Gesundheit

I know that truth hurts, but you've exceeded the limit. Now, it's time to put you to sleep. I've reported your passive aggressive insult and you will receive a warning soon.

I mean Yahya.

God is a big boob.

What does your name mean?

If you're going to be so stubborn, at least cover your tracks and show some variety. Don't be that lazy, move around a little bit, use different fallacies, etc... It's quite boring to see the strawman card being played exclusively time and time again, especially when it comes from someone who claims to be playing with a full deck.

@Consept Hi! Well, that's true until it becomes a gaslighting technique. I get what you're saying about mindset when related to suffering on a personal level, it is important for the poor to realize how their thoughts can create suffering for them. If you're talking about mindset as a money generating strategy, then you might be missing something about the actual experience of poverty, which is lack of infrastructure. You talked about the internet as a business tool, but there are many many details that go into this that are granted in non-poor countries but require active and conscious creation in poor countries. For example, we don't have PayPal or any services as such here. We speak a foreign language, too. So, it's not like anyone can choose the online path. An online business usually requires a different skill than an actual business usually requires, which requires new education, which requires time, effort, practice, and sometimes money. Building the business is another thing entirely, because you'd need to make sacrifices that are essential for the business, even if the sacrifices they're even more essential for your livelihood. That's to answer the scarcity mindset part. And even then your chances aren't that high, and you could fail easily because you're going down that path alone without any guidance or support. As well, infrastructure includes technology, such as a phone, a laptop, etc... These things are not as easy to get or upgrade as in other countries. I'm not saying bypassing these challenges is impossible, but it takes HUGE extra effort and many sacrifices. And actually, I'm on that path, so that's why I am familiar with all those obstacles and have already bypassed some of them, but still I haven't started my business yet or even earned a cent. I am working on this project hoping that it will pan out, but it's very risky. The next few months will probably decide whether I will move a level up or down. I will either get my shit together or struggle to survive even more. Basically, the problem here is that I'm starting from below zero where I'm compromising some things in order to make way for other things. In a better country, that wouldn't need to happen because I would be given a head start, or more accurately I wouldn't be this disadvantaged and handicapped. Leo is now looking for a video editor, and I already applied for the job, but I know my chances are extremely low because I can't meet many of the minimum requirements that he specified. I know how to edit, but I don't have a good internet that can download/upload more than 1GB per day. Nor do I have the hard disks to store the files. Nor do I have a high end PC that can handle video editing smoothly. It's really as simple as an online job can be, but even that I have no access to. So you see how even the online path is not easy at all. The issue of infrastructure and access is extremely limiting. I only know 2 people that are working online and earning money, but they've been in it for years until it started paying off, and it's not that much, either. They're just getting by slightly better than others. They're backsliding at a slower pace, that's all. I, on the other hand, am barely just getting started online. Why haven't I started earlier? Well, I didn't have a stable internet until last year. Why didn't I have stable internet before? Because there were no phones in my area to have an ADSL connection. The post office was damaged and dismantled for years and they only recently fixed it. The point is, it's not just harder. It's EXTREMELY hard. All odds are literally against us, and we're mainly playing in order not to lose. ____________________________ Now, to the link: This is from the link you posted. And the following image is from google: Why am I posting this image? The answer is highlighted in bold above. At this point, there is an important distinction to make: Money vs. Resources. Or basically, Money vs. Gold. The article you gave me is silly and wrong, actually. It is literally giving false information and they're misleading. If there is one thing that I have learned about economy during this crisis is that you should never trust currency. It's the worst criterion to take when scale measuring an economical phenomenon. There are various reasons why it's a sneaky gaslighting technique that's probably being used on purpose by the article authors, or they're simply naive and don't understand how economy works. When someone claims that poverty is declining and then presents their statistics in terms of the USD, then they're either sneaky pros or naive amateurs. From the looks of it, it seems like an amateur site, but I couldn't know for sure. The truth is that poverty is increasing regardless of all the claims or even the appearances. It's an indisputable fact that no amount of articles can disprove. If you compare gold prices between 1987 and 2013 (the same period claimed by the link), you'll know that poverty is increasing even though it might appear otherwise depending on your location. The apparent decline is not real or sustainable because it's an aftereffect of the industrial revolution and the increased usability of resources due to new technologies, plus the technological advancements like the internet. All of which are giving the appearance of slight improvement, instead of what such breakthroughs should have actually done. Not only the world should not be having any poor people by now, but it also should have been at least thrice as populated, imo. It's important to remember that most resources are finite, and they will get exhausted eventually, inevitably. We will shift towards renewable energy resources, but the material that's required to run them is limited and will not be distributed equally. The rich will be in possession of most the materials, and the rest will be fighting over nothing, like it has always been. And perhaps most importantly, poverty will still exist as a phenomenon and it will increase even more. The point of this is to say that the current situation is not promising at all. I mean unless we discover some new technology, or find some way(s) to extract new materials, like a different planet for example, then the band aid that this system is using will eventually fall off, and all the nasty stuff that have been festering all that time will be finally exposed, but at that point it will be too late. The thing with crashed economies is that they give you a preview for what the universal economy will be like in the future, regardless of the time required to get there. Maybe we'll take a long time to get there, or maybe there will be WWIII and we'll get there faster, who knows? The main issue of inequality will still be neither addressed or solved. And the earth will probably have to experience a new era.

That's one sneaky article that I will deconstruct and prove to you how the apparent improvement is actually a facade for the rotting garbage behind it. It's late here, so I'll get back to you later. Appreciate your warm words and support. And I also highly respect your intelligence. You've summed a good part of the discussion in a few words.

I never said that, but you took my words out of context and added a bunch of your biased thoughts to them. My exact words were free from the interpretations you've added onto them. You're unaware of how you're confusing your interpretations for what I am saying. I told you many times that you lack nuance and don't understand. And you won't ever understand because you're defending a position. If you let go of your position, then you may have a chance. Again, you're taking things out of context. The observations I make can be worked on and changed on your part. Therefore, they're not insults, obviously. You're deflecting the work by committing the strawman fallacy.

Tell that to the poor African kids.

Other people have done it as far as I know. So, it's definitely possible. The question is: Do you really feel like you need to do it? Like, do you really genuinely, authentically, sincerely, deeply, actually want to do it? If yes, then why not? There's no harm in consciously following your heart. Don't destroy your past, though. It may be just a phase, so it's wise to have in an optional return ticket in your pocket. You might be simply stressed and in desperate need for some rest to organize your mind and find peace of mind and then learn how to maintain it in everyday life. I would consider going on a retreat first and see what happens. Maybe a few retreats. I don't know. Seek what you feel most drawn to. The logistics part can range between easy or difficult depending on your current situation and overall life experiences.

Yes, both perspectives are important and valid, but not to the same degree. If we want equality, we should support equality, not inequality. You see what I'm saying? Understanding is important as long as it matches with our objectives and with reality. Otherwise, it's either useless, selfish, and/or deluded.

The two perspectives aren't equally valid or important. If there was a good collective ground, you wouldn't even need to work on your individual skills as much. And jeez! You've literally got it upside down. Rich people are enjoying their lazy lives while you're asking the poor to push themselves more. We're already doing everything we can, and more. And you're still telling us to work more? Are you a slave master, bro? Do you have any sadistic tendencies? Or do you really not know your own worth? You're being used, and you're willing to be used even more. Wake up! They're suffocating us and you're telling us to breathe harder. It doesn't work that way. One possible, although unrealistic, collective solution to poverty could be a universal strike that disempowers the rich and throws them out of whack. Instead of pushing more, maybe we should all start pushing less. Pushing more is not the solution, nor is it part of it. It's a coping mechanism at best. In fact, it only adds more to the collective problem. And this will actually be proven in the future when the gap becomes too big that there's 0 money in the possession of the poor. At that point the rich will go broke because their money won't have any value.

@integral The theme of this thread is collective. It isn't about individuals. So, my posts and perspective fit perfectly here. If there's a mix up happening, it's definitely not on my end. This is the society subforum, not the self-actualization. As well, I am 100% aware of everything you said. But I also am realistic. So, of course I will keep trying, but I know in the back of my mind that my chances are extremely low. That is to prevent the frustration that comes with failed unrealistic expectations. I used to have high hopes and unrealistic expectations in the past, and they only made me bitter and cynical, and they caused me suffering. Now that I'm more educated and aware, I don't have to fall into that trap again.

That's a tricky one, and there's no simple answer. On the one hand, you seem to be addressing stubbornness as the main obstacle towards change. Although, "change" here sounds a bit vague, but I can work with it. So, you're basically rooting for the idea that stubborn people are less likely to change. But on the other hand, a person who's stuck in a victim's mindset can exhibit similar amounts of resistance. I think it is safe to say that some patterns can turn to become as stubborn as a narcissist, and therefore prevent change. I would say there are probably a lot of other factors that contribute to change. So, it's really hard to say.

Me too, until I became 16-17 years old. Now, I'm at stage 2. I wish you growth and prosperity.

You're welcome. And I'm glad that it does

@Consept @integral Okay, guys. I've contemplated this discussion, and I think I've got some insight into why there seems to be confusion. We have been discussing wealth and poverty for days based on vague ideas of what each of the words means. So, here I'll offer a simple model explaining my pov in order to make a common ground on which we can have an understanding. Let's say there are 10 different degrees to wealth, starting with #1 the poorest people on earth such as homeless people, poor African children, etc... And ending with #10 the richest people on earth; Bill Gates, Elon Musk, etc... Here's a little illustration of the model: Homeless. Barely capable of survival. Struggling to pay the bills. Financially stable, but very conservative and has scarcity mindset. Can afford higher education. Millionaires. Multi-millionaires. CEOs. Wolf Of Wall Street type. Richest 10000 humans. Richest 100 humans. Richest 10 humans. To me, it seems the confusion arises because we have different ideas of what the word "rich" means. I suppose you think that a person that can afford higher education is rich. But let me clarify that that's not what I think is rich at all. When I say rich, I mean people who are actually literally rich. I mean people who buy gold-coated Lamborghini and Ferrari cars. I mean people who have golden toilets. I mean people at the levels 8,9,10 which I highlighted above in bold. So let's make it clear that I am using the word rich as the absolute concept I explained. Even though, wealth is relative, and we sometimes refer to each other as rich even though we're all technically poor, because anyone with more money than me is technically richer than me. So granted, it gets confusing sometimes. Now, I know my model isn't necessarily 100% accurate or coherent but just to help make the point clear. There are articles that present more accurate numbers such as this one: Distribution Of Wealth - Wikipedia. There are technical information and numbers that I haven't necessarily considered in order to keep things simple. Specifically, I think this part is interesting and important to consider: With that being said, everything I said in earlier posts should finally make perfect sense. Rich people are responsible for poverty, and they're responsible for finding solutions. This is an indisputable fact for anyone with common sense. Let's not make the villain to be the hero, or the hero to be the villain here. Poor people are not lazy or unintelligent. They're just unlucky and oppressed. And they're used and exploited more than most. There's a lot more that can be said, but I think that should be enough.

@krockerman @Blackhawk As an example, in order to prove rape, there must exist certain indicators that there's an actual commitment of the crime first, including physical and psychological. And then they proceed to look for evidence related to the accused person. Evidence includes nails, scratches, semen, sweat, hairs, saliva, etc... They look for these things and other things and they make DNA tests, and all other required tests. They also ask the examining doctors to swear an oath and sign papers that they're fully responsible for the information they're providing to the court. As well, there must exist a rational and a logically-coherent story that the evidence supports in order to make court judgement. It's a science in and of itself. And it's too complex for a normal person to find ways around or to even be aware of.

They keep hitting their heads against the wall on the hopes that someday it'll crack. AND on the hopes that they won't be crashed by the wrecking ball of the rich.

@Blackhawk

You're defending a worldview, I'm not. That's what you're missing, and it's causing you confusion. The truth is that we're nowhere near each other in this particular regard. We're as far as the earth and the sky. You're an ideologue, and I'm not. But at least now you're honest about it. You came here and started making personal attacks. Remember, I wasn't even talking to you, and I didn't even personally attack you in response. I will not allow you to spin a false narrative around me. You came here and started making personal attacks. I only made blunt observations in response to those attacks. You are not getting away with these strawman arguments here. What I said overall could barely count as personal. You came here and said: I can't even..Where does Actualized find these people? That's a direct personal attack in the form of a passive aggressive question that I called out later when I said: silly online reactions. You're not getting away with this BS. It is true that the language is to your benefit, but you're not getting away, regardless. I said triggered and blind, and I said closed-minded and childish, but don't take things out of context. These words are not personal. Anyone can be closed-minded or triggered at any time. I can be closed-minded sometimes. You can be closed-minded sometimes. Everyone can be closed off to or triggered by certain ideas at any given time. You probably just don't understand how closed-mindedness or being triggered are not insults. They're literally just human experiences that can be observed and pointed out, and therefore fixed. But for many people they might seem like insults because those people are barely aware of their thoughts, so I understand your perception. But it's a false and a deluded perception nevertheless, and you need to fix it asap if you want to self-actualize. If you don't want to actualize yourself, that's fine too. But then keep your delusions to yourself, and don't insult others, or at least don't insult me. Or do, and then I'll expose you. By the way, admitting ideology is, by definition, an implicit confession of closed-mindedness. So, that's a step that you could take to move forward, perhaps. I can respond to everything you said, but I don't have much extra time to waste on you, because you're not moving forward with me.

Rape is a problem. False accusations is a problem too. Two different crimes. There's no need for comparisons. It isn't a competition for who suffers more.

There's no such a thing as high consciousness or low consciousness. It's just a made-up distinction for the sake of communication. The main difference between the two imagined states of mind is the quantity of thoughts that pass through consciousness. If there were only a few thoughts, consciousness will be able to handle them easily, so your mind will be peaceful, organized, clear, etc... On the other hand, if you let all sorts of thoughts pass without filtration, you will likely only notice a handful of them, and the rest will basically become what you referred to as low consciousness. So, the key here is pace and concentration. Low consciousness is like trying to fit an elephant through a keyhole. High consciousness is the like the key for the hole.

There's a branch of science called forensic medicine that deals with this sort of stuff. These things are not so hard to disprove like you imagine. They require specialists with knowledge and experience. These specialists are trained and can discern with high accuracy whether the accusations are true or false. Luckily, someone who uses these kinds of tricks to manipulate others does not know about this science, so they make mistakes along the way of committing their false accusations. Those mistakes are where they set themselves up for embarrassment, fines, and even serving a sentence. This isn't something to worry about.