zurew

Walking away from a relationship and changing partners is much more correlated with having leverage in a relationship (the more leverage and opportunity you have the more likely you will execute on it and leave ) and has almost nothing to do with gender. If there is a high quality men, that men will drop his partner super fast if he feels like it, because that guy will know that he can find another partner in a second . You can say that on average women may have more leverage, but again thats not because of gender, but more because how the current dating dynamics work and because most men are low quality and have nothing to contribute.

This part of the forum shows how many people are just parroting red pill talking points, without thinking about them for 1 second, posting stats without context and without actually showing the details behind them. This part of the forum reveals how people here are engaging with topics and what quality of research and thinking they do before they confidently restate F&F, Tate talking points. "Men loves uncoditionally, here is a set of 20 things that are required for my love as a "high" quality man: be a 10/10, allow me to have a one sided open relationship, where I can have sex with as many women as I want and you can only have me, be totally submissive to me, allow me to dominate and lead the whole relationship, do all the chores at home, cook for me, take care of everything at home, I want you to be quiet, I want you to follow my 100 rule book about what you are not allowed to do, I want you to never complain and not to never cause me a headache etc, but I love you unconditionally and in a self sacrifical way, babe". - the idea, that a men who has as much or closely as much leverage as a hot women on the dating market, wouldn't leave and exploit women just as much is just ridiculously naive and blatantly false and shows how much bias some of you guys have here.

What is absolutely true?

Haven't done any research on this, but I will leave this here, it might be helpful to start to your research here: https://www.quora.com/Is-the-LARQ-Bottle-PureVis-a-scam-It-claims-to-be-a-self-cleaning-water-bottle-that-uses-UV-light-LEDs-to-purify-water edit: okay quora is still shit, because you need to pay to be able to see the comments in full. Here are some reviews on it: https://www.amazon.com/LARQ-Bottle-PureVis-Self-Cleaning-Award-winning/product-reviews/B00CWY2NHA?reviewerType=all_reviews https://www.reddit.com/r/HydroHomies/comments/ks9bca/any_of_you_homies_tried_the_larq_purifying_bottle/ These links hopefully will be helpful to start your research and to see some reviews.

Nilsi is coming with another hot take. If you only care about sex, then why would you limit It with a random age limit, when there are hot women in a much bigger age range + the older the women, the more sexual exp she will have , therefore the more she will know how to make sex fun.

The logical extension of your argument is that the west has to "respect" all of Russia's requirement(s) all the time and that there is no limits to what requirement(s) Russia can have and they can always give and create more and more requirements without any limits. The interesting part of the conversation shouldn't be this black and white (you either have to respect everything or nothing) but should be more about where would you draw the line, when certain requirement(s) become too hostile or too demanding or too much to handle. This is similar to saying when two person has problems negotiating their boundaries and one of the person has hostile/limiting boundaries (for instance, telling your friend, that he has to spend 4 hours playing games with you every weekend ,because if he won't, then you won't be his friend anymore). Is that really a boundary that has to be respected or more like an agressive limiting factor placed on your friend and by doing all that, you are limiting his boundary. The other implication of your argument is that Russia would have not attacked Ukraine, if the west would have fulfilled all the russian requirements. What is your argument that would support that and do you have a point in your mind, where you would say that certain "requirements" are too much to handle and you don't have to respect them anymore?

Why would you want to make this so adverserial and so loaded. Creating this thread the way you created it , can only end up two ways: Ending up in circle jerk where all conservative people will agree with you and shit on all liberals without making any good arguments or without acttually breaking down such liberal arguments that are not low quality or strawmans. Ending up in personal attacks where people who consider themselves as liberals will find this thread incredibly bad faith and full of strawman arguments If you want to make a thread where high quality discussion can happen, then you need to carefully set up a ground for it, but what you did here is the exact opposite.

That countering can only work with reasonable people who haven't made up their minds yet + we are often times talking about conspiracy theories that are unfalsifiable and so vague and broad that its impossible to counter them (they are so vague , that they can always fit their biases inside those conspiracies) but at the same time, they are damaging given the current political environment and given how regular people are engaging with information. Most people don't engage with politics and with news in a way ,where they individually dissect and research things and where they individually evaluate the given information, but they always place those news in an already built up large worldview and or ideology. So when there is a critique , that critique almost always comes from a larger baggage of ideas and wordview and almost never only aiming at that particular news or idea but aimed at whole set of other things that are projected behind it. - This is not exclusive to conspiracy theorists, this includes people who blindly follow any party or any political ideology. Given all those things, sharing information on platforms have to be done knowing that most people will see and project ghosts to places where there are none and that is often times very damaging depending on what the topic is. If you would ask these people how many of them are actually open and are willing to change their minds on the matter the % would be super low and most of these people can't answer this question: "what evidence or what would it take to change your mind on this particular matter?" Banning is usually effective if it is done by multiple large social media companies, because most people unfortunately only consume information from youtube, twitter, tiktok ,facebook and some other social media companies (and never read any articles or studies). so if you ban certain things on some of those websites,then most people won't even encounter those ideas. You are saying that banning is not effective, but at the same time implying that countering misinformation with more speech is effective or more effective, but I haven't seen any evidence that actually countering misinformation with more speech is more effective given today's political. information consuming environment. Open platforms are almost never used to actually debate and to challenge ideas, they are used to virtue signal (in this case that we are not sheep and we never follow the mainstream), to shit on people and to share ideas that we are agreeing with or triggered by. I almost never see people changing their beliefs and or ideas on social media platforms, but I always see triggered people sharing links and posts thinking they have found some truth, when in reality - they are sharing some kind of misinformation and they don't even watch the video they share or god forbid do a 5 minutes research on it and or read about the thing they are so rapidly sharing and posting on their page. I think this critique is fair.

No, its not. Just because a theory became more plausible down the road that does not mean that it was just as plausible in the beginning as it is right now. This is not about who is right in the end, its about what process, methods and road you used to get to your conclusion using all the known facts at that time and its about how reliable your epistemic toolkit is. This is similar to a bunch of dumb confident crypto day/week traders who say they won one time, and then they assume it wasn't luck, but it was becuase their method is reliable and then they lose all their money in the next run. From 100 conspiracy theory, maybe a handful will become somewhat true. If a conspiracy head believes one theory confidently to be true, then they should use facts and then connecting those facts in a way, where they don't need to make 10x times more assumptions than the mainstream narrative. Its extremely rare to see a well built up conspiracy case that is rigorous and sited with sources and using facts not assumptions.

https://blogs.bing.com/search/february-2023/Introducing-the-new-Bing-in-Windows-11

In its current form I wouldn't say they are effective, but I can think of a different method that could be realistically used in this age and in this political environement that would be more effective. Even if most arguments are bad faith they still try to present and represent a perspective, a perspective that could win the debate. The win-lose dynamic is definitely limited, but it still gives something, because at the very least the two or more guys who are arguing at the very least trying to come up with the best arguments they have (showing a certain perspectives in a s trong positive light) and then you can analyse and break down those if you want to, but at the very least hopefully you end up having two or more different strong perspectives. Ideally of course the effective method would be to work together and trying to make each other's points stronger, steelman each other and work together to solve problems and to arrive at well thought out conclusions. But that won't happen realistically, because everyone is incentivised on multiple levels to not do so (different value systems, money incentives, algortihmic incentives [to be dramatic and to make clickbaits and stuff like that and to make intentionally trigerring content] + we still all have a big ego and we need to work on it and we are still way too defensive (although being defensive is understandable, when you think that the things that you value the most will be destroyed or limited by a different political party).

Whether or not it will happen or not, has nothing to do with us talking about it. No one is that naive here to think that any of our prescriptions will be applied by politicans, and thats not even the goal of this discussion. On its face this point implies that you should never ever ban things even if statistically it could massively reduce harm. You talking about "taking away responsiblity" doesn't make that much sense in this scenario, because by you allowing incredibly addicting things, you are taking away much more agency from people and they will end up in places, where they can't even make a rational or conscious decision anymore, because they are mentally and or physically fucked. The idea of taking responsibility is directly coupled with your ability to handle the thing you are taking responsiblity for. If I chip away from your agency, then your ability to take responsbility for your own life and for things will be chipped away too. Also why would you always value responsiblity over massive harm? No one is suggesting here that any harm (even if it is a small harm) should be immediatelly banned or restricted, but we are talking about drawing the line somewhere. People on a mass scale hearing about "you should be more responsible and do this and that" doesn't achieve anything, especially when people are underprivileged and have addictions and have traumas and maybe had a toxic upbringing etcetc. The envrironement that one grew up in, the opportunities that one got when one was a kid, being born healthy, how good parents one have and had, what quality upbringing one had, and a bunch of other factors were and are all contributing to how much responsiblity you can take for your life and how much agency you have over your life right now, and ignoring those aspects would be a big mistake. Knowing that point, we should recognize that the advice of "just take more responsiblity or to just let them learn their lesson" is not that applicaple in all circumstances and in most of the time a useless advice. This is begging the question, because the question at hand is this: how could we create a system where we could consciously outgrow/solve these problems on a global scale. You saying that "we should just consciously outgrow these things" implies that we know how to do it on a mass scale, but we don't. This begs the questions again "let them do the correct decision", the idea that people will just learn from their mistakes on their own ,when you literally allow them to get addicted and fucked and by that you are directly contributing to them having less and less capacity to make decisions is naive. An addicted person don't have nowhere near as much ability to make a decision than a non addict has. Also, we are not talking about a neutral enviroment where you can actually freely choose what you want to do. Some of these techs are literally made to get you addicted and to capture your attention by exploiting your human weaknesses. The company that will end up winning your attention will be the one, that is the most effective at capturing your attention and the idea that all of these things are equally good at capturing attention or to get you hooked in just simply not true. Also this argument only applies in some cases but not all cases. The idea that you will see other billion dollar companies randomly taking tiktok's place is false, and even if that would be the case, you can create restrictions around it, so they can't be as harmful as they are today.

I already made my points about why it is necessary in current times for the government to "parent" the parents and their children and why it is necessary sometimes to make certain things much less accessible or even to ban things. If we would live in a different time where all people would be conscious and mentally and physically healthy , the solution and the approach to fix certain problems would be different. Your solution about giving and putting all responisbility to and on the parents assumes a lot of things that are not necessarily true. 1. it assumes that parents can have total control over their children (I don't think thats necessarily the case with tech, because if you not let your children to engage with certain tech you can make as much damage or even more damage compared to if you let them use it). 2. It assumes that current parents are conscious enough (this is the biggest one ,that I don't believe is true and first you would need to fix the parents before you can talk about parents creating and bringing up conscious children. 3. It assumes that parents are alone are enough to solve and mitigate these problems without any help from the government. The ideal solution could be a combination of top down (government helping) and a bottom up (parents doing conscious parenting), but in practice this is unlikely and incredibly difficult in the current environment. Totally fixing parenting can't happen without fixing 100 different kind of systemic problems at the same time. These issues are incredibly complex and interconnected, there are no easy solutions, but sometimes banning is the best option. I won't be able to give you a well thought out solution, because the situation is inredibly complex. There are reasons why we see these problems arising and there are systemic issues that are need to be fixed first, because if they are not, the same kind of problems will arise. Even the banning I talked about is just about treating some of these problems in a symptomatic way (to maybe win more time), because addressing the root issues require unbelievably complex solutions, not just solutions but a set of systemic solutions. Saghuru type of lectures are necessary for the overall solution for the systemic problems (they are giving a part solution for the problem called meaning crisis [which is alone an incredibly complex problem which I won't get into depth now], but obviously not sufficient alone. There is no one solution that will solve this problem ,because again as I said this problem arised from other systemic problems and if we don't fix those first the same kind of problems will eventually arise.

No they would probably end up doing and craving other addicting stuff. But here is the thing though, there are degrees to it and there are some important variables that we could use to make sense and to maybe rank some of these incredibly addicting goods and services. For example: The accessability (including how much it cost to reach it and use it, and how fast you can reach it and what you need to have access to it), Would banning it create a blackmarket for it or not, What would it take to ban it ( how much people, energy and resources would need to be used to be able to ban it ) after banning it, will people be able to live without it, without having a mental or physical breakdown? ( or in other words is there a need for something to replace it first or people will be fine without it) Kind of related to the 4th one, do we know all the function(s) ,that that particular good/service has and will we be able to replace those functions or is it necessary in the firstplace to replace those functions? Those 5 variables definitely seem very important to me regarding this issue, but of course more could be given. Yeah I get that, and I think your point is important and we should be very careful what we want to ban and why (because there could be bad or even worse unintended consequences), but at the end of the day some action is required. I think banning them when the market is already in place for them would have created and would create worse consequences (than not banning them), but never creating a market for them in the firstplace would have been the best imo.

Right now banning them would be dumb, because people are already addicted to them, and there would be just a bigger blackmarket for them, but never creating market for them probably would have been better. The problem is that the "learning" you are talking about sometimes means fucking up people for no reason and sometimes there is no going back or the healing process from fucking them up is incredibly long. This idea, that people should be presented with more options (even with options that could be incredibly destructive) would be good, if we would live in a world right now, where all people would be psychologically and physically healthy, but most people are not and they get addicted to a bunch of shit and they lose their agency. Also, is it really a choice if you get presented with "choices", where companies are hijacking your brain with shit (and you get your animal side activated where you lose your rational side for a while and then you are basically going with your animal instincts)? There are very consciously constructed business models (that are working with combining the power of AI + neurologists and psychologists [telling the company how to get people hooked on stuff] + a few thousand engineers). These companies are incredibly effective at getting your attention, because they know more about you (collecting data from you) + knowing your psychology much better than you, therefore they can capture your attention however they want and you won't be able to fight with them most of the time, because your willpower is too limited compared to them (1 person fighting with a gaint company with thousand of engineers + AI + the knowledge of psychologists and neurologists] and because you are a human its very easy to take advantage of your weaknesses. Im not talking about, that you should only be presented with 1 option so you don't have to think - Im saying, ideally people should be presented with options that are not incredibly destructive for you and won't make you less and less capable to make your own decisions. When something is literally created to get you addicted, then you lose personal agency, and you have less and less capacity to make rational decisions for your own self. The agent who makes the decision to start use tiktok 1-2 hours a day, 1 week later is probably a completely different agent who is addicted to tiktok and therefore you need to evaluate the same agent's decision making ability in a different way.

Thats what addiction is, you know that it is incredibly destructive, but you will use it anyway. Ideally you would be presented with options that will give you more agency and not less. When you get addicted to something ,you basically get your personal agency taken away from you.

If this is the essence of your point, then I misunderstood, and I agree. Contemplation is definitely necessary for developing understanding and by contemplating about something you build more and stronger connection(s) in your head with other concepts so you will be able to retain it and understand it better.

Memorizing things is less and less useful nowadays, because you can have access to any concept or knowledge on the internet now, so memorizing things is most of the time useless, unless it is necessary to understand a new concept. You said that memorizing by writing things down is bad and indoctrination, but how is that different from memorizing by reading or memorizing by listening to someone? You said that you would rather think than write . There is a difference between you trying to remember something using your memory and thinking. Just because you have a lexicon on you neck that does not mean, that you can think. You can remember 1000 more words than another person, but that still won't mean that you are a more effective thinker, unless you think that remembering words is thinking. To me thinking means asking questions and questioning concepts and ideas and generating new ideas and solving problems. To me a good thinker is able to understand and steelman many different kind of perspectives and is able to synthesize those perspectives. Retaining something in your memory != with understanding. The act of thinking is different from memorization and different from retaining things in memory. Thinking can be using some kind of logic (lets be it deductive logic or inductive logic) to reach a conclusion from a given information or thinking can be much less algorithmic (especially, when it comes to generating new insights and generating new connections between insights). Yes, during the time you are thinking about something it is necessary to remember some of the concepts that you are using to reach a conclusion, however needing something for a period of time does not mean, that you have to or that it is useful to remember those things forerver. The emphasis is on having the necessary logical and thinking structure and not on your memory. You also talked about being fast and effective. Being a fast thinker and problem solver often means how effectively you can utilize the tools around you. You can literally use google to be the extension of your mind in terms of memory. If you really want to optimize to be really fast at solving problems then spending your time learning about how to use the tools around you more effectively is a much better time investment, than memorizing everything.

So just to be clear, right now we are at a place where speaking up against being treated one way means you are a pussy, and you liking dirty talk and jerking off to it means you have balls. Good job guys, keep going! Some of you guys must have a kink where you like dirty talk and being shamed.

Also, for the people who are saying "just leave dude, if you have a problem or if you don't like it" are basically implying that the value on this forum only comes from Leo, but I would argue otherwise. I think a lot more value comes from the fact that a lot of intelligent people are gathered in one place and can interact with each other and I would not trade that experience and the value of it just because the admin is behaving in silly ways.

I haven't said anything that would contradict or disagree with any of your points above. I tried to make a point that he is using selective scepticism (where you are very sceptical about certain things and when it comes to other things , you openly accepts everything without any single critical thought or scepticism). My point was that Russel is not very balanced in his takes, in fact he is very clearly biased, and he seems to be very heavily ideologically driven so I wouldn't expect him to give balanced and good faith takes about political issues. Not saying things explicitly won't be an adequate defence here. He has made multiple videos where there was a very strong indication not to take the vaccine. (If I am making 10 different videos where I am only focusing on and cherrypicking the negative aspects of taking the vaccine and never talking about the positive side and never give a balanced take about it, then I am essentially implying that taking it is bad and and my audience who is only informed by me and by the information that I give, will leave with the impression that vaccines are actually bad) - would you actually say that this is giving an option to choose from or more like giving very strong indications what not to do or what would be insane or dumb to do ( which is essentially telling people what to do, but in a more sneaky way ). You have an incredibly limited view if you think that if a vaccine is not 100% effective, then it is a failure. People did and do have the choice to decide what they want to do, but of course they will be motivated to take certain directions , because freedom and the ability to have a choice and to make a decision comes with consequences and often times giving selfish people absolute freedom ends in chaos and ends with creating more overall harm than good. What about companies who don't want their workers to get infected with covid and want to give a safe place for them where they can work? What about taking more responsiblity as a citizen and not infecting elderly people and then not flooding the hospitals and not destroying the health care system? Why shouldn't companies have the freedom to decide what they want to do with their workplace regarding to covid? Because you are essentially implying that they shouldn't even have the freedom to decide what they want to do with their workplace, so you would violate their freedom and limit their freedom.

Regarding instances where you were intentionally ignorant: In the middle of a debate/argument its very common to be intentionally ignorant or to defend your side and not really let go of certain claims, because frankly, in those cases, you are probably triggered and emotional (which is totally fine, and all of us sometimes fall into this trap and it is a very human thing to do) I would except no one (because I can't do it myself) to be able to let go of certain beliefs or in the middle of a heated debate. The fact that you are able to self reflect later is a rare and a very valuable thing. Regarding intances, where you weren't intentionally ignorant: In those cases, you couldn't have done better, because you went with the best knowledge you had at that time, so there is really nothing to be ashamed about. The only thing you can do is to strive to be better to the best of your ability and thats basically it. I think you shouldn't evaluate these things only through a consequentialist lense (meaning what outcome you generated or created), because it is sometimes limited on its own and sometimes combining it with a different philosophical framework might be helpful. For example, you can combine the valueing of your intention(s) with the value of outcome. I think the best way to evaluate your own intentions is to check inside yourself and your feelings about it (how much you feel that you tried your best). Sometimes evaluating your own intentions by looking at the consequences what you created is limited, because there are many instances where we are giving all our best and we still fail to do something or we sometimes create chaos even though we didn't intend to do that (these would be instances, where you are ignorant but you don't know that you are ignorant or how you are ignorant or how you could have done better). The value of looking for feedback and looking at consequences periodically could come in, in an informative way. Those things could help you to be more aware what tools and what method(s) create what outcomes, therefore you will be more aware and less ignorant, but I don't think consequences should be the main driver in your phillosophy regarding yourself. The reason for that is because you will run into a lot of scenarios, where you will have to shit on yourself even though you tried your best, but you ignore that you tried your best, because you are only looking at the outcome and the consequences. So in a nutshell, I think going with a philosophy where you are using feedback and the 'looking at consequences' as not the main driver but to inform you and to make you less ignorant and at the same time going with a framework where you main driver is checking and focusing on your intention(s) and checking whether you try your best or not is one way that might be helpful.

No, but saying you are the most awake person, and saying that no one else is awake or at his level of course is super egotistical (because he has no way of testing those claims) and he made multiple very egotistical statements that are all radiating that he has a huge ego and lacks embodiment in a very big way. Sadghuru has never ever said, that he is the most awake person or implied that he is special. Leo has made multiple videos about multiple different important topics and he lacks the embodiment regarding all of them. He has emotional outburts (and not just here and there, but it seems to be more and more frequent), he lacks integrity (he lets himself to do stuff on this forum that he doesn't allow others to do), and he doesn't follow his own advice about many things. This is his forum so yes, he can do whatever the fuck he wants, but lets not virtue signal about integrity and about other things like that, when you as the leader don't follow your own rules. I guess the sentence of "lead by example" is forgotten here, but at the same, it is somehow reasonable to assume that people will follow the rules (when the forum leader doesn't) and follow the teachings (when the teacher doesn't). Being a dick as a method seems incredibly limited ,because that makes him look more of like an authority figure(where he can constantly show off how much better and how much more awake he is than anyone else and at the same time put others down) for some and for others who are sceptical about his teachings won't really achieve much, because they are already sceptical about his work. No one will suddenly get enlightened by being called a stupid rat, and saying that claims like that is him teaching others is a big cope and delusional imo. The only thing that will work is actually doing the practices, but you won't motivate sceptical people by calling them names and putting them down. Being a dick method is again very dangerous because it automatically makes him an authority figure (implying others are so stupid, that they can't think for themselves and they need to follow his advice, because otherwise they are lost) Its not about "ohh you crybabies getting mad for some harsh comments" its more about the frequency of it and about what that tells us about him as a person and his integrity and his actual values. The mental gymnastics and whitewashing coming from some of the mods here is really concerning, and unironically makes this place look like a cult. The fact that some of you can't even acknowledge when Leo is just being a dick for no reason is sad and makes him look like a figure that can't do anything wrong because you can just always flip it to make it look like it was necessary and it was actually "positive".

He is not being "suspicious", he is using selective scepticism and selective critical thinking. He is not being "fair" , he is giving a bunch of conspiracy talking points and he is giving a lot of anti-government takes without any sign that he could actually steelman and defend any pro-government talking points.

Are you referring to instances, where you knew you could have acted better or are you referring to instances, where during that time you didn't know any better (and reflecting on it with a clear mind right now, makes you think how you could have done things better)?