zurew

I highly disagree with this statement. I can agree that there are times when people are making things more complex than what they need to be, without adding any meaning to them, but on the other hand, what i mostly see is that people oversimplify things so much so, that their message lose most of its meaning and unfortunately lack of meaning leads to poor understanding. We can't start solving problems without recognising what the real problems are and without knowing/understanding why they emerged in the first place. I can see that you really don't like nuance. How would you summarise the "what it is" part in simple terms, that everyone could understand (without getting nuanced about it)? I understand your pessimism, but you don't know that. One thing we can do is to actually try. Not trying will necessarily lead to disaster, but with trying we have the chance to find solutions. I don't really like this binary good and bad framing. They don't make this good-bad framing themselves, they actually say to take more responsibility for our actions, to become more conscious and they actually give frameworks, tools and understanding how to do that.

@Oeaohoo Its clear from your reply that you haven't looked deep into what Daniel Schmachtenberger and what the game B guys are saying and representing. I would encourage you to take a much deeper look into it, beacuse it is actually nuanced and what you are doing now is attacking modernity and globalism without knowing what their positions and thoughts are on those matters. Notice, that you started with attacking his personality and you didn't really make any points or counter points to his ideas. Modernity and globalism are vague concepts in themselves ,thats why you need to take a deep dive in what Daniel Schmachtenberger trying to say . No, this is a bad faith summary of what nuance actually is. Nuance is the recognization that things are complex and they need to be recognized as they really are, without oversimplifying them and without being reductive. And by oversimplifying - losing meaning ,sight ,vision and understanding. Ask yourself this question: Were you really trying to understand their ideas deeply before your wrote your "critique" or you got triggered after the first few minutes and you wrote your text in a reactive manner?

Do some research before you criticize, brother. The first part is great as well. I really liked the "forced transparency" idea there.

Leo doesn't advocate for being overly cautious, he is just saying to be aware of some redflags, there is a middle line there.

Context to that clip is important. He was trying to shake Sneako's worldview to stop him from the hedonistic treadmill.

Yes, and time to time he can drop that filter and entertain vastly different perspectives and wordviews. Whats more balanced means here? Taking positions doesn't automatically mean, that you haven't thought it through from multiple angles.

He can actually tell the Russia/Ukraine conflict from both sides really well. Being tier 2 doesn't mean that you never get triggered about anything. He definitely has yellow aspects to him. He is the one guy in the debateosphere who can actually explain positions really well and in a precise way without strawmanning the fuck out of them . He can debate from a conservative standpoint and explain a conservative standpoint really really well, and he can explain liberal positions really well too. Also, he is always saying that most of the problems are systemic and there are no clear cut easy answers to them. Basically, he can take perspectives, understand them deeply and because of that he is able to debate those positions well. He is also able to meet people where they are regardless of the context of the debate/convo, he is self aware, he is aware where the convo is going (although sometimes he loses that ability). I am not saying he is a fully integrated tier 2 guy, because he definitely lacks some things (like stage green aspects like empathy, bigger picture valuesystem, etc), but he is not a clear cut stage orange guy either. Honestly to me he seems like a guy with tier 2 cognition abilities combined with a stage orange valuesystem.

I think this is not that big of a problem. If they don't read the guidelines they will be forced to read it after they will be temporarily banned from this section of the forum or after they get a warning point. People will learn from their mistakes. Also, if people don't read the guidelines why would they care about a label?

I personally think the labeling part isn't necessary and users could be informed about what is allowed to do and what is not through the guidelines. If they read it,then they will know what they are not allowed to do and i think that would be one of the easiest way to "solve" this confusion issue.

I think one relevant question here is that ,what are we trying to achieve by banning or label people as 'apolitical'. I don't think the labeling part has much of a usage, but the banning part could be used if the standards are applied and set well. Honestly, if i would have total control over this forum, i wouldn't ban based on differing views, i would rather ban bad faith and high level of dismissiveness. I would also encourage people to use occam's razor when it comes to making sense of political issues and maybe i would create a subforum where more speculation is allowed.

The question is, given a high level awareness (in this context this means, that you can reflect and self reflect, and can feel and see the suffering of others, and how one's actions impact the other parts of the world and seeing that you as an invidivudal, you are not really just an individual, you are not just part of your country, but you are the citizen of Earth and your country couldn't really live or thrive without all the other parts) which valuesystem should we use, and why? This is a fair point, but there are ways to make it work, this can't be an excuse why not to be a globalist and care about more and more things. If we see ourselves from a globalist standpoint, we can get a more accurate image of whats happening, what affects what, and paradoxically, with globalism you can have the ablility to make the biggest progress and the ability to solve really complex and hard problems. You can't solve complex and hard problems when you have rivalrous dynamics between multiple nations (where a country's ability to survive or to thrive is based on fucking you over, scamming you, stealing from you, or manipulating you to get what it want and to survive as a little finite self [or in this case nation], while not recognizing that in the long run, fucking any country or part over will come back and bite back in the ass). On the other hand, if we have globalism, thats when we can have real agency to try to solve global problems. There is a reason why nowadays we talk more and more about global problems not local problems. The very reason why we have global problems, is because everyone is focused on the parts and not the whole. If you only need to care about the local and not the global, then even if you had the ability to fix things or to solve one part of a global problem you won't do it, unless you will be incentivised to do so using low consciousness tools( either via forcing you to do or manipulating you --> so low consciousness tools have to be used and you won't act unless it directly affects your country). We need to recognise and be okay with the fact, that all the finite parts are interconnected and each and every part affects all the other. You don't need to change the globe yourself, thats a wrong way to view it. If you are a roof builder and you only good at building and reparing roofs, you wouldn't say that just because that person or that team can't build a whole house they shouldn't build or repair roofs. The point is to act on things that you can directly influence, while keeping in mind how your local actions affects the global.

@Tyler Robinson as i previosly said, it doesn't have to be all or nothing. Look for the main characteristics that you like and at the same time try to filter the main red flags that you can' t tolerate and thats basically it.

If we really want to get spiritual here, then you shouldn't try to change your partner at all. This is a huge stretch here, and if you would be honest with yourself, then you would reailse that you wouldn't follow this advice to its abolute extent. Again, i think you should acknowledge that there is a spectrum here: some people are able to and want to put up with more things and okay with more toxic dynamincs,but others are not. Its simple, find people who you are okay and compatible with. I think no one is advocating for that here. Most guys here were talking about redflags in the selection phase. Guys should be able to spot most redflags in the selection phase, if you find a lot of redflags in the dating phase, then you already fucked up. If therapy friends and family combined are not enough to fix that person, then your love won't be sufficient enough either.

Sure, but where you draw you line what you consider normal will be different for people and it will be subjective , thats why most guys here didn't agree with most of your takes with being a therapist and stuff like that. You were pushing really hard on guys here, because they said they don't want to get into a relationship with a girl with for example daddy issues. Just because they don't want to be with a girl like that, that doesn't mean that they won't be caring and won't be protective to a different girl who don't has that particular bad trait. If you get into a relationship with a girl, who you are not really compatible with (where she has a lot of traits that you don't like and can't tolerate) that will almost necessarily lead to failure and disaster. Why not try to find a girl, who you are a lot more compatible with and you don't need to change her whole persona and habits and goals etc. This doesn't mean that you have to find the perfect one, but you have to be compatible with her on the vast majority of things , otherwise you really are wasting your time. You would ideally do this in a smart way though. Im sure most guys here would invest time, energy and resources into a relationship, if they think they could have a future with that particular person, but again, if you guys are mostly not compatible, then why waste your time ,why not find someone who you vibe,resonate with a lot more? Sure, maybe. But there is a huge difference between a girl who is on the edge of suicide, can't take care of herself, depressed vs a girl who has some medium outburst from time to time. I think that nuance here is really important and there is a spectrum here that we need to acknowledge.

@Carl-Richard It was a fucking great debate/convo. I watched it live, its fucking 4 am here, but it was worth it .

Those hard ones can fuck you up for life as well. Relationships with healthy people are already hard enough there is no need to get into a relationship with mentally ill people. No one is saying here, that you need to find the perfect partner, but there is a baseline that needs to be there, becuase if there is no baseline, then your relationship won't be about growing together or helping each other, but It will be about you trying to play a daddy, a partner, and a therapist role at the same time, without having the necessary skills to do so , while wasting a lot of time and probably fucking up yourself mentally as well. If you want get into a relationship with the only intention to grow, then get a girl who is a psychopath with narcissistic traits combined with daddy issues and combined with being suicidal. Good luck, but now imagine that not everyone is going for growth only, when it comes to being in a relationship. Don't try to play a therapist role when you are not a professional one. There is one role you need to play, which is to be a partner, but not a therapist.

He is probably trying to balance the negative takes with a positive one. He is not trying to be consistent with his take, he would rather make us productive than make us more worried (i assume).

That kind of logic could be used to dismiss and to not do anything. God doesn't give a fuck whether you fuck or not, but you do, so you should do something about it.

Its not simply that energy will be needed, but the fact that as you advance with tech, that advanced tech at some point becomes so cheap, that it will be distributed to everyone. So now everyone will have that tech , everyone will use more energy and because of that advanced tech, we can invent more advanced tech and the cycle repeats. So the more cheaper we can distribute advanced tech, the more energy we will collectively end up using and craving. You need finite resources to build whatever tech we are talking about and because of the exponential growth, at some point natural resources won't be able to keep up with us. That is basically the rationale here. Its not really about whether we will be fucked or not, its more about whether we will have to slow down economically and realise that everyone don't have to have the most advanced cutting edge stuff all the time.

That's part of their equation. Industrial revolutions are the exact reasons why we spend a ton of more energy now, than what we did before. Whatever tech will be developed will require a lot of money to buy it and it will require a lot of energy to mass produce it. Can't really dodge the energy problem part and the lack of resources part. The transition from nonrenewable energy to 100% renewable energy will be rough on the economy. Even if we assume, that we can transition without a major economic problem, you still have to assume, that you can keep up with the constant exponential need for energy.

Destiny will have a debate/convo with the hardcore redpill guys (fresh&fit) on Friday. It will be an interesting one. Those guys are representing the same value system and thoughtprocess what Tate has.

@BlessedLion Can I ask, what kind of work you did?

Just to be clear, I assumed when @KH2 was talking about being exploitative, he was talking more than just the basic exploitation that occurs under a capitalist system, which is that there needs to be people who gets less compared to a Ceo. So i wasn't specifically attacking Andew Tate or the idea of a capitalist business, but i was attacking the idea, that you have to be more expolitative than the necessary exploitation that occurs between a Ceo and his/her workers. Looking back, It seems that KH2 wasn't talking about more than the basic exploitation, so i agree with him on that one. That being said, if we stay under a capitalist framework i can give you 2 different examples to differentiate between a low conscious business, and a conscious business. Low consciousness business would be mcdonald's, where the whole business relies on getting you hooked on their unhealthy food and items. So what you get for your money is addiction, and a fucked up health, and lack of control. So basically Mcdonald's earning a lot of money by fucking up people's lives. Conscious business would be actualized.org, where there is a vision to provide massive value to people and to help them practically as well. Firstly, you get 100s of hours of content for free, without the need to pay anything. That mechanism don't automatically means that it is a conscious business, but it shows ,that actualized.org not only fixated and optimized just only on money. If we talk about the LP course, then what you can see is that, you get something that you can use to seriously improve your life with, so you get real value for your money, and you don't get addicted to anything and your life don't get fucked over by any item or service. This forum can also provide massive value to some people, especially if they manage to get direct answers to their specific problems and questions and this is free as well. But basically, the line between a conscious vs low conscious business is this: A low conscious business will optimise everything to gain more power and more money, without giving a single fuck about anything else. A conscious business will be a business that is built around the idea of providing massive value(not just what the market currently thinks as valuable but actual value that improves people's life massively and make society greater). Now, does that mean that a low conscious business that opitmise everything to gain money can't provide massive value to people or incapable to make society better? No, doesn't mean that. It means, that when it comes to making business decisions - if according to the current market, the most easy and most scalable way to earn money and to gain more power is by fucking people over and getting them addicted, then a low conscious business will do that and adapt to it. Opposite to that, a high conscious business will first try to think about an idea or product or service that can provide massive value to people, and just after that would start thinking about how could that be made profitable to the business owner as well (without fucking over other people, or doing it with as little damage as possible). A high conscious business won't intentionally fuck over other people just to earn more money.

I wasn't talking about using a socialist structure, i was pointing to the fact, that you can use the capitalist framework and still give more back, than what you take.