zurew

"I could fuck a lot of women if I wanted to, but I am a sigmamale"

I would say to let it go, because in most of the cases it doesn't worth the time and the emotional effort you need to put into it (assuming you can move their position even a slight bit). There is just way too much stuff that you would need to debunk one by one and all of those stuff is probably connected in his head. If the person you are talking about didn't rationalize his way to arrive at his worldview and at his conclusions, then there is almost no way you can make him drop that position with rational arguments. The problem is that, he probably has 100 different defense mechanisms (like for instance anything that goes against my narrative probably comes from the devil and from the deep state and stuff like that) and you probably won't be able to cut through it. But, If you really want to try it, then start by asking how confident he is in his deep state narrative in a 1-10 scale? After you get your answer to that, you should ask him, if there is anything that could change his position about the deep state narrative, and if there is something, what is it? Then you can start to build from there, and you can do this process with all of his beliefs. You can also try to take his logic and show that his logic is limited and that it can lead to absurd conclusions if it is used on a different ground. Like for example if the ground is being a satanist, then the same logic could be used and that worldview could be defended the same way as a fundamentalist christian worldview (by demonizing everything that goes against it). ---> basically you need to show him how limited his logic is, and that might shake his rock bottom beliefs (But you will need to provide many examples, and that will take a lot of time to construct those examples). The most important question 'Is there anything that could change your opinion or stance on this particular matter' , because this can reveal if you will waste your time or not.

It seems that you haven't responded to any of my points. Also, if someone disagrees with you, it must be because he/she is a hardcore Leo fan. - thats right, thats the only option, what a good rigorous , good faith analysis of this whole situation. Don't pretend that you didn't say anything here. - You were implying very heavily that he is a pedo supporter, and now that you got some pushback, you try to backpedal. Please don't pretend that you tried to do a good faith inquiry about this subject, when you were very cleanly biased and dismissive from the get go.

You are littile too fast jumping to conclusions with no or very weak evidence. He had a logo that was kind of similar to the pedo symbol, but if he would be truly supporting pedos don't you think you would have found more dirt on him other than a random logo (keep in mind his channel is 10 years old, so in 10 years no leaks or anything?)

I don't want to derail ,but holy shit this is funny.

Yeah, I would say the solution will be in the combination of culture, parenting, and better school education, in the restriction of certain external stimuli (things that hijacks your brain and because of them you can't think clearly and in a rational way). This again assumes that people value facts, truth and are open minded to be corrected and to be educated. This is not the case at all. People value echo chambers, people value shitting on the other side without making any good arguments, people value holding their current beliefs to the end, people are drawn to entertainment. and rationality is being overwritten by external stimuli. So in this case the 'best quality content' would mean posts that are the most stimulating , entertaining - so for example hate posts, memes, circle jerk posts . (not posts that are about truth or facts or education) You also have to consider that words and not just words. If certain ideas are being spread it can lead to actual violence and genocide down the road. Look up the pyramid of violence: You start from the bottom with jokes and just the discussion of certain ideas, and slowly with talking about these stuff you desensitize people, and you can end up at the top given enough time. So knowing that people are not perfectly rational and people are highly effected by external factors (upbringing, culture, and nowadays yes the internet has probably more effect on kids thinking and valuesystem than parents who don't have time for anything), we need to be very carefuly what ideas we want to spread without any restrictions.

My point is that debates can't work with most people, because they don't want to debate in good faith, so this is not a good solution for the problem you want to solve. You also have to consider, that most people are not well equipped enough nowadays to debate about complex topics. The problem you want to solve (to reduce echo chambers), you need to have a better plan that requires serious planning and a complex solution (giving people better education, educate them how to debate in good faith, making algorithms that motivates seeking facts rather than stimuli [this is a really complex one to solve for many reasons], and many other factors as well) one of the biggest from these is the stimuli problem, because people seek whats emotionally stimulating and things that reinforce their beliefs and things that are salient (such salience that have nothing to do with any facts or truth or reality)

@mr_engineer You assume that people who are going with the alternative narrative are perfectly rational, logic based people who can be debated out their position if proven false. In 99.999% cases this is false, and these "debates" end up with personal attacks and posting a lot of garbage links that could be debunked with a 5 second google search.

To me it seemed that you sometimes conflate the absolute with the relative (so for instance, if there is a relative question about something, you don't engage with it and you dismiss it, because the question is biased, and you sometimes don't want to take any stance, because you think if you take a stance you will be stuck in that limited perspective, but thats not the case) This is related to the first one. You sometimes use the Absolute in a way where you relativize everything to a point where every stance, every position, every value judgement has the same level of correctness and validity and depth to it. This is correct from the absolute pov, however we need to be able to make sense of things from a relative pov (where we use certain collectively agreed upon subjective structures to judge and to make sense of things). You sometimes have a hard time meeting people where they at.

Yeah , if there is something to be found MrGirl will definitely dig it up, hopefully his video will be uploaded before Christmas.

I don't think you can be a political streamer and be a normal person psychologically. Even if you don't have an agressive personality you still get a lot of harrassment, especially if you are a big political streamer, especially if you have your own opinions with your own thoughtprocess where you get attacked from both the left and the right heavily. Even if you are a normal streamer and when you become big, you still get a lot of attacks, and I think almost all streamers who are not narcissist or sociopaths or psychopaths and big have a lot of mental problems because they can't handle that much pressure. This is true, but being a political streamer still brings a ton of hate and attack that normal people couldn't handle. I think this analogy is not good, because the damage is nowhere near the same as in the case of a child rapist. Imo, Destiny mostly causing damage to Melina (just for clarification, of course he cause damage to others, however that damage is not greater than a regular fuckboy's damage imo) so at the end of the day, I can imagine him participating in society in a normal way if we ignore Melina. Regarding to Melina, I think Destiny being a big political streamer and them being in an open relationship causing more psychological damage to Melina compared to the damage Destiny cause with being cold and a narcissist. I think if you want to argue about damage causation, then you should force him to stop being a political streamer, because as I earlier mentioned that brings more damage to their relationship imo, than his bad traits.

Yeah, I generally agree with this message, but in this instance him being sociopathic is greatly beneficial to him as far as his career goes (Imagine a normal person psychologically enduring the stuff he went through and what he goes through [including multiple death threats, multiple FBI investigations, multiple hate threads, DDOS attacks , getting a lot of false accusations(Im not including the mr girl one, because we don't know if he is right or not) and so on]). I know, we could argue that the reason why he had to and has to go trough stuff like that, is because him being aggressive etc etc, but I don't think much would change after his healing. It seems to me, that he has an aggressive personality, he likes to argue a lot, he likes the attention and he likes to be controversial, I don't think those aspects would dissappear after therapy or after a healing process. Maybe you could argue that after healing he would dial these things down a little bit and I think I would agree with that. There are 2 branches that I see with his healing process: If he is genuinly a psycho or a sociopath then real healing is not possible as far as I know, but he can become better with therapy and with certain meds so he is not as damaging to society and to his friends and to his close relationships.(In this case, I don't really see how this would be negative for him, because he would still have his thick skin, so in this case this would be a good choice without a doubt) If he is not a sociopath nor a psychopath, but an unconsciously highly repressed person with a lot of traumas, then healing could do a lot of damage to him as far as his career goes (assuming his current 'mode' couldn't be turned on ever again), if his current mode could be turned on and off(I think Dr K mentioned, that it is possible), then healing would be the best option for him and for everyone else. Now, assuming that if he goes through a healing process his current thick skin would dissappear forever and because of that probably his current streaming career would be destroyed, would you say that its still justified to demand from him to heal? So in this instance he would have a destroyed career on one hand and if he choose the other path, he would have the never ending creation of psychological damage on the other hand to mostly Melina (unless he has a partner who is also highly into drama and who is also an almost complete sociopath). If this assumption is false then the choice is obvious (heal up because everyone benefits from it and there is no career loss).

Its interesting to see Daniel and John to have a convo from 1:41:21 (never saw them having a convo before).

Its fucking mindblowing what these things capable of doing. You can learn the most advanced manipulation and mind control techniques from parasites.

In that case not just open relationships, but don't pursue any relationship where those things are applied. If your potential partner is very different to you in those things, your relationship won't work.

I probably agree, but a 1000 different examples could be given where the same logic could be applied, where one person in a relationship is valueing something that hurts the other person, and even though this person could change that behaviour, he won't, because he value doing that particular thing over the relationship (regardless of what he values, the same logic is applied). This kind of double-bind problem could rise in a lot of relationships because almost no one will tell every bad thing about themselves on the first date and sometimes you couldn't even evaulate certain values as objectively wrong, because some people like it , others don't. That being said, I agree that his instance is kind of unique, because he has a lot of sociopathic tendencies, just that combined with 'I won't negotiate' could be very damaging for any person, who has a romantic relationship with him or even a close friend relationship. At the end of the day, the question is, where do we want to draw the line, when it comes to the causation of stress and suffering to your partner by doing things that are highly valuable to you. At what point you can say, that there is no negotiation when it comes to this particular thing, because its just essential to your life. I'm sure almost everyone has his/her own thing that is not really negotiable even if it causes suffering to your social life/relationships.

Would you say that it is a trap or manipulation, when you get told from the beginning how everything is going to go down (that he is self centered, he is very cold, he mostly cares about himself, and that he won't change etc)? - or in other words, lets say you have the same qualities Destiny has, and then you want to get into a new relationship. Given, that you don't want to change and that you won't change (and you told that to her from the beggining), how can you be less manipulative about it? Btw just to be clear, I don't agree with this behaviour, because it can be very damaging for the other party.

That was his position from the beginning if I remember correctly. People always doubt what he says about himself in the beginning of a relationship (about being super cold, not caring, being self centered, focusing on his own goals and work ) etc, and then after some time they realize that he was right all along.

I think almost everyone is attracted to narcissists (including myself), because they are so confident and unshakable confidence is very attractive (not just sexually, but on a social level).

So just because you know how to have sex, you suddenly know what the ramification of sex? Just because you have a nose and you know how to use your nose, you know what the ramification is, if for instance you snort coke? What does that mean, that animals can understand sex? They know from their instinct how to have sex, but thats far from understanding the ramifications. Speaking of religions, earlier in this thread you said, that being a pedo was considered okay back then, because people could marry with underaged children. Thats not true, thats only true when it comes to certain religions like Islam. I don't think you believe that we should derive our collective morals from a holybook. Its sort of arbitrary, but not totally. Do you think that generally speaking a 10-12 year old child has the same level of maturity, brain development, has the same level of knowledge about relationship dynamics as an 18 year old? The argument is not necessarily about trauma, although I think we should take into account that aspect as well, the real problem is ,that children can't properly consent to have sex with an adult, because of huge power differences including physical and mental as well and because in the vast majority of the cases, children are immature and don't know the ramifications of most of their actions, thats why their parents are responsible for their kid's action. One thing we know for sure, is that as time goes by you have the potientiality to mature, and that can't be denied. Thats a dynamic that can be observed everywhere.

Unnecessary white knighting.

Give it three month and we will see whether Randall's claim about that tech leak is true or not. Yeah, they didn't show any evidence plus the narrative is weak as well. If what they say is true, then they need to do a better job at presenting these ideas . They already don't have a good reputation when it comes to academia and mainstream science, so they shouldn't destroy it even more, with teasing without no evidence. If they want more attention on this and if they want more people to work on this, then they should do a better job at leaking it in a way where it is more believable for scientists and academics. At the end of the day, if what he says is true, then it shouldn't be hard to show tangible evidence, because so far its just teasing with nothing behind it.

When you play a videogame, and there are human characters in it and they imitate real human behaviour perfectly, do you say that they actually have an identity or no?

If you say that everything is conscious, then the conversation should be about the levels (of how concious that particular thing is). I assume you wouldn't say, that a rock is as conscious as a human or would you? Just because everything is consciousness, that doesn't tell us anything about how conscious that particular 'piece' of consciousness is. It doesn't tell you how conscious a rock is vs a human. I don't think assuming or knowing the nature of Everything or Reality is helpful to answer this thread's question. Even if a human and a cheetah is consciousness in their nature, in their essence, they still have different capabilities and possibilities in the relative world and this thread's question aims to ask a question regarding to the relative domain.