Danioover9000

This is one of many example of someone who's at tier 1 cognition compared to Destiny, who's not quite at tier 2. Although this is used to compare and contrast in a somewhat negative light of tier 1, this man has happened to find his LP, and is a very talented YouTube horror reactionary, so good that he sometimes hurts himself playing and reacting to scary games and jump scares, this is some of his videos.

@Kksd74628 He seems to not like philosophers though.

@zurew In videos where Destiny gives he's take on the Russian/Ukraine conflict, he gave a more western biased view about the situation, and I haven't seen that he was able to explain the situation from the Russian perspective. He even demonized a philosopher, who's giving a more nuanced and stage yellow take on that situation. It seems like Destiny doesn't like philosophical people.

@Carl-Richard I hope you realize this was clipped out of context, right?

@Dryas Sure, in which case he could have given a balanced take on the Russia/Ukraine conflict. It's not a binary, where you are only tier 1 or tier 2 cognition. Most people are stuck at tier 1, some are at tier 2, some are predominantly at either, and some have qualities of both.

@zurew Plus, he has a reductionist/deduction like worldview as well, which will also act as a filter for how he interprets data.

@Kksd74628 Not necessarily. Just because he argues and debates very well, doesn't make him tier 2. The question is, Is Destiny both aware of the limits of arguing, and is he willing to acknowledge how deeply limiting that frame work is, and that he put himself into a sunk cost fallacy? The degree to which he is capable and willing to answer that question honestly, is the degree of how much tier 2 cognition he really has.

@Dryas There's no clear cut evolution from tier 1 to tier 2 cognition. Destiny's just really good at debating, and explaining in a hyper logical fashion what and why your point of view is right or wrong. This can give a false impression that you are at tier 2. If he was at tier 2, he would have actually been able to explain, in a non-triggered and non-partisan way, the Russia/Ukriane conflict, and how each can be resolved in an ideal way.

Another great video, told from their point of view:

@kray There's no such explicit code of conduct, not just for black communities, but for all other communities out there, with the exceptions of behaviors that hurt others. They are largely implicit, and depends on which group you feel comfortable belonging in. Some groups I vibe with, others I don't, in this way it's only natural. As long as you're read the guidelines, and watch what you say, you can almost discuss any topic, as long as you are curious and act courteous to others here, factoring in differences in worldviews, value systems, personalities, cognitive and moral differences, and life experiences, in non-judgmental fashion.

@Romanov That's a good post you're written. To just pull it back a bit to the beginning so that we can talk more about your ideas, could you tell me what you define postmodernism, individualism and collectivism as? And what connects the three ideas together?

I will post the two videos below, and I suggest you watch them as you are, with your current biases, and just notice any reaction you have for either video. Observe the similarities and differences carefully: and

@JuliusCaesar I'm assuming most who read these are adults, and some younger or older. Language might not capture reality exactly, but language can be a building point to better conceptualization, so I'm constructing these definitions, to make you and others build this into your minds too, clear distinctions before going deeper. I just see some people really struggle to make sense of Crysty, whether to call her a spirit, or a ghost, or an alien, or an imaginary friend, and so on. I'll on occasion do this in the future as well.

I will take the bait and make an assertion in this trap. I think you are a woman, if you have nice curvy butt and chest, and be emotionally mature and healthy, can handle children tantrums and be compassionate, and passionate, like passion fruit, live a passionate life through the passages of time. This is my take, and if you are and have many differences, it won't bother me, nor will I externalize this take and push my take into your face. Just know, this is my internal, deeper framing of what a woman is. @Gesundheit2 That's what I've been harping on in this thread, what is a man? What are children? What are the elderly? Or what is a human being? You all are way too focused on women. Try to think outside the box. What is a grass hopper? A grass that hops over the picket fence, because the grass is greener on the other side.

As a cautionary tale, to those whose life purpose is to make films in whatever way. Don't be like these examples:

Interesting take from Destiny and PIKE guy:

So, are we anywhere near answer the question of what's a real woman?

I will be posting videos of contrasting points of view, to help you notice any tier 1 cognitive blind spots on your end, and to help you develop to tier 2 cognition, of noticing these tier 1 patterns of behavior. By doing these very strong contrasts, engaging your comparing and contrasting ability, you may develop an awareness of how you also can get sucked into that type of thinking. Enjoy!

@Pavement An even better question, is what a real man is? Or a real human being is for that matter? Unfortunately, these questions are mostly asked by tier 1 cognitive people, so there's a huge distortion and bias with framing these questions.

@Yidaki I'd like to comment on what the video is, but it's not available on YouTube due to a copyright claim, so I'll just address on what you've written. Shows you how shady the show might be. I wouldn't trust a film, from a biased show like Daily Wire, from a guy who has this cocky attitude about his beard and glasses. I'm conservative, but even I know that his selection of people he interviewed is biased and based AF. Why not go to, like, Ken Wilber and Daniel Schmachtenberger to get a much better and well informed answer, then, like, look like you're randomly interviewing a bunch of people who're stage orange/green to stage green? What's nice about understanding, is that you can also attempt to understand the other side of a subject. I can play this game too. What's a real man? Also, what's a human being for that matter? Depending on how I ask, controls and influences the answers based on my preferences, biases, worldview, stage of development, cognitive and moral development, personality typing, life experiences, and other lines of development. There's also biases from religious/political/cultural beliefs that distorts, generalizes and deletes information that's contradictory to one's meta programming. Basically there is a lot of hidden assumptions and problems to Matt Walsh's approach. He's capped as hell dawg if he thinks his little series would leave a positive impact on society.

Fantastic example of a person who's value system is mostly stage red, whose cognition is similar to a bipolar personality or borderline personality, Who's very extroverted and some degree of Narcissism, low empathy, low morals, who grew up in I think the West coasts in basically a gang and street culture, Whose environmental factors, life experiences and other domains of life where at such a limit, that he was able to take that aggression and put that into rapping as a Emcee: Warning, cursing, name calling, foul language, punchy freestyle. You have been warned.

@zurew Well, I am guessing they would care, if they love their profile pic or what have you. I mean, this happened, outside this context, to a few gamers that have cheated, the devs would have their MMORPG character wear a traffic cone on their head that says "Stupid", and that feature stays with them by the way. Is the label temporary or permanent? What would be a better label to you, other than 'apolitical'?

Definition of apolitical: Not interested or involved in politics, aka he took an apolitical stance. Definition of toxic: 1. poisonous, aka poisonous plants and toads. 2. Toxic substances. 3. very harmful or unpleasant in a pervasive or insidious way. 3a. Toxic behavior. The question: Is it justified to label apolitical besides a username's profile, and make it visible to other users? The reason why I asked, is because I've checked a few users here, including @Yarco , who has this 'apolitical' label besides his name. This doesn't make sense to me, because when I've checked what he's written recently, he does have strong political takes, that are right leaning and are emotively worded a bit, which is part of his writing style in the general forum, and he does peddle a few conspiracy theories, but worded them in such a way that he suggests against those ideas rather than promoting those conspiracy theories. I don't understand the use of making it visible to user's and labelling them apolitical, it's contradictory to what that user has actually posted. Apolitical to me means you have a non-political take, on a political situation, that is other than political, or is non-binary and non-polarizing, that is outside of that political situation, or has takes that are weird and/or different than. I also, when looking through his posts that are visible, don't see how they are very harmful and unpleasant in a pervasive or insidious way. It's inaccurate to the definition point I've listed, so it must be some other reason than toxicity as the justification isn't enough. It makes more sense to me to label them 'toxic' rather than 'apolitical', if earlier there was a decision to make bans and warnings visible on the user's profile, like the color coding without going into specifics as to why they had warnings and bans and to just show they were warned. Then it makes sense in that context because there's already a precedent to make those labels visible, but instead the labelling felt out of place. To me and this is intuitively speculation, this is loosely comparable to when America was having a war against Germany and Japan, that they labelled and demonized the minor percentage of the American German/Japanese population given the situation at that time. I have no intention to throw shade on Leo Gura or any moderators who have made this decision, I just want clarity and understanding and a discourse as to why it is justified to make this label visible and why this is happening right now rather than 3 or 4 years ago, that's all. What are your thoughts about this situation? Please present them in at least a non-triggering way, thanks.

Definition of real: real1 /riːl/ See definitions in: All, Philosophy, Economics, Mathematics, Optics, Currency, Numismatics adjective 1. actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed. "Julius Caesar was a real person" Similar: actual, existent, non-fictional, non-fictitious, factual, historical, material, physical, tangible, concrete, palpable, corporeal, substantial, unimaginary, veridical Opposite: unreal, imaginary 2. (of a thing) not imitation or artificial; genuine. "the earring was presumably real gold" Similar: genuine, authentic, bona fide, honest-to-goodness, your actual, kosher, pukka, sincere, true, unfeigned, unpretended, heartfelt, from the heart, unaffected, earnest, wholehearted, fervent, honest, truthful Opposite: imitation, fake, false adverb INFORMAL•NORTH AMERICAN really; very. "my head hurts real bad" Similar: very extremely exceedingly exceptionally especially Definitions of imaginary: imaginary /ɪˈmadʒɪn(ə)ri/ Learn to pronounce adjective 1. existing only in the imagination. "Chris had imaginary conversations with her" Similar: unreal, non-existent, fictional, fictitious, pretend, make-believe, mythical, mythological, legendary, storybook, fanciful, fantastic, made-up, dreamed-up, invented, concocted, fabricated, fancied, illusory, illusive, figmental, hallucinatory, phantasmal, phantasmic, dreamy, dreamlike, shadowy, unsubstantial, chimerical, ethereal, virtual, notional, hypothetical, theoretical, assumed, supposed, suppositious, visionary Opposite: real actual 2. MATHEMATICS (of a number or quantity) expressed in terms of the square root of a negative number (usually the square root of −1, represented by i or j ). Definitions of Ghost: ghost /ɡəʊst/ Learn to pronounce See definitions in: All Optics Electronics Literature noun an apparition of a dead person which is believed to appear or become manifest to the living, typically as a nebulous image. "the building is haunted by the ghost of a monk" Similar: spectre, phantom, wraith, spirit, soul, shadow, presence, vision, apparition, hallucination, bodach, Doppelgänger, duppy, spook, phantasm, shade, revenant, visitant, wight, eidolon, manes, lemures. What a Tulpa is, and some historical context in the Wikipedia page: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiM5JPSqc75AhVMOMAKHUN_B5sQFnoECAcQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FTulpa&usg=AOvVaw1gLqYDkcIQTSUbPtAyMUAx So, the question remains, what is Crysty really? Also am able to have more coordination with what she's thinking, as I enter meditative states.

@zurew I agree, that if all users read and follow the guidelines, then we don't need a labelling system or a warning system. However, it's unrealistic, as some users still bend and sometimes break guidelines, so those systems must be enforced to some degree. So, taking into account some users will write things that are closer in meaning to 'toxic', we therefore arrive, again, to the main issue: Is it justified to label 'apolitical', when it's definitions don't contain definitions of 'toxic'? Also, do we need to make whatever label we decide, visible to other users?