No Self
Member-
Content count
594 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by No Self
-
-
1 hour ago, Fadl said:Well, as an outsider I think the guy is destroying the most corrupted egoistic system in the history of humankind.
History says to be careful when 'destroying' things.
Tsarist Russia was run by out-of-touch elites and emperors and the population wanted to see it destroyed in favour of radical change. The solution, the Soviet Union, led to tens of millions of deaths through starvation and a culture of routinely torturing and murdering innocent people in order to sustain a sense of paranoia. Put another way, it's easy to jump out of the frying pan and into the fire.
Also, how is burning everything to the ground a legitimate expression of 'conservative' ideology?
-
Another way to look at it is that disagreeing on only a couple of points implies agreeing on a thousand.
"People are pretty much alike. It's only that our differences are more susceptible to definition than our similarities." - Linda Ellerbee (journalist)
Negativity bias evolved in humans because defending ourselves from danger mattered a thousand times more than positive, feed-good antics. But it does cause us to notice and even exaggerate disagreements, losing perspective in the process.
-
14 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:@peqkno Another tack you could try is to get him to FEEL that what he's engaged in is dirty. His heart knows the ideology he's engaged in is not pure if he just bothers to feel into it.
Hmmm... I might try this with my 'new age' friend who is down the QAnon rabbit hole. I definitely know that any sort of intellectual admonishment is pushing crap uphill.
-
Hopefully it is obvious that caveat emptor is an intrinsic part of any sort of fact-finding mission, especially with regards to matters like politics and spirituality. Perhaps it is for the best that no particular teacher is perfect, as this would cause us to fall into the trap of remaining reliant on outside sources.
I respect your grievances, but personally I think this forum is the best thing I've found in a long time. I think that the moderation strikes a good balance of allowing dissent but avoiding a scenario of letting endless flame wars erupt.
Best to not let perfect be the enemy of good.
-
Speaking of which, federal regulation in the current political climate would consist of banning the failing NY Times and CNN. You know, the enemies of the people.
That said, I think ISIS got banned from social media years ago so this is not unprecedented. It's kind of weird banning terrorist organisations that are themselves a product of Facebook's own algorithms, but no doubt the company is trying to strike a balance between limiting the severity of violence it causes, whilst maximising revenue.
-
-
-
You mentioned in another thread something to the effect of "a woman needs a man". I was going to ask you what would happen if a woman did not get a man, whether she would spontaneously combust or something, but I didn't want my humour to come across the wrong way!
Many of us are quite conscious and spiritually advanced, but the sense of lack arising from the body-mind around its supposed incompleteness brings us to our knees. The true solution to this is spiritual, but we never want to hear it because we are obsessed with strategising to try and fulfil our imaginary needs.
This is a classic video and I think should be compulsory viewing on the topic. Cheers.
-
There is a strong consensus in near-death studies that time is nothing like how we perceive it from the human-identified perspective.
-
James Redfield once argued that 'normal people' are effectively competing with one another for scraps of energy, ignorant of the fact that an infinite source of energy lies within.
'Harm' may be a difficult word to define in this context since outcomes can be unpredictable and counterintuitive, but I would say that society has a parasitic aspect that capitalist and democratic elements attempt to channel into nonviolent coexistence. The underlying primitiveness is normally hidden until times of war, poverty or upheaval. Then they eat each other.
-
I'm surprised you guys actually talk to people about this stuff. I normally avoid the topic even when quizzed. Guess I'll have to reconsider.
The main motivation for keeping in line with fundamentalist doctrine is social. The Jehovah's Witnesses have a policy called disfellowshipping, meaning that anyone who misbehaves simply gets kicked out of the community. It leaves sinners in ruins, completely unable to communicate with family and losing all forms of support, yet is completely legal. Since some entire regions of the world are fundamentalist, any sensible person would do their best to conform. (The witch-burning in Christian history is another extreme example.)
In a way it is sad, because it is a lifetime not only wasted in fear, but also creates all the horrors that fear gives rise to. They fear evil taking over their mind, so dedicate their lives to divisive, elitist and fear-based theological insanity. They fear non-truth, so commit feverishly to whatever nonsense they were raised with. They fear brainwashing, unable to see that they already are. They fear devils and so create wars. They fear hell and so create hell on a planet that could otherwise be a utopia of sorts.
But then again, they are having fun with all the drama and will evolve at their own rate. It would only be truly tragic if they were committing to an eternity of low-consciousness, which is of course impossible.
-
5 hours ago, Soulbass said:Rats fed with food cooked in microwave dies of cancer, those fed with steamed food are perfectly fine.
If making a claim like this, please provide a citation.
-
The best documented example that I am aware of is Lakshmi the cow, who was one of only an incredibly small number of beings who Ramana Maharshi officially declared as liberated.
-
4 minutes ago, BlackPhil said:Im not a fan of Trump myself so this is painful to watch... sometimes it even feels like the left and MSM wants Trump to win using some reverse psychology, if not the stupidity is just on another level...
The problem is that there have always been lunatics on the extremes of the political spectrum. Much of right-wing propaganda is dedicated to conflating left-wing lunatics with rational centre-left punters, and vice versa. This disproportionate coverage of political extremes is one of the many political crimes that Facebook has been guilty of, for it has effectively helped to radicalise a substantial percentage of the population. We have been inching towards terrorism being completely mainstream, of which right-wing terrorism is historically far more deadly for some reason.
-
Just my opinion, but by far the most heinous crimes have not been mentioned thus far: removing the US from the Paris Climate Agreement, campaigning in opposition to renewable energy, promoting the fossil fuel lobby, putting an EPA opponent in charge of the EPA, rolling back pollution regulations and cementing much of the population in opposition to science.
-
5 hours ago, datamonster said:This shouldn't have come from FB. A company shouldn't be the arbitrator for freedom of speech. This is what we have a democratically elected government for, not Mark Zuckerberg.
So you'd like the Trump administration to dictate what is or is not allowable on social media? That could be interesting.
-
1 minute ago, datamonster said:Completely misses the point... ?♂️
This is a sort of reductio ad absurdum argument. Here's another way of looking at it:
Should Facebook be held accountable if it is directly responsible for inciting political unrest and violence, or should it be required to do some sort of moderation?
It is a very similar argument to "Should fossil fuel companies pay for health care and ecological costs caused by their poisonous product, or should they just freely make trillions in profits and make governments pay to clean up the mess?"
-
6 minutes ago, Rilles said:I was talking about Facebook dot com
-
5 minutes ago, datamonster said:This could quickly turn into a propaganda nightmare if we aren't careful!
We already have a propaganda nightmare. Have you ever used Facebook? Have you seen who is governing the US?
Free speech is important, but it is against the law in many places to shout, "Fire!" in a crowded public space. Telling people to inject bleach to cure coronavirus should also be prevented because it will kill people. With grown-up discussion, we can determine where to draw the line.
-
A belief isn't a belief without first believing in a believer. Why believe that any particular belief, or the believer, is believable?
-
As a very opinionated critic of Facebook, I have to give them credit this time. It's rare that Zuckerberg does anything beyond empty platitudes in response to the disinformation epidemic that he created. Obviously, it will be a slippery slope to banning all sorts of other toxic content on there.
-
4 hours ago, Gladius said:@Inliytened1 I didn't expect to be attacked so much in this "spiritual" forum for sharing my opinion. Again, I hate Trump and his policies, I'm just saying he's a smart man and unfortunately he's going to win the election again IMO.
Could be.
It would be wise of the us to focus on the background leading up to today's political climate rather than just lashing at the guy who happens to be a winner out of it. There have always been people with all sorts of defective personalities and diminished mental capacities. So why is it that certain societies pick one and turn them into omnipotent Gods, or demons, or both simultaneously in this case?
The current administration is a perfect reflection of social media's detrimental effect on the human brain, the bitter rivalry between the respective owners of CNN and Fox, and the resulting absence of peace, unity, clarity and wisdom made manifest. It is a product of millions of people around the world being seduced into various forms of devilry.
If it is true that "the best is yet to come", this will also be a perfect reflection of a primitive society manifesting another troll-ocracy. We haven't learned much in the past 4 years.
-
There is a self-help book called No More Mr. Nice Guy which mentions that entering a relationship with the intention of fixing someone is not the same thing as buying a home in need of renovations. It tends to end in disaster. I made a similar mistake myself long ago.
That said, a friend of mine ended up with a partner who had been through a lot of trauma and they've been together for years now. She'd been through about 50 men and was sexually abused as a child in the Jehovah's Witness cult. I've never quite figured it out.
-
There is generally no point whatsoever in arguing, as they are 'brain-hacked' and can always win by accusing critics of being closed-minded conformists.
Ever heard of browser-redirect viruses? Hackers can program a computer's internet browser to automatically redirect to shady websites that display advertisements and provide revenue to the hackers. Except this time, it's been done to a human brain using social media AI algorithms.
You should have a right to ask them to stop peddling their views. Beyond a certain point, it is harrassment. I have distanced myself from people over this issue. I also got rid of Facebook as I found it upsetting watching so many people become radicalised more and more over time.
in Society, Politics, Government, Environment, Current Events
Posted
My grandmother is close to her final days at the age of 96, and has lived the past 5-10 years with dementia, unable to recognise family members, with no control of her life, no ability to think clearly, extreme difficulty walking, constant discomfort, imprisoned in an aged care facility... all because society says that people should be forced to live as long as possible, at any cost. I trust that society will be more humane by the time I am that age, but otherwise I am sure that there will be organisations like Exit International to turn to.
I've kept a close eye on this issue for many years and do notice that it has gotten much harder to access Nembutal, the best substance for a peaceful end. Conservative forces are at it again.
This is a difficult issue as one cannot simply give everyone access to voluntary euthanasia (moody teenagers being an extreme example), yet having a simple rule like legalising it for anyone 70+ could lead to pressure for the elderly to die so that their offspring can get their inheritance. But we have a long way to go to reach a sensible balance.