuming food, just very little of it (about 300 calories of fruit every day). However, he did prove that it was possible for the human body to indeed survive without food and water for eight days on Israeli national television under the most extreme medical scrutiny and surveillance. This of course, has been a thing known in India as a particular siddhi (supernatural ability) for awhile; gained through samyama of the breath (deep rhythmic breathing). Which was a bit of what Ray Maor had to do, in order to stay healthy during his 8-day fast. Of course, the ritual alone cannot produce that type of health, there also has to be a deep-type of meditation and/or a type of solid trust within the greater reality of God. Paramahansa Yogananda's autobiography gave many first-hand accounts of several sages he met in India (and elsewhere in the world) that were free of needing to consume any food at all. One such figure was named "Babaji", the "deathless guru" who apparently is thousands of years old, and sort of living half in the physical realm, and half in the non-physical sphere. This type of attainment is, of course, exceedingly unique. Though, we also heard that Jesus neither ate or drank for 40-days as well. There is also Ram Dass's guru, Maharaji, who only consumed one glass of milk a day. As well as Li Ching Yun, a Taoist "immortal" who lived on herbs alone, and apparently lived to be 256 years old (Ostensibly, the Chinese government had records of his birth and sent a document that congratulated him on his 200th birthday). I am sure there are many more examples of such long fasts or those who eat nearly nothing at all, but none else come to mind. Most who explore this endeavor do choose to eat again. It is a dangerous thing to go whole-hog breatharian as it is dangerous to go vegan— unless your body-mind-spirit is properly prepared for the journey. But the main reason breatharians always go back to eating food, is because it always remains a choice to do so. Without food, life (as we usually know it) would be utterly dull, for the most part. Which would explain why many mystics choose to die instead of pursuing an extension of life on Earth. However, it is likely, that highly evolved physical beings could operate a society— so magnanimous, that food would not even be necessary to maintain a joyful existence on those planets.

Emerald Tablets of Thoth the Atlantean. A book not of the words, but damn do they weave!