Consept

I did like him and still think hes not a bad guy but he has fallen down the new agey hole quite a bit, which is a shame as hes a really effective speaker

If you dont know the Walking Dead is a comic book and tv series about life after a zombie apocalypse in which most people die or turn to zombies and for the ones that are left they basically have to survive with scarce resources plus the threat of death and eventually rebuild a society. The comic book is a much better representation of the story imo, i started watching the series but it just didnt keep me engaged tbh. Now recently, in our world theres been a lot of issues in terms of freedom and free speech and some predictable anti-government sentiment. In TWD it poses the scenario of what if all governments literally collapsed so there would be no control over anyone. In short its chaos, people do whatever they need to do to survive, not only that 'bad things' can now not be stopped unless someone has sufficient force and power themselves. If youre by yourself the chances of you dying are highly increased because you have no security, if something goes wrong you have no medical treatment, so you have to join a group pretty much. So it makes you look at what we take for granted in our society, its such a given that we are relatively safe, that we get medical treatment etc. With that however comes a trade off in which we cant actually be 100% free, although there is always the option to go it alone even now, its just that it would be a stupid choice and almost anti-survival to put yourself in more threatening position. So the trade off essentially is that we cant undermine the society we're in by not following the established rules. We can, in some societies, criticise it and attempt to change and maybe improve the established order but we cant overthrow it, i mean we can if we have the power to but thats quite unlikely. The other thing i was thinking about is that order, control and even potential violence is absolutely necessary for you to have any kind of free speech or any kind of freedom. Green for example might criticise blue and its obsession with order and control but for green to even exist and be able to say anything without threat of violence completely relies on the order and control you get from blue. Simply put if society did collapse greens would either not survive or would have to revert to red or blue to survive, so in effect you could have blue without green but you couldnt have green without blue, i think this is something thats often missed by green. Also i think those in charge are always going to get a bad rap, the only way a leader is going to be loved by their followers is if they have to, in that if their survival is at stake, like in a red dictatorship type scenario. Even if a leader has the best intentions, they will always make decisions that will be questionable to some of the group or that might directly affect the individual while being the best for the group. Simply put a leader will always have to make tough decisions. In TWD the bad guy Negan has to violently punish people if they fall out of line by attempting sexual abuse, however by doing that hes also ensuring the safety of all the other people he keeps safe, he believes this to be the best way as if he doesnt rapes will occur. So people may complain that there is capital punishment but at the same time no one is getting raped. Anyway just some thoughts ill stop before it gets too long, welcome any comments of those who've read or watched it or anyone who is interested in the themes generally

Looking at it from a investment perspective, it can make a lot of sense to buy over renting. If you're going to rent a place anyway, most likely the mortgage will be around the same as a month (although depends on length of term, deposit etc). If you're paying rent your paying someone else's mortgage if you buy the place your buying your paying your own mortgage. So essentially you'll get the money back and maybe profit if the equity rises to cover the interest on the mortgage. If you no longer want to live there or want to travel, be more flexible, you can just rent it out to cover the mortgage so someone else pays for it. I don't buy into blind drive just to pen a home because what happens is people lock themselves into crap deals just to say their a homeowner, so obviously you have to do the sums etc. Also if you can get fairly cheap rent somewhere and you have extra money to invest that might be a better option, for example some vanguard funds have increased by over 100% in the last 5 years, so if you got rent for 500 and lived there 5 years and invested the other 500 every month into a fund you would potentially have put away over 60kin 5 years. Anyway there's no right or wrong answer but I just think it makes sense to maximise the money you're going to spend anyway

Could you provide a link to the scientific study where the conclusion is that vaccines are linked to autism, there maybe good information in the hour and a half documentary you posted but it would be easier just to have the study, if there is one.

Its actually a lot more, theres around 15x more mercury in breast milk compared to an influenza jab, also keep in mind breast milk is being given daily whereas a vaccine is only a few times in a lifetime. I take your point that a vaccine is straight into the bloodstream but even if i steelman the point and say a vaccine is more effective in terms of negative effects of metals if it goes into the bloodstream, surely it would only be negligible. Point being if you are that concerned with metals in vaccines yo should also be as concerned with breast milk, baby formula and many foods including tuna. Its strikes as quite hypocritical (not necessarily you) that theres all this outrage over a vaccine but not these other things, are these metals dangerous or not? A big thing i think is just the perception of it being administered with a needle, as someone said in the thread, if they put the same ingredients in your food you probably wouldnt bat an eyelid.

What would you say about the fact that theres a lot more mercury and aluminium in breast milk than there is in any vaccines?

I know the history and reasons for it, my family is Nigerian which is why I used the example, I'm not really criticising them I'm just saying being anti vax is not necessarily a sign of higher development as was stated in the post I was replying to.

Anti vax was also quite popular in Nigeria for example until they kept getting polio outbreaks, do they also have the developed critical thinking skills you mentioned?

Id say yellow and green, i like him hes got great insights into psychology, trauma and addiction

I honestly think it's an anti-government thing, I often wonder what would happen if the government from the start took the position that many covid conspiricists take, so imagine that the government said covid wasn't serious, the death rate is so low, we shouldn't lockdown or wear masks. I honestly believe the same conspiricists would be saying the government is hiding things, they're delaying a vaccine, they're minimising the disease etc, I can't imagine them agreeing with the government under any circumstances. Which then tells me that it's not about truth it's really a protest and resistance to the government, which is cool but I don't believe it to be an honest search for truth.

@Chew211 I agree with your position and I agree that people in society are a means to the productivity of society and as such its not conducive for men, in this case, to have the qualities that will attract women. However your solution (which I also agree with) is not necessarily accessible to the average guy. Its looking at it from a meta perspective, which of course the more meta the better, but most will not be moved to action on it as simply put they don't care. It maybe that something like the red pill can speak to men where they are at and hopefully many will then incorporate what's useful and move on, as you yourself have done. So in that the red pill has value in that it can shift men from that society default frame as into another one. Granted there is the risk of men then getting stuck in this frame and just being alpha warriors online. But I still think its a step toward where they actually want to be.

Yeah definitely, I was going to go into it but I thought the post might go on too long. But you're right there are many factors of why someone can't let go and the person may not even be aware of them. This could be due to upbringing, unhelpful information, not being taught healthy mindsets, many, many things, which it's important to learn awareness in general and why things like meditation and mindfulness can help

I'd say it is resistance, you can suffer experience but that is just a reaction to the experience. For example if you lost control of your car and veered off the road and let's say no damage was done, you most likely would suffer that as you wouldn't want it to be happening. Whereas you may actively pay for a ride on a roller-coaster which has the same if not a more scary experience, however you enjoy this experience as there is no resistance and to some extent you're in control of the situation. So there should be a distinction made between painful experiences and suffering of these experiences. Resistance I feel, is something quite unique to humans in that theyre able to mentally conceive a different reality, there is also a belief that we can in some way control this reality. Another example is if someone close to you dies there will be a natural grief that occurs, you are not in control of this, it will come and go. What causes long term suffering is a non-acceptance or resistance to this grief, often you'll here 'so and so just can't let it go'. So if you break it down there's a tension in the body which is an attempt to control the grief which of course does the opposite and causes pain and suffering

That really is the key, there has to be self awareness, like youre laughing together at what was just said it becomes a funny situation for both. If there isnt self-awareness it indicates arrogance and the woman will probably laugh at that guy. I can see how this is being taught in general messing up a lot of guys and them just coming across as arrogant, there always has to be a sense of detachment. Im not a star wars fan but Han Solo always makes me laugh in this clip -

@Chew211 Interesting post man, I especially liked what you said about surplus, abundance is attractive and scarcity is not. I agree with most of it but I would say red pill does have some useful ideas but the issue is that (like with most viewpoints), it becomes an ideology that is dogmatically followed. If you take the point that currently most guys drift in to that nice guy, beta perspective, where women are held high on a pedestal and almost bowed down to, this doesnt help the guys as they dont get anywhere with women and it also doesnt help the women because they are not attracted to this type of guy. So there is the need for guys to be able to see women at least on the same level as them, if not see themselves on a higher level simply because women are usually attracted to guys who are better than them in some way. Its also actually more objectifying to women to see them as these beautiful alien life forms rather than just people. So i guess the question is how do you teach men how to stop being the 'nice guy' and embrace their own value and masculinity. I agree with your criticisms of red pill ideology, I think a lot of it comes from male pain at being rejected or having a hard time with women and its almost like now 'we've got one over on them look at the stats'. Of course any ideas that come from pain are going to have a biased edge to them, these then filter down to the consumers of the content and it paints an overall world view that allows men to push all responsibility for their own lack of success on to women. Mosg that buy into red pill are at this stage and thats why it can be dangerous but the argument can also be most people at the stage, especially men, are very susceptible to toxic ideology. I think the truth within the red pill is still important as you will not be able to shift from 'nice guy' without it but by the same token you need to have a certain maturity to really take it on board without getting toxic. Youre also right in that guys can use it to ape alphas, which then creates this shell of an alpha rather than an authentic men who has embraced his masculinity. I think if you follow any ideology to the letter by definition you wouldnt be an alpha. So its important to take on this knowledge and then transcend it.

Well you have to work out whether you want it because its new and shiny and has a pen or you actually need it. When i say liability i mean just something that depreciates in value as oppose to something that increases in value which would be an asset. All laptops will depreciate in value so it just comes down to whether that extra use youll get out of it is worth 1k more. As i said if its not you can put that 1k into something else in which case whatever you put it into would be an asset as it will accumulate interest. Its like if you want to buy a car for 50k on finance, that car will depreciate by half in 5 years say, so the usage costs you 25k over 5 years, did you really need to buy that car for that much? Probably not as a car for 10k would do the same thing, then you could invest that 40k and make a nice amount of interest. Your example is the same its just on a lesser scale, but if you get in the habit of just buying more expensive things you will never build wealth.

Thats actually a very interesting experiment, i know they did something in terms of lots of people meditating for something but i cant really remember.

Well it depends if you need the extra functions on a more expensive computer. It might be cool if you have a pen and touchscreen and maybe would be useful if your some kind of artist but if youre only using it to setup an ecomerce business then its kinda pointless. Also if you do have 2k to spend on it, lets say you spend 1k instead and invest the rest into the stock market or whatever, that 1k is still yours plus its made some interest, whereas the computer you bought has depreciated in value and you might not have used any of the extra features that made it worth 2k in the first place. Its good to have balance, you dont want to be so frugal you dont buy anything but on the flip if you buy everything just because you end up becoming a consumer who has to have the best of the best, these people never become wealthy because they only own liabilities that depreciate rapidly.

I mean diseases and virus' which are now easily preventable, wiped out millions before modern healthcare and vaccines, 200 years ago life expectancy was around 35 now its more than doubled in part due to vaccines. Polio used to kill or paralyse around 500k per year worldwide, thats now been eradicated. Humans have lived for 1000s of years with diseases but nowhere near as successfully as now, would you be happy to have a life expectancy of 35 if we keep everything 'natural'?

Thats the standard reply, but then the question i wonder about is how many of those people if they had a life threatening illness, would take a new med that hasnt been tested long term?

But again the passion comes from the assumption and belief that what they think is correct. You could replace this with a Christian and say that they are fearful that the government will ban Christianity which is why they make a large effort to help people convert to their religion. Christianity or any religion assumes its correct and works backwards, so if they are correct then of course they will be passionate about helping people avoid hell. But the bigger question is are they actually correct? most likely not completely. Its the same with anti-vaxxers, even if you disregard all science and experts you cant really come to a 100% true conclusion that vaccines are good or bad, you might lean one way or the other, or like most you might say, im not 100% sure vaccines are completely safe but its better than the alternative. The issue with anti-vaxxers is they are saying that theyre 100% sure and having protests and internet campaigns to convince others to join their movement, to me this is not honest and although their intentions might be good its a potentially dangerous method of thinking that has always caused problems throughout history. If they were to say something like 'looking at the facts we can see that the side effects are close but probably worse if you take the vaccine so im not choosing to take it, however there is evidence that it could be the other way so i wouldnt advise anyone to follow me', thats one thing but to actively make it seem like they hold the truth doesnt make sense to me. Obviously im specifically talking about those that post on social media, make videos, setup organisations and preach about anti-vaxx.

This is speaking from an individual cost benefit analysis, from this perspective yes youre right you will most likely be fine. But really Covid or any contagious disease or virus is a community and society issue, which is why a vaccine is needed. If you were talking about diabetes that just affected you then your cost benefit conclusion would be fine, but it cant really be the same rationale in this instance. Also youre looking at covid from just deaths, whereas with the vaccine you pointed out the side effects, there are definitely more longer lasting side effects from covid than the vaccine, youve put your reasoning for not taking the vaccine is side effects. If that is a valid reason for you surely you would go down the road with the least side effects. There seem to be a lot of anti-vaxxers that are much more passionate about their position than people moralising about taking the vaccine. I dont think youd find protests or 'pro-vaxxers', people dont particularly want to take the vaccine in general but they do for their own reasons, theyre not really passionate about in the same way anti-vaxxers are. Which then begs the question of if we take your point that its counter-intuitive, shouldnt anti-vaxxers shut up about it as well as theyre probably driving people to take it?

Everyone that is emotional about a strong, dogmatic, belief feels this way. For example religious people have felt like this through history, if we look at modern day isis suicide bombers, they truly believe they are doing Gods work and saving people. This is an extreme example but the point is any belief system is going to believe that they are right and everyone else is wrong and when you take that stance it naturally follows that you would want to prevent those you love from going to hell or doing the wrong thing. This would be the obvious trajectory of such a belief which goes to show the dogma involved, in that theyre so sure they are willing to pull others into it. I dont agree with everything about science and it can also be dogmatic, but at the very least they will rarely say we are 100% sure about something, theyll just say this is what the evidence shows, in theory they will also take on new evidence and have an overall scientific consensus about what can be said to be 'scientific fact'. This is not the case with religion or other dogmatic beliefs, hence the emotional responses. This is true on both sides, you can get bad science and you can get people emotional being written off. But again the emotions come from having a belief. If you said 'i think Leo is 30' you wouldnt really care if someone else said hes 35, you may want to know which is true and then you would do further research, but either way you wouldnt be emotional about it because it doesnt have much bearing on you and youre not attached to the outcome of it. However if for whatever reason you felt certain he was 30 and it was important to you, those that then said hes 35 would be seen as enemies or at the very least wrong, you would definitely get emotional about it as you would feel attacked or not understood, you may even start questioning how we measure age or something like that. As i said many people are not necessarily attached emotionally to taking a vaccine, whereas people who are against it are. Pro-trump and anti trump was different in that the argument was emotional on both sides, the vaccine issue is more anti-vaxx bumping up against the scientific establishment rather than people on the other side. The paper you posted was quite interesting in that it said that science is falling behind in terms of the communication to the public, anti-vaxxers are getting better at visually showing their points. It also talks about how people are now taking science is seen by anti-maskers in this case, as an individual thing that they do and have autonomy over and is no longer seen by them as something with a scientific consensus and using the current scientific method. Which is an interesting way to look at it, so essentially its not even a case of anti-vax or not its more a thing of do you trust the scientific method and those that have studied these things for years or do you trust in your own ability to go through all these scientific journals and come to a conclusion off your own back. One thing i have noticed is that those that dont trust the scientific method always start off with an anti-science leaning, they also tend to have dogmatic beliefs whether it be vaccines or whatever. Personally i have no problem with the challenging of science, you should always question it, but you also have to appreciate where its good points are and how it can be useful.

Yes I agree, there won't be an emotional or dogmatic response but there could be a conclusion, however they are also open to new information. Also 'anti' implies an emotional response which is why I said they wouldn't be anti anything, they just may not agree with certain things or have different conclusions. The people I've seen online and otherwise who are anti-vaxx or even vaccine hesitant, are usually very passionate and emotional about their beliefs, whereas the scientists, epidemiologists and even intellectual thinkers are not really the same way about taking the vaccine even if they believe you should take it, even the average person who takes the vaccine is not really passionate about it, they just do it as they think its the best for society. When you get anti-vaxx protests you won't see people on the other side who are pro-vaxx protesting as well, with contentious issues where people have contradicting beliefs you would always get this but it's not the case here.

@BadHippie I'm not necessarily saying you but I think what the op is talking about in terms of their friends is that there's a dogmatic anti-science, pro-everything natural, anti-medical establishment, anti-government perspective. They going having these strong bias' and if they do research its just to back up their original beliefs. Now this isn't to say some of their beliefs aren't true, because they will be and some of their narratives might be sling the right lines, but what makes the distinction between yellow and green is that yellow would agree with some of greens points but will also incorporate scientific perspectives or any other perspective that has value. Green can be anti-vaccine but yellow wouldn't really be anti anything, it would look at the whole picture and come to a conclusion, actively looking for where they could be biased and factoring that in. Green is not really aware of this pro-nature, anti-science bias, they just believe their perspective is truth and everyone else is misguided, which is normal for dogma.