Consept

This sums it up perfectly

I think the issue is if you tell disenfranchised people that 'it's all your responsibility and you need to sort yourself out' it just doesn't produce results. If you think in terms of a child and a parent, if the child is being bad and disruptive, it would be ineffective for the parent to just say 'you need to be better, work out how to do that'. What might be more effective is if the child is given the tools to be better, support, love, community, positive role models etc. I agree that it doesn't help just to blame others for your situation but I think it is necessary to be aware of the past and the context of things, this in itself can be empowering because there are legitimate reasons for your situation. However once aware of this it's important to not use it as a crutch and take responsibility for it. But you have to appreciate this is not easy, most people even in wealthy circumstances, don't take responsibility for themselves, it just so happens if you don't in a poverty stricken area you will be heavily affected. To me it doesnt really matter what the left media says, I'm more concerned with solutions, most people in those situations probably couldn't care less, as I said in my personal experience the cuts to funding for youth services is definitely a masdive driver in inner crime and general disenfranchment. You cant really cut things like that which are proven to have a positive impact and then say 'well it's their own personal responsibility'. In theory it would be great if everyone could take responsibility for themselves that are in poverty but numbers wise, it just doesn't work like that, some will and some won't and its not really the case that it's even a choice, some are just not aware enough to make that choice, in which case there has to be help on a social level. Basically it's a complexed problem and you're not wrong, I agree in principal but there's just a lot more to it, which I can say from first hand experience.

I see this view a lot, that it's just personal responsibility, of course its very important but the fact is to change mindsets where people do take personal responsibility there needs to be education around that. I've worked in youth services and yes usually the family is at fault for having a negative mindset (this was not limited to black kids btw), but what created the really naughty kids was the whole environment which included teachers telling kids they'll end up in prison from about the age 7 or 8, having no strong, positive role models, having the school system basically give up on them, having criminals in their area groom them for crime. I don't think you appreciate how hard it is to get through that when your mind has been skewed essentially to think what is negative is good, it's hard to just say 'yeah I'm going to take personal responsibility', when you're not even aware of what that means. You need role models and people that care for you and can give you good advice and keep you on track. Also, in my country, UK, they cut youth services budget buy a massive percentage which led to the closure of youth clubs which then correlated to higher crime statistics. So there's an obvious link that once less effort is made on a social level with kids from poor neighbourhoods, there is more crime or at least more poverty mindset. Saying essentially, people just need to get hold of themselves and take responsibility, really minimises the problem and doesn't take into account the full context of it. The answer includes personal responsibility but is not limited to it. Kevin Samuel's has some good points as to what the problems are and possibly becoming aware of them, but his content is very simple, he has no idea about socio-economic factors or doesn't really look at how the mindset develops, usually he's talking to black, somewhat wealthy women, which is very specific and different to the issue of poverty mindset, it's it's own thing.

You have to learn how to deal with the defence -

By definition conservatives are trying to conserve the status quo, that naturally would bring more fear, anger and hatred as youre essentially fighting against progress which must be crazy stressful.

During the pandemic I let my hair grow out into a decent sized afro, it felt good in the same way the monk is talking about, didnt really have to worry about it, felt more free etc, one thing i noticed though is that i did get almost shamed by a few people for growing it out, not in any particularly insulting way, but to make me aware that this was not smart or like what everyone else is doing. It didnt really bother me but it is interesting how people put pressure on each other to conform to whatever is 'cool' in society and i dont even have large social groups but still felt a bit of pressure. I did end up cutting it if youre wondering, but just cos i got bored of it, had it well over a year

lol It really isnt, its just a thought experiment for both sides to look from a different perspective, if it was whataboutism I would have to say an actual thing that happened. But thanks for your reply though, i mostly agree

The flip of this is - what would be your opinion if a 17 year old Liberal kid went to protect the capital building from the protesters on Jan 6th and ended killing a couple people in self defense after being attacked? Would you say he had a right to be there or that he had as much right as the stormers, would your view be any different in that case?

In theory it would be self defense, he didnt randomly shoot people, but of course he shouldnt have been there with an assault rifle. If you go into a heated, protest situation of course walking around with an assault rifle is going to make things worse, theres a reason why you cant just be a vigilante on the street, its bloody dangerous. The argument that the protesters shouldnt have been burning things down is completely irrelevant for the same reason that anyone else committing a crime shouldnt be doing it but its not the place of random, untrained people to try and stop them and if they do its obviously going to cause problems which is why you have trained law enforcement in the first place. If you do try and stop someone committing a crime you need to weigh up the risks and accept the dangers, not travel however many miles to specifically put yourself in that danger.

This thumbnail and title is a great example, its so clickbaity and literally designed to get you angry and outraged, explosions, exclamation marks, money, missiles, Joe Biden framed in a devilish way. Its very hypocritical because its what Brand called the mainstream media out for and theyre not even close to these kind of images. I think if you are going to call out the media you have to hold yourself to a higher standard.

A question popped up looking at this post, lets say you want to attract money is it more useful to read a book about law of attraction 15 times or is it better to read a very practical business or investment book specific to what you want to do to make money? What is going to produce better results?

Hes very left, but i think somethings happened since covid where hes realised that if the titles are a bit controversial or alarmist he will get more views, i think its something to do with him probably hiring a team to do all the titles and promotion of the videos, a lot of them d split testing and put out whatever thumbnails and titles get the most clicks. Also even the topics he talks about go toward this theory, most of the time hes actual content is not that extreme it just looks at both sides and has an anti-government slant, but once you get into the youtube algorithm a lot of content gets skewed

I see where youre coming from but there is an argument that the service your providing is someone wanting to get rid of something who doesnt really have the time or the inclination to find a good buyer and your then providing the good to someone who is looking for that item. Obviously it can go to an extreme where you buy out the product and make it scarce and then sell at a mark up, like what happened with the ps5s. But I think the idea of finding value and selling at a higher price elsewhere is pretty central to business, even if youre employing people you are arbitraging their work, paying them one amount and reselling that for a higher amount or value. I do get where youre coming from but i think its just part of what keeps everything moving.

You can honestly make a lot of money from facebook marketplace, not necessarily free stuff, i havent done that anyway, but lets say you knew a lot about vintage action figures, if you searched them on fb youd find some good deals and you could also negotiate with the sellers, who most of the time just want to get rid of the stuff. You sell that to collectors or on ebay, you can make a lot. So that advice i can vouch for you can legit make money from it, i have.

Its true, theres some footage of the meeting in this vid - To be honest it did kinda change my opinion on him, although its very possible to be centered in orange and have at least some of the higher levels as well. I think hes realised that giving a lot of value (or at least seeming to) is not just some woo woo thing, it actually gives better results and he probably rationalises charging 15k for a 10 min meeting by saying that he gives so much value people are willing to pay that. Its also possible that hes using some tenants of green and above to just make more money and get more status which is another level of manipulation, but who knows for sure

There is higher consciousness in any and everything, Ill tell you one thing, ive been in basically a transcendent state going out and talking to women probably more than just meditating. I went speed dating one time and was basically in no mind for about an hour

I thought this was quite revealing about Gary V, its basically a guy from here in the UK who has made a lot of money in business and his channel exposes fake gurus and entrepreneurs. Hes not necessarily exposing Gary V but it just gives an insight into him that you might not normally see. I dont actually dislike Gary V i think he has some knowledge esp around giving value that i think I think is very helpful in business, in fact almost an advanced way of doing business than traditional orange. But of course theres some other stuff I dont really agree with but anyway here are the clips - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXjv_Oz4EKQ

Just came across this term in a book i was listening to, semantic stop sign (or thought terminating cliche) basically a cliche phrase that is used to halt the conversation from going further because the person using doesnt want to think further as it might question their held beliefs, some say its a way to ease the cognitive dissonance theyre feeling through the conversation. An example could be 'thats just your opinion' falsely equating all opinions as the same or 'you think too much'. These phrases can be used in a valid way of course so it only qualifies as thought-terminating if its used to dismiss dissent or justify fallacious logic. Its one of those things that I see all the time on social media and even on this site so its interesting that theres a name for it. We probably all do it but its good to be aware of it. My favourites are 'orange man bad', 'media/statistics cant be trusted', 'baa sheeple' Which ones have you guys come across and what do you think of the phenomena?

Haha yeah very true Its hard to do it because youd have to have a certain awareness that youre doing it in the first place which is specifically what youre trying to avoid. But i think if you set truth as the most important thing then it will at least encourage you to question and challenge your own opinions. If you look at things from a distance is very easy to not be tied to it and then be quite rational, for example if you heard about tribes in the jungles of africa being in conflict, youd be able to look at that and think rationally what can be done to sort out that conflict, whereas if youre in America and youre a republican or democrat youll likely be pretty biased and want to hold on to your opinion that your party is 'right', so the conflict will never get resolved.

In terms of survival and structure i think men are going to just be better, but imagine the next generation without the nuture and care of women, there would be a lot of problems. So obviously for a functioning healthy society you need both and thats why we've evolved as such. I think the problem comes in with the framing of this, so if you put one as more important than the other or even that theyre the same and try and flatten the structure. I dont see why now theres a problem with saying men are generally better at some things and women are generally better at some things. Thinking about it, it could be how male traits were made to look a lot more cool, like being independent, working, providing etc, so now women or society sees being equal as women doing what men do. Would be interesting if it was always matriarch system and you had men fighting to do more caring jobs lol. But it goes to show how its all really perception. Heres another tv show that tried the experiment btw, obviously low numbers so it wouldnt be statistically significant but interesting anyway

Its an interesting quirk and i think its the first sign of cognitive dissonance if you feel yourself getting emotional. If you think about it, its because we tie ourselves to the opinion and someone questioning it is like an attack on ourselves, if we werent attached to the opinion there wouldnt be much reaction.

Yeah he does have some interesting perspectives, that would appeal to people on the spiritual path. However, what my point is, is that due to his experiences hes kind of lost his way and got wrapped up in the conspiracy persona, hes not stupid he knows the effect he can have on people and this is why i wouldnt really advise anyone to listen to him as it would be very easy for some people to get sucked down his rabbit hole, as we've seen on an even larger scale during the pandemic. I think there are enough spiritual teachers who dont have such an obvious potentially dangerous side, so just listen to them. I dont know if he has any ulterior motives or what his ultimate goal is but hes either unaware of the effect he has in which case hes not a very conscious teacher or he is aware which is even worse.

Hes definitely an interesting character, I would say he seems to have had an awakening experience but he was mocked and laughed at in the UK for sharing it. I think this then to a grudge against the media which hes held since then. With conspiracy stuff i think that he got lost in the adulation from people, hes almost got a kind of hero status amongst conspiracy theorists, just because someone is awake it doesnt mean theyre immune to fame and having die hard followers. Honestly this mix of the grudge and being able to stick it to the higher ups and have people following him whilst doing it has taken over him. So its a shame but you have to understand how radical what he was saying was to a mainstream british audience, he probably wouldnt have ended up as he has if he hadnt received the treatment -

If you got time, start a new thread on how you think sexual education should be taught to kids and how that differs from whats being taught now, i think its an interesting topic

So kinda what they teach now, theyre not teaching kids to go and have sex with whoever theyre just giving them information to make an informed choice. A good example is the Netherlands where the age of consent is 12 but they have comprehensive sex education, the average they lose their virginity is 18.6 years old. In comparison in the US its 17 and this is despite being a lot more religious. Also comparing the teenage pregnancy rates, its 16.7 per 1000 girls in America and 3.2 per 1000 in Netherlands. Gotta watch that deceptive fox Obama, trying to teach kids to lower teenage pregnancy and shit