Ulax

I think it is accurate to focus on labels like conservatives and liberals when trying to understand the dynamics of Nazi appeal. Why? Because Fascism (Nazism being an example of Fascism) and Conservatism have a very key similarity. That is that they share a same core principle that those who gain victory in a struggle are special, deserve their victory and deserve better resources in consequence. The difference is conservatives focus on individuals and fascists focus on groups. I take this argument from Jason Stanley. Conservatism has as a core principle the idea that individuals who attain victory in a struggle are special, deserve their win and deserve access to better resources. For example, conservative would see someone who gets better SAT scores as special, as deserving the score through hard work and as deserving the better resource of a better college. Those with worse SAT scores are deemed inferior, deserving of their lesser scores and as deserving of a lesser college. Fascism has as a core principle the idea that groups who attain victory in a struggle are special, deserve their win and deserve access to special resources. For example, fascists would see that white people are the most successful group in the USA. And from that they argue that white people are special, white people deserve their success and deserve access to things like better housing, treatment and medical care. And that consequently non-white groups are inferior, deserve their failures and deserve access to worse resources. So switching from a core principle of Conservatism to a core principle of Fascism is an easy step. You just replace individual specialness and deservingness with group specialness and deservingness.

I’d be wary of dehumanising people. Even those with very low consciousness beliefs. Firstly, because it legitimises the use of dehumanisation in discourse. Secondly, because when you dehumanise there is a tendency to attribute inherent nature as the cause of someone’s world view. Instead of thinking about how life experiences have shaped the development of that persons world views. For example, standard of education received, resentments they have, how bad faith actors have manipulated those resentments by telling them certain resonating narratives.

@Revolutionary Think Yep can definitely relate. Growing up I had my protests towards my parents dysfunctional behaviour constantly shamed and dismissed. And I carried a lot of shame and confusion. Then in 2019 I came across ifs therapy and entered the world of therapy. And learnt about alternatives ways of relating to parts of myself and others. I’ll acknowledge that I am still struggling with the challenges of such an upbringing. However, therapy resources have brought me a lot more clarity and validation around my parents poor parenting.

@Rishabh R Another post of yours that I’m impressed and motivated by bro 👏

@Leo Gura Do you have a way of speaking to yourself in your mind that helps you stick to your values? For example, maybe you ask something like ‘What would I do if I prioritised Truth in this moment?”

@Judy2 Hey Judy! Not sure where you’re at deadline wise but just saw this post now and thought I’d share something you might find useful :). https://www.phrasebank.manchester.ac.uk/ I’ve linked you an academic phrase book. Folks can use the phrases to potentially help them write in a more smooth and competent manner. Can help avoid the otherwise tedious process of having to keep coming up with academic language to convey your points in. I know myself I used to get kind of anxious about how to phrase things back when I was in university :). Anyways, hope this helps! And all the best with your thesis!

@Husseinisdoingfine I’d argue Religion is popular because it meets a lot of core human needs well. For example, needs for belonging, and meaning. Needs which can be hard to meet outside of a religious framework. And the meeting of those needs can really direct and corrupt a person’s thought processes. I also agree with Leo that all these academic titles doesn’t really signal that someone is highly rational and has thought about these issues in deeply unbiased manner. Someone could have a phd in molecular biology but never have seriously sat down and contemplated theological and philosophical questions at a deep level.

“The wrong way home” by Deikman M.D. A book about the cult behaviours in American society. Isn’t that such a fucking good way of describing cults? The wrong way home. Man I swear I have so much admiration for the intelligence of that book title. What is a book title that you guys think is awesome? And/ or really intelligent?

The yellowy/ systemic stuff I read the more black pilled I find myself getting. I don’t even like talking about it that much cos I worry about destabilising others

I’d disagree. Being nice/ people pleaser works quite well I’d argue. At least for living a more basic life. Lots of people are people pleasers. And why? Because their life experiences have shaped their brain to think that it is an effective coping strategy for life. And this is because at various important moments it has been an adaptive response to life challenges. I think the benefits of being a people pleaser can get too easily discounted.

Many Greens loves to complain about a society and all the dysfunction that society brings about. However, they scapegoat society by attributing too much blame to it when it is not the real cause for problems. The real cause of human problems is reality. All political problems are really existential problems. I use existential and reality interchangeably. I say this in the sense that society is just a collective survival response to reality. And reality itself dictates how that collective survival response manifests over time. So when a green complains about how society causes people to be marginalised they are forgetting that the real cause is reality. Reality is causing people to be marginalised. Because reality causes a collective survival response to be adopted that leads to marginalisation at that time.

You’re welcome! Thank you for challenging my arguments and giving me the opportunity to clarify, and elaborate my points of view :).

@PurpleTree I’m going to say I’m a 8.5. Born in a wealthier part of London, Uk to middle class parents who reliably met my basic survival needs. Ended up with pretty severe mental health problems though. So some flaws in the spawn. But when I compare my spawn to someone born into some third world internment camp it’s hard to complain. Could be 9/9.5 but you have to leave room for absolutely goated spawn locations.

@ExploringReality Sports and fascism will always have a positive relationship I’d argue. The reason being that fascism necessarily entails the messaging that a certain special group in society keeps attaining victory in a struggle and that they deserve this victory, and that the loser deserve their loss. For example, maybe that White Christian’s accumulate much wealth in the USA and this is deserved and that black folk do not and that is also deserved. This is different to libertarianism/ individualism because it’s about a group not an individual. I take this in part from Jason Stanley. And in sports there is a struggle between competitors. Where is one winner, and the winner is seen to have deserved their win in some way (skill, preparation, mindset) and the loser to have deserved their loss. Think of all the praise and condemnation around the idea of not making excuses in sports. You lose you deserve. You win you deserve. And then I’d argue that ufc is chosen specifically because it is perceived as a vulgar sport. UFC at the white house is just another version of trump calling news reporters scum. It’s Trump saying I’m not like these elite guys I’m like you everyday people. This is what Adorno talks of as the ‘Little big man’. One of the plebs who makes it to power. And everyday folks get some satisfaction out of seeing the vulgarity because they see it as mocking the cosmopolitan elite. The elite who want a polite president who perhaps plays tennis at the White House. Again I take a lot of this from Jason Stanley.

Same. My current view is it’s possible that focus on philosophy can come from an perceived inability to meet one’s more basic needs in their environment. And so when they meet those needs the desire for philosophy can subside. I think there are also higher needs that can drive a motivation for philosophy too though

What should they do? I don’t think they should necessarily do anything or nothing. If they want certain outcomes I think then I can say they ought do x or y. But in a general sense I don’t think there is any objective thing they ought do. I mean if they want better political outcomes. Ideally, I’d say they ought to have three things . 1) Academic understanding, 2) Ability to affect change, 3) Academic vision. This does assume that they are highly intelligent though too. Firstly, by academic understanding they need to understand the relevant cause and effect relationships in reality. For example, what cause and effect relationships cause poverty in a certain society, and inputs to those systems produce what outcomes. Secondly, by ability to affect change they need skills whereby they can affect the cause and effect relationships in sufficient ways. For example, compare the potential impact for change by virtue of having the ability to persuade 90% of congress compared to having the ability to organise a protest in a small town. Thirdly, by academic vision they need a vision of what alternate reality they want to create. They need to decide what is the desired outcome from tinkering with cause and effect relationships. For example, maybe someone wants to reduce absolute poverty by 10%. I say a academic vision rather than vision purposefully. Because I think it’s important to have a vision which is created in light of an understanding of other well regarded visions.

Thank you. Another way of saying it is the following. They do not understand how reality is totalitarian. No part of reality is in anyway free from the laws of reality.

I actually found my interest and thinking processes changes a lot when I find an effective stim. Because I my sense of self efficacy shoots up and I’m locked in one what I’m doing. So my survival responses melt away and I stop thinking so black and white, my learned helplessness dissipates too and my social bonding system kicks in too.

https://youtube.com/@davidtian?si=WiCLrlzwscu2FZXr

I am curious about answering this question of how to think when answering questions. I have seen Leo’s video on contemplation (thank you for that Leo). However, I would like to hear some more perspectives. For example, how to think when describing something?

DBT therapy can be helpful for learning about how to more effectively handle intense emotions imo. And if you find yourself falling back into old patterns perhaps remember that every day is a new chance to try again

Hey bro, Sounds to me like you are taking some wise and sensible steps towards changing some unwanted beliefs and emotions. I’d recommend some radical acceptance to help deal with the toxic person you were in relationship with: https://themighty.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Radical-Acceptance-DBT.pdf Then perhaps experiment with repeating compassionate and encouraging phrases to yourself: - https://www.calm.com/blog/words-of-encouragement - https://the-conflictexpert.com/2019/08/06/32-phrases-to-help-you-express-empathy/ And then re therapy, I’d say I think it’s great that you are taking action by seeing a therapist! I think a helpful approach can be to have initial meetings with a few different therapists before committing to one. And also perhaps keep in mind what sort of therapy you want. Maybe you already know this but different therapies can approach psychological change in very different ways.

@Nito I think, at least in part, you need to find some ways to emotionally regulate yourself. And you need short term and term strategies for this. Reason being that I think addiction is often a way of coping with emotional dysregulation. For short term, DBT therapy can help imo. For long term, maybe work on reducing chronic stressors if possible, work on therapies which can heal your nervous system and do the basic of sleep, exercise and diet. That said, I think it’s important to diagnose the roots of your addiction correctly. For example, maybe your nervous system is dysregulated from having undiagnosed dyslexia and having low ability to meet the demands of life. So doing therapy wouldn’t help. Also, I think consult the works and opinions of addiction experts. And see if you can get 1-on-1 coaching with addiction experts if finances allow. That said, I am just a random dude on a forum who thinks he is Leonardo DiCaprio ;). So take my opinions with a pinch of salt imo

@Leo Gura All the best re your book. Am sure it will be 🔥