zurew

Its just shows that sometimes his brain is turned off, and he can't engage critically with any new information or happening, because he has to tie back every bad thing to the "matrix" and to the bad guys behind the curtain. The problem with this is that this way of thinking and this way of doing epistemology radically poisions young people and their thinking process, so in the end he actually do the opposite what he preaches to do (he doesn't give to tools how to be a critical thinker, he teaches how to be a sheep on the opposite side). I don't agree with this, yes its true that he become famous mostly because of bodybuilding but that doesn't mean that he wouldn't have become famous otherwise. He has and had other tools not just bodybuilding. I don't want to derail this thread into debating these things, but yeah generally speaking I agree don't take these things , because in most of the cases they are not neccesary, but you can be pretty safe about it if you do the necessary blood work and other stuff with doctors beforehand and during you take the stuff. I think Goggins can push and motivate his followers really hard when it comes to physical activities. I am not demonizing sex work, I am judging the process of him creating his "workplace" and I don't need to assume the allegations to be true, I just need to take Tate for his words (luring the girl to Romania with lies, lie to them about tax stuff and stealing that money from them , and he actually admitted that he was a pimp). So the logic of just because in the end you can gain something from a process doesn't mean, that its all okay or good and we don't even know how much money those girls made. I think thats a big cope, there are many women who make tones of money alone, its not like Tate was an essential part of their sexwork, women very good at manipulating guys(and its not even hard), so they don't need a guy to do it for them. Tate's ability to chat with those people is not special, even if you want to go with the argument that women wouldn't have time, they could have hired typers for themselves. Yes it is, just the tax fraud alone and pimping and other stuff and this is just going by his own words.

Tate is the opposite of that, you can predict all his takes just by putting anti before the word mainstream. He acts like he thinks, but he doesn't, he just rejects blindly everything that is mainstream. Thats a quick way to find something to dismiss all the values arnold had/has. I don' t think Arnold nor Joe are pushing the message that everyone should use steroids, also Joe doesn't even use steroids - he uses TRT which is not the same. I could say the same logic about Tate, that people shouldn't fight at a professional level , because you don't need to, and you will fuck your brain and body up, so just because of that he is not a good role model. A 21st century role model have to be a professional or good physical fighter for you? Its interesting that your definition of a male role model nowadays have to contain that skill, when its less and less necessary and often just a proxy for other things that you can get without being an impressive fighter. Are you a "the end justify the means" kind of guy? Because I can challenge that kind of logic and "moral" framework with a lot of examples.Also Its almost like you are saying that the girls couldn't have made their money doing cam work on their own. Also the notion that those girls made so much money and all of the working was willingly and not coerced and not forced is very debatable (lets see first the end of the invesigation of his case and lets talk about these things after that). Of course he does like to think that 70+ women were constantly in love with him, but the reports doesn't align with his narcissistic thinking at all.

or his asthma

Right, but trying to link everything to the vaccines without any tangible evidence is the smart move, got ya buddy. Even if we couldn't tell what caused what incident, you would be still very very far away from proving your dumb theory.

If you read these articles, these should be more than enough to become an efficient googler. https://www.lifehack.org/articles/technology/20-tips-use-google-search-efficiently.html https://moz.com/blog/mastering-google-search-operators-in-67-step

Yeah I agree, but being able to pass a turing test that is 6-8 hour long talk with a professional AI engineer(who will ask it a very broad set of questions and tasks) is a really hard task imo, if that engineer can be fooled in the end by the AI then we can assume a human level or very close to human level understanding of most things. Currently the AI still fails with some common sense tasks and questions, but once that part will be solved it will be very interesting to see what it will be capable of. Looking forward to gpt4.

Even if it turns out that the allegations are true, this is how its going to go down for his delusional followers and fans: Stage 1: He didn't do it Stage 2: Okay he did do it, but its not that bad Stage 3: Okay maybe its bad, but look at these other bad things that other people do that are worse Stage 4: Okay but they deserved it Stage 5: Okay he did it, but look how much he has helped young men

What year do you predict, when an AI will be able to pass an 6-8 hour long turing test done by an AI engineer?

"I am so smart guys, I see a random graph with more excess mortality rate, and I know that it must be because of vaccines, and that graph alone without a doubt proves my point about vaxx being bad" "FDA needs 75 years to release the data, therefore I can make up whatever fucking numbers and stats I fucking want about the vaccine and conclude that the vaxx is bad" - another salient and smart point.

So you are telling me , that when it comes to your other claims you have nothing to backed them up and your just made them the fuck up? If you go with that "I can't show evidence or studies, because they have all been censored in the past 3 years" - the only thing you are communicating to me with that, is that you are making up numbers without being able to ground them.

"I am really smart guys, thankfully i am not a sheep like those dumb vaxxed guys, i have my own unique opinions and I do my own research on youtube. All my thinking process can be boiled down to anything that is anti mainstream"

So you want to dig into these things? Let me see first your cited studies about your claims.

"ohh dude look around you, more people are dying nowadays than in the past - therefore vaccines are bad". Really smart my dude, your epistemic process is shit and there is nothing more to say about it.

"observant person" - makes light year steps in logic. This brain rot has to stop. I guess before the covid vaccine people have never died or fall to the ground.

*brain rot take.

Sneako is such a bot. His mind is so rotten from the anti mainstream - anti matrix bullshit narrative.

All of this talk is grounded in subjective valuesystems, you have no upperhand.

More people can earn more money collectively and because they have more money, they can have more freedom in deciding how they want to spend their time, so basically they can manage their relationship better. So you agree , that for some (even if the number is really low,) but for some people this type of relationship can work. Again, the logical extenstion to this logic is that it eventually leads to not having a family, children and abandoning every friendship, because then you can maximize your time with your one partner. I assume, you wouldn't advocate for that, so we can recognize that it is all about where you draw your line. You are talking about power dynamics and every relationship has its own power dynamics, and that alone is not a net negative or negative. I will ask the question again: If there is an individual who is okay with higher chance of cathing stds and is okay with not having kids, why shouldn't he pursue a poly relationship?

Thats totally depends on how it is set up, and on the dynamics that are in that relationship. Again depending on the situation it could be argued that people in a poly relatonship can distribute more than in a monogamous relationship in other cases they can't, but again it totally depends and not a question of polyamory or monogamous relationship.

I already addressed this point if you read further. If you have a problem with time , wealth and emotional distribution and cost, then you essentially making an argument against having a big family and having friends, because you spend your time, money, and emotional faculties in those cases as well.

You can have distributed wealth if you want to and you can build more and bigger things if all of you are working together because you can accumulate more resources. Don't have to source things, but it would be good if you could list thing at least on an abstract level, I don't think it too much to ask for, when you claimed that you have things. I saw you mentioned STD-s but if a person is okay with catching certain std-s and if that person has safe sex whats your argument against that? Most std-s can be cured anyway. Also to be clear, I wouldn't be in a poly relationship, or wouldn't suggest it to most people, but that doesn't mean that its impossible to make it work or that everyone should follow one rule and one type of relationship, when it might not fit to every person What do you mean by you won't get deep, do you mean that you can't have multiple meaningful realtionships, because of the lack of time? If thats your point I don't think thats true.Iif that would be true,then you wouldn't have time to create meaningful relationship with other parts of your family because of the lack of time, and you basically would make an argument with that point against creating a big family. Your point applies exactly the same to polyamorous relationships as well. "it doesn't matter if you think that or not as long as you figure the relationship out and stay there or brake up if it doesn't work at all." So whats is your argument when it comes to individuals? What If there is a person who is okay with an increased chance of catching std-s and this person doesn't want a family? Also your reasoning about poly relationship couldn't raise kids is not necessarily true. You mentioned lack of time, but time can be managed in different ways and to suggest that its impossible to manage time to focus on kids is not true. In a monogamous relationship parents can work all day without focusing on their kids or without paying much attention to their kids. Its a question of how much attention you pay to the kids regardless of polyamory or monogamous relationship. So that point is not exclusive to polyamory either. The golden rule sometimes counterproductive to people and can make them miserable. There is no one fits for all system all of that is naive and eventually fails and can create more problems than solutions. If you want to go with the logic of "you might signal something that is harmful and people would try it regardless of how harmful it is" you would have to apply that to everything and that is not stable, I don't think you believe in that logic. Also harmful can be defined is multiple ways, and when people and society make choices we don't only look at the negatives (and that alone can change depending on from what pov you make you analysis), but we look at the benefits as well.

Why? Would be curious about the evidence. almost none of your points is exclusive to polyamory and could be applied to monogamous people as well. The concept of selfishness is a question of pov. It could be argued that if you are into monogamous relationships you are more selfish because you want to own your partner and want to lock your partner to your own values and desires. Most people don't want to be in a polyamorous relationship so the 'scaling it to a global level' is not a problem. What if a random individual wants to be in a poly relationship?

Why do you assume that vaccination has anything to do with this incident?