zurew

Of course there are people, who's viewpoint can be changed but those people are the minority. The vast majority of people, are not at all open minded. If you want to target a small minority of people, thats fine i can agree with that. But we should be clear who is our target and make a specific plan how to do it. But i still think that converting stage blue/orange society to stage green would be a better goal. Destiny is a good example, but not a fair comparison in my opinion. We are not talking about people changing their political views we literally talking about people changing how they view themselves and life overall in general. In this case its a much much tougher challenge to do and a much bigger change required on their end. Also to understand Leo's concepts you need to be at a much higher level of development already compared to convert some people's political views. How many debates are we talking about here, because Leo would need to start at rock bottom. He would need to debate with one person for hundreds of hours to get to a point where they can somewhat understand what Leo is trying to say. Most debates would consist of a lot of strawman arguments, because the other side would not even understand what he/she is disagreeing about. There would be so much misunderstanding and strawman arguments that psychedelics and Leo's teachings would be even more demonized than it is now. The problem im having with your idea about this is that i don't think its realistic. Because the culture change you were talking about in your examples (for example in the vegan example) is like a 1-2 level jump, when we are talking about Leo's ideas is like going from level 1 to level 50 or level 100. I know some christian people who are really fucking good at debating ,and they probably win most debates against atheist people but i still don't see those atheists converting into being christians (even though those atheists were familiar with the christian concepts, then imagine if you are not even familiar with the other side even on a conceptual level). Surface level ideas can be debated but really core ideas are a different story. So basically at the end of the day, you believe that more people can be more convinced than being pushed away from Leo's work. I just don't think this society is ready to hear and to process these advanced concepts. Even most Leo's viewers are not ready, how do we expect random people to be ready for it? I mention again, its either a systematic approach where we slowly targeting each stages with a proper plan and helping them to climb or somehow making psychedelics more mainstream and teaching how to use psychedelics properly or both. Or if you want to target a small minority, than we should be clear about who is our target.

Those people who are really stuck in their paradigm, doesn't seem to be open for changing their view on things with just debating. Even if Leo would win all the debates most will just get even more defensive imo. Just look at the comments below the "Deconstructing The Myth Of Science" videos. Those who are hardcore materialist minded were really defensive, and other people who was already open to other possiblities or those who hated materialist people, those were the ones, who praised his video. I think making the 'awaken using psychedelics' approach more mainstream seems the most effective way to me to convert these people. Other approach could be to make a detailed plan for each stage to help them to climb up. But that of course much much slower and needs even more planning than the first idea. The other ploblem i have with this idea to debate with people about this or to have conversations about people, is that they will misunderstand most of these ideas regardless who is communicating it. Leo is very good at teaching ideas and breaking down concepts, but still, most people will misunderstand it. Just look at this forum how much question is about solipsism and God and stuff like that. Those who wached 100s of hours of Leo's content about spirtuality and God they still misunderstand some stuff. So the proper knowledge can only be given through direct, subjective experience.

Yeah, i agree. Its all in one package. We need more individual responsibility, but we also need to work on the systemic issues part too. Ideally, we would want a society where most people are okay on their own, but if they need help, they should be able to get it without much friction.

For anyone to have enough money to go to a therapist for several weeks or month you need to have a lot of money stacked up. Most people can't afford a psychologist nor a psychiatrists even though they are working somewhere. Its a systemic problem, you try to make these problems way too simplistic. Also you don't take into account those people with severe mental health issues, who can't work that much or can't work at all, and i could list other examples too, where "just find ways to make money" won't work. We are talking about mostly poor people. Why do you think, that people who can't afford therapy are the ones who need it the most? Just because they don't have what it takes to earn enough money to go to a therapist, or we can find some stuff systematically? Good luck with getting your life ready, when you don't have any motivation, you have several mental problems, and you are depressed as hell. This advice is okay for people who are not clinically depressed. But for people who have severe mental problems this won't work. In some cases you need to solve the mental health issues part first, and then you can be able to do and get your other basics ready. Proper mental health is essential to get your basics handled. Also we are talking about mostly people who don't have the capability to get their basics handled on their own yet, without outside help. For countries that don't have that already in place ,sure. But those countries who have that already, they should implement it and focus on mental health too. Because nowadays you can clearly see the growing number of mental issues, and the growing number of suicides You seem to focus only on the individual responsibility part, which of course is important, but we can't forget about the systemic problems.

Yeah its interesting to see, that in most European countries we have a Health insurance but that only covers physical issues mostly, and leaving out the mental health aspects which is just as much important. I don't think they should charge less, but i agree with the public funding idea. If that mental health professional is good and well trained and suitable for their job, he/she should get their money. Basically they are mental doctors, and when we are talking about doctors, we know, that all doctors generally earn a very high income. The reason why public funding or why government funding would be really good, is beacause low income people (which are mostly needed for mental health therapy) could access therapy more easier, and the second point is that psychologists and psychiatrists life and income wouldn't depend on the toxic dynamic where they need more and more mentally unwell people to get their money, they could get it automatically from government as a yearly or monthly income. With the monthly or yearly income solution we can solve some problems that you mentioned above, the "dragging out as much hours as they possibly can, without saying anything or without really working on your problems" and the "low income people can't access therapy" problem. Also other big problem you probably already recognised, that it lacks a holistic approach. If we take depression as an example , we can know, that it can stem from 1000 different things and sometimes it can't be find in the mind, but for example coming from having a really bad diet or bad genetics or whatever. Finding out what the root of the problem should be done in a more better way, but as you have said, therapists are not incentivised to do so, they are incentivised to exploit money from the patients.

If thats the main goal, thats going to be really really tough. I assume you would specifically target everyone with psychedelics and making 'awakening with psychedelics' more mainstream. Do you work on a plan for each stage, or you more like working on a grand plan ,which can be applied for most people? But one other thing that would also be really hard and tough and also cool to do is to really convert hardcore materialist minded people, who is not even open enough to the possibility that they could be wrong like Neil deGrasse Tyson type of people and convert them to at least stage green level. If those people would be converted, that would have a very large effect on all society.

So the goal is to convert hardcore stage orange to stage green? Or more like targeting hardcore scientist and materialist minded people, deconstructing their worldview and converting them into a person who is much more open minded?

Have you seen the movie called Arrival? Its kind of related to this topic. The aliens there, communicating with visuals. Also psychedelic trips inlcuding a lot of visuals, and through the visuals we can get compact and complex messages.

@Rokazulu Thanks. Will check it out.

@Rokazulu Can you point out any existing platform or place, where your system kind of already in place, or there isn't any yet?

This is a very significant study. More such studies should be made with larger samples (But i know its hard to make such studies especially with young children). This process could be the first step to select those kids out who is likely to be transgender not just pretending to be one. Then after they go through that long 5 year process if they still indentified with being trans, then they could go through other processes before any surgery or hormone blockers just as Vaush said: They would had to talk to a psychiatrist, and they would have to go through an additional level of scrutiny from medical professionals.

Most people lack time. They don't have the time nor the desire to look through every post rigorously carefully to decide if it is banworthy or not. Its a full time job to do this its not easy at all, also what most people are lacking is the ablility to analyze things as unbiased as they possibly can. So why moderators are better for moderating? Because they can do this full time, they have all the time in their hands, and in an ideal society they could be trained for the job ( they could be taught philosophy and how bias works, they could be taught to be multiperspectival and how interpreation works and they can learn all the nuances of the guidelines which most people don't know or misinterpret) they aren't trained yet for the things i mentioned, but its much more easier to train up moderators than to suddenly train all society. Also i don't even know how your approach would work in practice. Lets say there is a platform with 10 million users. Lets say there is 3 million people who wants to ban a person called X. How this would work in practice? THey wouldn't be able to ban this X named people because less than 50% of the platform is voting for the ban and all the other people are not engaging in the voting? The same question arises with an unban. How can democracy work if not all people are engaging, and what is a time limit you can have to engage to vote? Imagine there is a 1000 different ban reccomendation in a week ( of course in a large platform there is much much more) so do you really think, that all the members who are voting would rigorously looking thorugh all those 1000 people's posts, analyzing deeply what they did and in what context and they have enough time on their hand? You still haven't made any argument in favour of your idea. You just tried to argue why mine is bad. plus, i don't see how your approach would be any different from reddit. We know very well how reddit dynamics work, and i wouldn't call that ideal nor fair. Your idea is not more fair, because of the arguements i made above (people don't have enough capability nor enough time to be good moderators themselves) and again it would just open of more negative dynamics (like large groups using their power) In this case, who will make that large group accountable, if the owner has almost no say? How can you hold a group accountable? Its much more easier to hold an owner or a handful of people accountable for their policies and also for their actions. Why would that owner be obligated to give a platform for society if its negative for him/her at the end of the day. You need to balance both sides out.

Yes, its a total gamble what is currently occuring with the NFT "market". The biggest problem with it that it is super volatile and don't have any inherent value to it. What determines an NFT's price? Basically the owner and nothing else. We can't even say that the market has its own effect on a particular NFT price, because every NFT is unique by definition. I think the current use of NFT's are really bad, but they have potential to be used in the future. They could be used to verify that you have this x y z property to your name. This property could be physical or not physical, but the NFT part would only be used to prove , that that particular thing is yours and unique to you. Imagine if you would buy anything lets be it physical or something online, when you purchase that thing you automatically get it with an added NFT to it. In this cases the NFT part would only be used to prove that the purchased thing is yours. Currently we have solutions how to prove what physical property is yours or not, but it involves a lot of work and papers. What if you lose your papers or receipts? You cwouldn't be able to prove that the property is yours ( There are cases of course when you can prove it because its being saved in a database, but there are cases when they don't save it in any database). It could be simplified with NFT's and if we are talking about online stuff, now there would be especially useful to use NFT's to prove that whatever thing you bought online is yours.

Its a good point, but its not totally same to the elections. There is a nuance to this. We want to have a society where people have a say who they want to elect, but i don't think we want a society where people have a say in every possible specific issue including complex environmental,political,medical,psychological,economic issues. (Why? Because those are up for people who have enough knowledge and far more information avalaible to them to make far better decisions than i could ever make as a layman, with very limited information avalaible to me) So my question would be for you, do you think that the majority of people who would engage in moderation would have enough time and enough capability to make the right choices or do you think its more plausible that if a few highly developed people who has moderating as thier jobs , they could manage the bans and other situations regarding to moderating on a platform. And again most people have actually a say in moderation (not individually, but if they do it in a large group) they can have a significant effect on platforms. I don't know if they are that much of a minority, they are growing. But i agree that of course silencing them won't solve any root issues, but it can solve some problems for the platform's owner, and for some other people who are using the platform in a good faith way. ( I don't think that the platform owner's responsibility to solve the root issue for people, who have beliefs an thinking that is not acceptable in today society) I wouldn't say that it is more balanced, but the outcome of the bad decisions can be more easily managed, and the whole banning thing and moderation takes less time

Why can't socialism use aspects of capitalism? Why is it inconceivable to have a sort of hybrid system? You don't have to call that socialism if you don't want to, but i think a hybrid system is possible.

So basically, trying to make the mods accountable for their actions? I have some problems with this approach. People with the biggest groups can dominate how platforms should work, they can reverse any ban they feel unjustified, and they can report people they don't like and get them banned (thats basically cancel culture) Most bans that are going to be percieved as unjustified will be on the edge. What do i mean by that? I mean, that most of the unjustifiably percieved bans are made, because we are talking about such cases where the line isn't precise or clear so its on the moderator's interpretation to decide if its banworthy or not. Now, how you are going to manage to reverse that, when you can't defend it with clear points, you can only argue about interpretations? (so the people who wants to reverse some other person's ban, can only say that this x mod's interpretation of this post was wrong, so please unban him/her) In those cases, where the ban is clearly unjustified, i would agree with this community driven approach, however in such cases where most people are angry about a ban is already avalaible. If enough people start to shit talk about a platform and their mods actions they will be forced to make changes. Or if they don't make any changes, then the platform's integrity and prestige going to be hurt. Look at it from being a platform owner perspective. You want to have a platform what you can fairly moderate, because if you can't moderate your own platform, then eventually you can lose your whole platform, because rascist and other bad faith people can dominate it and decide what can and what can't be done. So you are going to lose advertisers, promoters and business opportunities.

I really like this 'Dark Academia' one This is a good one as well.

Yeah, this. Set your vision up first and foremost and that should motivate you through your life. But this vision should be work/busniess/carrier related (How you want to help humanity, or how do you want to express yourself in this world) @PenguinPablo i think you should get yourself grounded in everyday life. What do I mean by that? I mean, i think you should first get rid of your debts, think about your life what do you want to work, get your financies right ( where you don't need to constantly worry about money). Basically set your 'normal' life up first, then you can go full on awakening and enlightenment. I noticed a few years about myself, that by watching Leo i unconsciously parroted some of his views and beliefs and goals. Contemplate about your beliefs, goals and about your aim in life. Sometimes we get depressed because we don't actually do what we want, and other times we want to live up to people's lifes and goals and dreams (and of course we do a lot of this unconsciously) One of the biggest mistakes most of us young Leo followers make, is that we quickly jump for God/enlightenment work without getting our everyday needs met and without getting our everday life work. Because of this, we face a lot of problems and this slowing down the spiritual development process as well. So the ground should be very solid first and then you can try to build on it. So first get your normal life ready, contemplate about what you actually want to do, and then you can "attack" spirituality and enlightenment with as much energy and force as you want.

Yeah the democratic free speech system sounds great, however it still has the same weakpoints as the centralized one. Also with the centralized one you only need a handful of very developed people who control the information flow, in your case we need at least 50%+ of that particular communties people to be very developed, because if they are not, it will just become an echo-chamber. Also, another weak point of the democratic free speech approach, is that what if not all people are engaging in voting? Every topic and every thread and every post needs to be voted by everyone or at least by 50% of people? Because that doesn't seem sustainable to me. What if less than 50% of people are voting? Those topics/threads/posts won't be published or if they will be published they won't be moderated? @Rokazulu I saw, that the link you gave mentioned a holistic approach and also mentioned AI as well. AI moderation won't be possible, because we ourselves don't even know where the lines should be drawn. It sounds great, that an unbiased AI will moderate, but that AI to become a moderator, it needs to be trained on already structured data and examples and how should the AI decide what should or shouldn't be moderated and in what cases? I think the AI "solution" is just pushing this problem forward but not really solves anything and it begs the question that we can't answer yet. If moderation could be algorithmized, then we would have done that already. Unfortunately it can't be or it can't be yet. If you @Rokazulu don't agree, please share some points why your 'democratic free speech' approach is better than the centralized one.

This should be put in the Entertainment/Fun section

Nope, this is why.

This is strange, cause i can see it both using youtube without an account and seeing it with an account. putting the sorting on 'newest first' is working for me well, even if i use UK's vpn. So it will be something with your account or i don't know.

Such as?