Danioover9000

@gettoefl Users that apparently posted in a toxic manner in this sub forum are reported, then after some reviewing, are given the 'apolitical' label by the admin/mod, and then are banned for some time. It's not self imposed, but given upon the user. At this scale, to me it's office politics/online politics dynamics, rather than at higher scales like mainstream politics.

Npolitical sounds like a much better word to be labelled by. However, because we currently can't see if you're banned or had warnings, why should we label you a certain statues, make that label visible, but not make the warning strikes/ban strikes on you visible too? I think it's better to not label if possible, as it stays consistent with warnings and bans being not visible to normal users. What do you think?

@DrugsBunny Ah, okay I see, my question has been answer. So this thread is done as far as I am concerned, and should be locked then. Goodnight, it was a good discussion. You have what you wanted @R&NAnarcho. GG.

@Oeaohoo I know that you have segued with that user to discussing elite groups and hierarchies, but let's move back into the main topic again, which is, is it justified to label a username with 'apolitical' when their posts are written in a 'toxic' fashion? Is it more accurate to show 'toxic' instead of 'apolitical', to honor the definitions of those words? If not, do we use a color coding way instead? or are we better off not attaching them labels and just temporarily block them from accessing this sub forum? My reasoning, is that if you decided to attach a label, to a username, that is permanent, and is visible, then I should've also made warnings visible on the profile as well beforehand, to be consistent. Do you agree or disagree with my reasoning? Or is there an alternative? BTW, for those reading, I like Actualized.org and the forum. It's a nicer place than reddit or twitter and other online forums and websites. Yes, there's a hierarchy here, but it's way healthier compared to syndicates, cults, ponzi scheme or pyramid scheme. On average, we can have pretty good discussions here, provided that we are not close minded, dogmatic, and preach our perspectives, left or right of the political spectrum. How do you all feel, if you're involved with politics, with the word 'apolitical'?

@DrugsBunny What do you mean I'd probably say that? It's a low probability for me to say that. The higher probability, for me, is to make a statement or question, is to further seek more clarification, again, why use the word 'apolitical' instead of another word, or coding system, when the word is almost the reversed meaning of what @Yarco wrote? So being politically charged equates to apolitical? Why not Toxic instead of apolitical? @Fadl seems way worse than @Yarco, and fits the 2nd definition of toxic behavior. I'd definitely do something about that user, but is it justified to use 'apolitical' than 'toxic'? it's okay to show to other users you were banned and are 'apolitical', but not 'toxic', but also not show you were issued warnings? No disagreement with what happen to @Fadl, he seemed he was behaving in a toxic manner to you. I just don't know if you could call him apolitical, like I imagine a calm person being apolitical.

Guys, and maybe girls, can you please chill? I just want a stage yellow discussion going on here, you know, in a non triggering way please? Not to name names, but please can you tone yourself down? You might lock this thread accidentally.

@Loba If it was me, I would be slightly more tolerant, provided that's it's a joke, or the are being subtle and polite about voicing their worldview and doing it in a non-political, non-binary and non-partisan way, depending on how they write their view on post. The situation with @Yarco doesn't match up with a person being apolitical, otherwise why did you just write such a strong, biased political take then??? What do you think is a better way to address this? A different word, or some color coding on their name?

@DrugsBunny However, that doesn't explain why using the label apolitical is reasonable. By definition, the word is almost the reversal of what @Yarco posted, with his strong political take and strong language, it seems that you can't be apolitical with that type of emotional take. Also, I thought @Yarco was giving an example of treason as a hypothetical to justify, in his point of view, the situation with the FBI and Trump? But now the meaning is changed that he literally meant that the FBI was committing treason? I'm confused here, so you'll have to link those posts of his to show me where he did literally meant or metaphorically meant. I'm just saying, either case, his take is politically charged instead of it being apolitical, so it makes little sense to label him as apolitical to me. Another good example, of a person that's politically charged in their words, is what you just posted to me and another user here, using strong judgmental wording, that's far from being apolitical, and more closer to being politically partisan.

@Oeaohoo I see, the word 'apolitical' is being associated here by their statues in this forum, as having disagreeable political views in this sub forum? To me, it's still confusing because nothing in the definition of apolitical, 'not interested or involved in politics' reflects @Yarco's current predicament, and I see that meanings that make up 'toxic' and 'toxic' behavior are also being mixed into the label of apolitical, which just rubs me the wrong way, because he had politically charged takes that're right leaning and he just worded them in a hard R way, that felt nothing like a non-political take. Either come up with a better label, or color coding on the username, because it's kind of corrupting that word's original meaning a bit. I read that when a person is labelled as 'apolitical' the label is permanent on your username? Is this true, that this is permanent? That's cap as hell bro!

@Questioner Why are you begging us to provide proof to you that reality is imaginary? Why can't you validate it yourself?

@Willie The bromance is strong between Destiny and Mr. Girl.

Hello all, @Leo Gura had posted a blog about politics a few days ago, and it's not available in my country. If anyone knows the name or ULR of the video, please share as I would like to view it. If not, then could you give me a summery of what the video is about? Thanks!

Very entertaining, and also shows how powerful drama can be, Jesus almost everybody was swept up in it. What do you think of this video by the way?

Oh god, the stage green bias again. Look, you smell of weed, get over it and fix it, and the dogs won't have a problem. AFTER THAT, if they're still looking you intensely, then you can interpret it in a new age spiritual way. But until then, just saying, you stunk of weed bro. Or it's the panther pet you take with you, maybe.

Very interesting debate, I'll share my thoughts below, and I suggest you watch it in full and post your thoughts: My rough thoughts on this argument and debate from Andrew Tate. I think he has made several mistake, a a few blunders that not only costed him this debate, but made him do damage control afterwards. I've watched a few debate videos from Andrew Tate and in some of them he does keep a cool head, but I don't know the meta conversation between Hasan and Andrew Tate to have pissed him off on the later parts of this debate, it may have have to do with his arguing with that other pink haired old guy, but moving on. Since Andrew is such a proponent of the red pill, and first person experiences, he should have stayed largely consistent with this logic structure, that first person, subjective experiences are more important than numbers, facts and statistics, and 'internet science'. However, in order for him to do so, puts him also at a higher risk of losing a few argument points as well, such as the male/female car driving example, were he explains that in his personal experiences, women tend to drive worse than men, that the earth is round because he flew to the moon, and failing the emotional management control check when Hasan threw sneaky rhetorical attacks on his character. Now, one of the fewer ways of getting an attacking advantage, is that if you are gonna stay true to the first person experiences over facts, own it. For example, when Hasan says and puts him on the spot, he should have just owned the L, and do what Eminem does: flip it back on the opponent. If this was Slim Shady, or me in a dark mood, I would just quickly own it, mimic the schooling tonality, and explain to Hasan, that yes, ultimately to remain logically consistent, as a debate bro, makes me look like a sexist or Misogynist, own this part quickly, then flip it to him and say something like "However, to also use your logic structure and stay true to your framework, worldview and position of this debate, I would ultimately have to accept the position that facts are far more important over feelings, that subjectivity is below objective reality, therefore, when my close friend betrays me, all feelings of hurt, guilt, shame, embarrassment, are also invalid compared to the statistics and probabilities of a friendship ending badly. I also must extend this to positive feelings I would have felt when growing up in some thrid world country, fantasizing of living the American dream, that it was purely just the lucky numbers on my side, nothing to do with my obsession of living the dream, nothing to do with my lack of masculinity, while virtue signaling, while hating America while living the material success" say this while plowing through Hasan's statements too. I think doing it this way would have been an amazing attack from Andrew Tate, because I don't think Hasan could handle such a sneaky attack on his personal relationship with Destiny's 'betrayal', and being pointed out as a fucking hypocrite. I think that would have made this debate extremely heated, and as long as Andrew held his cool he would have looked beautifully in control of the frame work rhetorically speaking. Any other responses, Andrew could just reframe as him being more of a real man, owning both outcomes and especially feelings, as facts are over feelings, facts need feelings. Any attempt of Hasan to avoid and gallop away, Andrew could point out that he's being logically inconsistent, as he can't deny his lived experience of getting burned by Destiny, and betraying his home country. It's to me a fucking vicious trap, any almost any rebuttal to it, Andrew could just say that he's just demonstrating what a real man is, and even offers to guide him through owning his hypocrisy, like " Okay, Hasan repeat after me: 'Hi, my name is, my name is, my name is, Hasan, that man that got backstabbed, by Destiny, my best man. Also, I am a traitor too, takes one to know one, betrayed my Turkey too, quit cold Turkey, too hot for me, the eagle's better, also quack out virtue signals too.", and take the humorous lead. What are your thoughts about this debate, and Hasan's potential rhetoric to save face? Is my take on Tate's improved attacking too brutal? Also Tate could word it in a way that brings Destiny into the fucking drama too, so it's just interesting to me how this would have unfolded in the larger online community going forward.

@hoodrow trillson Nice post, such a good example to set for those new to Actualized.org, Very green friendly.

@Panteranegra When you smoke weed, you smell like weed, so of course the dogs absolutely hate that smell.

@Jodistrict Agreed that there are other ways of fighting and conflict management than what Andrew advocates. I don't know anything about his Hustler's university program so I can't comment on it's pros and cons. This'll sound like an Andrew Tate tactic, but in my personal experience, I sucked at trade activities and nearly lost my hand, so for me it's not my ideal work as a man, and because of that shock and bias against trades related jobs, I would generally not talk about them nor market and encourage other young men to go to trades related jobs. There are plenty of other ways to improve your masculinity as trades isn't the only thing men only excel at okay? Ideally, if Tate was being consistent he would be encouraging young men to pursue a martial arts, fitness, chess or some other field, because he's so big on personal experience he would promote what works and not promote what doesn't, that would have worked for him. He's way of marketing and promoting himself works, therefore he encourages his way of marketing. The logic sucks, but to Andrew Tate it makes sense. Yes, go walk through life as a man, as a leader guided by intuition and not care for other people's opinions about you, but what if he's doing that, but his way is to be a high roller and hustler? Yes, there are thousands of other manly paths, but to Andrew Tate the hustler is authentic to him, what then? Also, a good video showing Andrew Tate's background, in Hasan's stream:

Here's another debate, and xgc still acting like Andrew Tate NTR'd him and toke his GF or something, but he's more subdued here, maybe on meds: Your thoughts?

I have found the old man with the pink hair Andrew Tate was debating with before Hasan: It was almost a 180, like wow, how strange is it? I guess this is what had exhausted some of his mental energy. Tate looked in form here way more than with Hasan, I almost felt like I had to moderate this debate.

Classified documents of nuflear weapons? Wow.

@Seth Dude, it's well known that social media rots your brain's ability to focus for longer and intense concentration. Drawing from observation trains those areas of the brain, other soft qualities like observation and patience and gives you better concentration, sense making and equanimity. Most Zoomer people will not put as much importance on training their skillsets that'll generate more more value or massive values in the field of drawing for example. They're more likely to zone out in their comfort zone over consuming pop culture shit and Tik Tok. I mean they can do them and whatever hedonism they want and even over consume, but they are screwing themselves and not me, their lose not mine. I just see how sad it'll be for drawing quality of young artists to drop after this.

@Bobby_2021 I'll admit I'm not as great too, but I know a thing or two of flipping frames and putting pressure on debators thanks to me doing simple rapping. I guess it'll just take experiences and practice though fighting dirty like that, Hasan did have an advantage in that he's familiar and prepared for Tate, but Tate wasn't. GG Tate,

@zurew Tee-hee-hee, can't wait. Ideally I'd like to see him convo with Tate. Imagine if Andrew Tate had taken my advice, it would have been very interesting. Also Mr. Girl, the elephant in the room, not just friendly neighborhood baby sitter, but personal rough trainer for women too. That'll be crazy yo