Consept

If we just look on a practical, micro level ie your day to day relationships, treating people as disposable doesnt really work long term unless you're able to have a never ending turnover of people to exploit. In reality your reputation will determine a lot of success in business and relationships, once it gets around in either domain that you've screwed someone over youve burnt yourself for that network of people. Lets say you cheat someone in business, that person will never work with you and theyll also tell whoever is in that industry that they know that youre not good to work with, if you then do this to a few people you could be screwed for a whole industry. The flip of that is if you over deliver and give someone a great a experience of working with you, theyll also tell people which will then get you more business. So in theory it is bad business, not even on a moral standpoint but just on a pragmatic standpoint, to screw people over. Yes you can do it for a while and do well but it soon will mess you up. There are lots of stories of con artists making loads of money and then spectacularly getting caught or failing. It does also happen on a global scale it just takes a lot longer.

OK but i would counter this by saying in your life you would've gone through different stages, from child to adult your worldview has expanded and evolved and that is just in one human, this is also the case on the macro level as well. So really think about your own lived experience, I know with mine initially i only cared about myself and then family, society and so on. We can also track how society has developed, 500 years ago my country the UK looked very different, it was run by kings basically authoritarian rule which would be classed as red and they would kill anyone who disagreed with them. Now we have a more democratic setup which would be orange/green in sprial dynamics terms, that evolution is very clear to see. So in that sense i dont how at least some tracking of this evolution wouldnt make sense you dont have to use the spiral dynamics model but evidently theres been some change. I do agree that if you took a human born 500 years ago and have him grow up in our time he would of course adapt to our time.

No problem, always good to have a discussion and sharpen ideas. All these are true but again its a value judgement you're putting on it. You would have to use the word higher or previous or evolved, I couldnt think of other words to use personally. As i said if you think of school, if you're in a 'higher' grade you're not necessarily superior to someone in a 'lower' grade but you have learnt what the people in the lower grade have learnt and now you're learning whatever you're learning in your grade. This is just how knowledge works, you include and transcend. If we take it to spiral dynamics, someone who is it yellow has most likely gone through stages of blue, orange or green, but then someone whos orange hasnt been through green thats why its harder for them to understand it or give it value. People may use it in egoic ways but i think the central point is that someone who is at say tier 2 does have an understanding of tier 1 but tier 1 doesnt really have an understanding of tier 2. So essentially its like saying someone who is a professor of higher maths has a very good understanding of basic maths but knows that thats not all there is, someone who only knows basic maths may not even be aware of whats involved in higher maths. The professor could think hes superior but that would just be an ego thing as in reality hes just further along in the journey.

I dont think it claims this, one stage is not superior to the other its just that the higher stage includes and transcends the previous stage, it doesnt replace it or is not necessarily at odds with it. If you think about it this is how knowledge and development tend to work, if you learn basic maths its not then replaced by more complex mathematical ideas. This would only be threatening if you made an identity out of knowing basic maths and thinking thats the only maths that should exist. If you dont have an identity around your 'stage', however you want to label it, you wouldnt think there is a problem with different stages. Not necessarily, there could very easily be countries or states at the same level for however long. The model shows that countries have evolved however, as humans there are very few that are purple and not many western countries are majority red. This shows that there has been a change from the past and spiral dynamics is a way to map that. This is a value judgement you might put on it but its not stating its better. Better just depends on what you value, so for example red and blue might be more ethnocentric, meaning they only care about their ethnic group, whereas green would be more worldcentric where there care about humans across the world and animals, purple will only care about their tribe. To all these groups what they value is the most important to them, you may see that and think 'oh because green is worldcentric they think theyre better than everyone else' but the truth is so do the other stages. Spiral dynamics again just maps all this out. Its very clear that even through an individuals life you go through these stages, first you may just care about yourself, then family, tribe, ethnic group, country etc. No humanity is free to hold whatever paradigms they wish, the whole point of spiral dynamics is that we can know or at least have an idea of what makes each paradigm or stage tick, that way we can have a more clear idea of how to work with each other. Otherwise it will just lead to conflict which it has done in the past as everyones confused as to why others act so seemingly unreasonably. So finally its not about spiral dynamics being right or wrong its just if its useful in mapping human consciousness. If it is even roughly then its just a tool to use, of course be aware of its limitations as well, but i think overall it is very useful.

Id disagree just because I dont think extremes in any sense are usually positive. My central point is that this isn't something shes just doing and happens to film and monetise it, shes aware of the ragebait she will receive and is actively courting it. Her interviews are almost a character designed to annoy people that may have a moral issue with her. My point isn't a moral one necessarily im just countering your point that theyre somehow sexually liberated, I think this is a complete marketing ploy and if it didnt get any attention she wouldn't do it or even if it got the same attention as your average porn film she wouldn't do it. Shes not taking into consideration the effect it could have and probably is having on girls where now boys may expect this kind of behavior and girls feel like they have to perform this behaviour. These are real things that happen and shes happy to do them because of the money and fame not for sexual liberation

First thing you need to decide is are you happy to do this even if you dont make anything for say 10 years? Is it something you just love doing and feel like its a real calling? The actual mechanics aren't crazy, work out who you are as a rapper, what type of music and fan base you might appeal to. Hone your craft make sure youre a quality rapper. Then market yourself do free shows, everything you can with the goal of getting 10,000 fans who are willing to pay £10 per year on your music and projects. If you do this your income would be 100k but its a lot of work. You might do a show and convert 5 people, so that would literally be 2000 shows you might have to do. So its a grind but there is a route. Post some music here as well so we get an idea

Funny story, I saw Bonnie Blue on a flight a few months ago, she was on the first row as well, so I had to walk right past her. She did not look comfortable in her skin, she had a hood up, was holding on to a teddy bear and aggressively colouring in her colouring book. She took pics with whoever asked but I did kinda feel sorry for her imagining what it must be like everyone looking at her and whispering behind her back but then less sympathy because she really courted this notoriety. A wider point what shes doing in her career isn't really a case of sexual liberation, its really just marketing, its a gimmick. She's smart in that she knows what to say and what to do to get attention but I dont think its representative of what she would do if money and fame weren't involved. She still could be sexually free and get that side of her out with swimgers parties or orgies or whatever, but sleeping with 1000 guys at a time is not something anyone really craves to do realistically. Its like someone who does eating challenges and puts them online, yeah they probably love food but if content wasn't involved they wouldnt eat that much.

What it comes down to is that the masses are not aligned with or seek truth, they seek validation of a reality that makes them feel good. So in terms a person being truth aligned and dating, its not really a selling point, but it comes down to quality over quantity. If you were to meet another person and they could recognise that you were aligned with truth you would be high quality to them as you would be rare and vice versa in how you would feel about them, but the trade off is that you wouldnt have as wide a variety as if you weren't aligned with truth. If you think of it like coca cola is the most popular soft drink in the world but the truth is water is infinitely better for you, do you drink coca cola to fit in with the masses or do you drink water which is good for you? This choice exists in every domain of life, politics, work, social etc. What i think is that in the dating or social sphere you can stay grounded in your truth, that doesnt mean you have to explain what that is every 5 mins, but you can embody what that is and if someone asks you can tell them, but I dont believe you have to be on the same level to connect with someone. It may not be as deep a connection but thats when you have to be honest with yourself.

Im looking at building a community based around mental health, ive come across skool which looks interesting, just wondered if there are a y opinions on it or if anyones built something on there. Also if there are any alternatives that people have had success with, patreon, teachable etc

I was thinking about this the other day, I think a big problem in the western world is we dont have that many environments where we're just around people regularly and have to get to know them. Traditionally a people would mostly meet romantic partners at school/college, work or friend of a friend. Once out of education that option dissappears and is even hindered more because young people spend more time online and less socialising irl. Remote work or work from home is more prominent and if your friend network isn't great then you wont meet friends of friends. As youve said attraction (esp for women) grows the more they get to know someone but its really difficult if theres no where to do that. Personally as im single I had to make a real effort to increase my community and network and even now I dont think its that good but has improved. Before it was almost automatic in society because there wasn't that much of an alternative, but I think now with porn, OF, basically everything online, there are easy ways to avoid the hard work (maybe not as satisfying)

Its corruption but theres more at play, Musk I think has genuine beliefs about his bloodlines superiority or at least his own superiority. He has spoken about impregnating many women to avoid demographic collapse. So essentially he is a white supremacist and is trying to prevent something along the lines of the great replacement theory. Hes probably as close to a movie bad guy as you can get. A literal billionaire who's a white supremacist and has a victim complex. He is motivated to get as much money and power as he can, not for its own sake but to enact his ideology. As someone born and raised in the uk I think its one of the most egregious things ive seen to have him a south african, American citizen, with his level of power and wealth, calling for violence in the uk. Imo this should not be allowed and if there is violence blood will be on his hands.

Actually another point i forgot to put in is that she often, views and likes my stories and posts, which i guess has given me the impression that im at least on her radar, so a message wouldn't be completely out of nowhere. But youre right in that it's low risk however she responds. @theleelajoker thanks for the advice and sharing your experience bro

Its not a desperate situation but just curious what the opinions would be. So I met this girl while I was in spain on holiday. Met in a bar talked, had good banter, danced, kissed a few times. It was more a fun vibe than a deep connection but I felt that there could be potential for a deep connection. I asked for her number at the end of the night but she didnt give it, we had already exchanged Instagrams though. I felt she was hesitant about the number because obvs she doesnt know me well, but I also thought is that a sign of not as much interest?. Anyway I tried to meet up with her, but she only had 2 days left and she was staying with a friend. I actually met both of them with a friend of mine and he was connecting with her friend. Problem was he didnt follow up with her or respond to her text, I feel like the move would've been a double date, build up comfort, have fun etc. So she basically said she couldn't meet up but we should meet when were both back on London. Reading back the convo just now, its not actually that bad but I think because she wasn't making an effort to meet I just felt like ill leave it the ball in her court. Now basically a years passed and im considering sending her a message. Ive been seeing girls in the meantime which is why I wasn't that bothered with her not getting in touch, but I am curious if theres anything there. So question is, is this a good idea and what's the best way to go about it? I should also add she was suspicious of whether I had a gf or wife or kids lol. Which could be why she wasn't as forthcoming as she could've been, not sure what happens to her before

I went on a date about a month ago with a woman I met irl (friend of a friend). We got talking about apps and she said within her first week on Bumble she got 400 likes, 400! She's a good looking woman but I wouldn't say shes top level looks, she is a cool person though. Now in her life there is no way that anywhere near 400 guys are approaching her in a year let alone a week. Not that many guys approach for one, shes probably not gonna meet that many guys day to day. So if shes choosing on an app, she may choose 4 lets say, she actually said a lot of them she wasn't interested in, so essentially women can be extremely choosy on apps, but with the 4 that she talks to just because of time, that's literally 1% of men. Imagine she was top level looks wise, it'd be even crazier. Competition wise though you have so much better odds than apps. Let's say this woman gets approached a couple times a week, thats your only competition. Added to that, you have more influence on the interaction than you would on an app, your vibe, connection with her, confidence all of these are usually very important for attraction. So imo offline the top 20% rule could be true but in reality you only have to be the best of 10 guys rather than 400. I will also add as well, most dating profiles from men are dogshit, so if you do spend a bit of energy on it, take good pics, have an engaging bio, you can definitely boost yourself up. But apps by their nature are going to be hugely skewed and dont represent real life.

He is, he had a similar take on eckhart tolle .... but Shetty comes across as very fake to me and there is evidence that hes exaggerated if not fabricated his back story