Consept

Youre right theres no point in philosophizing which is why this topic was brought up with audio evidence of him saying its serious and that hes intentionally down playing it, this is recorded - https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/09/politics/bob-woodward-rage-book-trump-coronavirus/index.html There are numerous examples of him disagreeing with experts, which you must be aware of, unless youre claiming he always agreed with the experts im not sure, but anyway heres one such example - https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-attacks-fauci-boasts-of-ignoring-experts-on-coronavirus-2020-7?r=US&IR=T heres another - https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-versus-doctors-president-experts-contradict/story?id=70330642 So question again, do you think Trumps response to the corona was appropriate considering he knew the potential severity of it ?

Are you saying Trumps response was appropriate or the best way to mitigate deaths? For example his going against experts or saying its a democratic hoax, with the knowledge that it isnt and that it is actually quite serious. His loyal followers will of course take what he says as gospel, which he knows is the case and he is wilfully misleading them

This is a massive factor, i would even go so far as to say its the driving force behind hate politics as you say. Theres a new doc on netflix called 'The Social Dilemma', which revolves around accounts from big players in the tech industry and they break down why they medium is so dangerous and how theyve actually lost control of it.

This is big because a lot of the anti-maskers, anti-fauci, conspiracy theories, have come about because of how much trump downplayed it. His downplaying has effectively cost lives, probably due to the extent at which it was downplayed and the disagreement with experts. However, it's not new that a government would downplay or not tell the whole truth about a serious situation as to not panic the public. I just wonder what his thinking was behind it. Of course he was worried about the election and approval ratings, but is there some part of him that thought this would be better for people to avoid panic and he's just very incompetant? Either way he's either very stupid or incredibly callous, so I can't see how this can look on him favourably

I get what youre saying, i think i find the trans-racial argument quite interesting as in it really pushes the social constructs of race or even the existence of race as a defining quality. Would you say Dolezal is deluded or what do you think is going on there?

I find the Dolezal case more strange because she appears deluded in that she literally cant say she is white but feels black. But is it possible to feel black as much as a trans person feels theyre in the wrong body, or is she just fully deluded and if so is it possible that some trans people are deluded? Anyway heres Whoopis take on it and then an interview with Dolezal where she got a bit grilled on the subject -

Yeah i mean calling someone black or white or blonde or whatever is really a human way to classify people they dont know too well with one easy word. This is done with jobs, your job title doesnt tell people too much about what youre like as a human but its always the first thing people ask a new person. I think we're just not good at accepting people as they are, we tend to look for ways to generalise. As you say race is really a construct, however until we all transcend race and ethnicity i think it will be part of your identity, theres no getting around it for now. Personally, i feel black, im not sure how to describe that exactly but its how i feel, it may just be because i was never made to feel 100% included with white people or because media and other influences are telling me im different or because i grew up around black people. But i also feel that there are constraints in terms of what is black, in that acting a certain way means your black, which to me is bullshit, im black but it doesnt define me. I think you can compare trans-racial and being a different gender. What youre saying is true you could be male and feminine energy, so it makes sense to have a few genders that incorporate this. But when you add 70 or so then really what were talking about is just how you feel, and if that is accepted then technically you could feel chinese for example. I guess what im pointing out is the pointlessness of the extra genders because i dont agree that its right, within the context that we have 'race', that a white person can all of a sudden say theyre black. The experience is always different than if you were born black. So relatively speaking if that doesnt make sense neither do other classifications based on how you feel.

Yes youre right this has always been the issue, there were also a lot of black people that could and did pass for white as well as it made their lives easier, not sure it happens as much these days. That is the privilege that Rachel and Jessica have in that they can apparently revert back to whiteness. This is also seen in the music scene, various artists adopt a black persona and make black music which is more accepted as theyre white, or they are able to change their music style to a traditional white genre (Justin Timberlake and Miley Cyrus are 2 examples of this). If a black person were to do this it would most likely still be considered black music, they wouldnt necessarily get a white audience in the same way. So to me it seems black people are locked into an identity whereas white people are free to be more fluid in that way. But trans-racial is not really about genetics anyway, its more to do with how you feel inside. I dont agree with it btw but im just saying if you can choose gender you should be able to choose race. So ultimately the question is can you actually choose these things? In theory, but in practice i dont think it will go down to well if i as a mixed race black guy started saying im white, it wouldnt go down well amongst black and white people. Obviously it hasnt gone down well for these trans-racial ladies. So are people being ignorant not accepting someone could be trans-racial? It would follow if people are ignorant for not accepting the many genders. Or should we just throw out all classifications of gender and race? Little relevant comedy to lighten the mood -

Interesting, i think one thing ill say for her is that she has acknowledged what shes done and apologised profusely off her own back as well as far as we can see she wasnt found out. This is very different to Rachel Dolezel, who still hasnt apologised for the deception and is going with the trans-racial line, ie saying she is black and being black is more of a state of mind than genetic. I guess the question is whether it is an overall good despite the deception, probably is, they didnt hurt anyone although some will feel betrayed by it, i think most see it as just a bit funny and by all accounts they did do good things. But it is a bit of an insult because its like getting some advantage of being black without all the disadvantages, theres a feeling that they dont really understand what theyre talking about because if they did they wouldnt have done it in the first place, its a privilege that they can declare themselves black, whereas, even though im half white, i can never declare myself white, not that id want to but just saying. There also seems to be a playing the victim component as well, this is seen in across the board, but especially in the Dolezel case she was overdoing it to an extreme extent, which i dont think is helpful at all. There can be some addiction to the victim mindset and i can see how this was playing it here. Second point, do the have an argument in terms of being trans-racial? If we have live in a society where we have over 70 genders, is it that much of a stretch to say a white person could feel black inside? This is where extreme green eats its tail, because on one hand theres the need to be inclusive of all people and what they feel they are, so we can choose from one of 64 genders regardless of hormones, but if you say you are a different race although you might feel as much as that race as someone feels non-binary, its offensive to whatever race youre claiming. So can you not choose your race because its offensive to others and can you choose your gender because theres no way to verify what you are and therefore its not offensive to others?

Massive results in portugal from decriminalisation. I know it might not be as simple as different countries have different dynamics, but looking at these stats i think why is it not a priority to work some sort of change to drug policy along these lines

That's crazy bro, sorry to hear you went through that but thanks for sharing it. Many countries in Europe have the idea that the legalisation includes making the addicts life better, therapy, helping them with work etc, as well as providing clean needles. Do you think this could work?

Is there anyone on YouTube or whatever platform who either claims enlightenment or is obviously enlightened or highly aware, who also takes psychedelics or attributes their Awakening to psychedelics?

Are there any teachers who are enlightened and did so by 5 meo? Would be interested in that perspective

@supremeyingyang I was gonna say the same thing reading that post. @LuciusV63 sorry bro but you're gonna have to break this down a bit for us dum-dums

Interesting vid from Greene, i would say hes around stage yellow. Touches on current situation with corona virus, conspiracy theories, US situation and why we believe what we believe. Would recommend putting playback speed to 1.25 as he speaks so slowly but good content anyway -

@Danioover9000 the issue is not really the draft dodging, it's the fact that others are judged as losers for dying in war but he avoided the war altogether.

I get the rational of why he said it and it makes sense given his life experience and wanting to preserve his decision for not going. I guess the follow up question would be is it the best choice to have someone as president who cant see others perspectives? Also who hasnt got compassion for those who fought and died for the country, which is a sentiment that is looked in almost religious way mostly by his voters and a lot of America in general. It doesnt seem like he looks down on soldiers as a whole though, its more the ones that die or get captured, he sees them as losers. I remember he said something disparaging about Mccain being held as a pow. A lot of his voters seem to claim how honest he is and he hes not a politician, but hes not really being honest about his sentiments here as if he was on stage for example he would lose a lot of voters.

@dyslexicCnutMy answer in general would be try not to work it out logically, there is no way to work this out on a mind level because its above your mind, its more about acceptance and surrender, so it's not something you can really do. But anyway I'm sure you've heard all that stuff before, what I really want to do is recommend this guy Paul Hedderman, he really cuts through all the traditional, typical kind of spirituality you're probably used to hearing and for me listening to him, he just made so much sense. I'd also recommend mooji as well esp the guided invitations he does. Anyway here's the vid, but watch a few, he's got tons on YouTube -

Yeah this pretty much sums it up, right wing want to keep things how they are or even go back and left wing wants to change things. Those that want to keep things they are tend to be those with money and power, obviously as they want to preserve things for their benefit. Those that want a change are those who believe they're not getting a good deal but also those that feel compassion for those not getting a good deal. The amazing trick the right wing play is to convince those not getting a good deal to vote for them, usually by blaming others that are getting an even worse deal or by fear mongering that things will be even worse if the left get their way. Demonising socialism for example. Left wing can also get caught up in the game and base policies around fear as they know they may be more likely to get voted in, they can also be corrupted by those in power. Its a devilish game

Regardless of the timing or agenda behind the publication, the words apparantly were spoken by trump, so whats your assessment of his comments?

I get what you mean but i think the idea of non-duality as cold and uncompassionate is most likely a projection of those that only have a logical understanding of non-duality rather than an experiential one. If you have a logical understanding and you like the idea of it, you may think that to get to live in a non-dual state you need to brainwash yourself and convince yourself that there is no you. This is way too much activity and as you say ego cycling. Ultimately its about letting go and acceptance, acceptance is almost inter-changable with love, so to fully accept or love everything is the basis of non-duality but its not a doing, its not an action, its a letting go. The ultimate compassionate thing to do is to help others realise they dont need to suffer, which is what teachers aim to do, it may include seeing death (and everything) as a happening rather than a thing happening to you and it may look uncompassionate from a particular state of consciousness but from a higher state it looks very different. If you want freedom you can not take your self with you.

The assumption that non-duality is not humane i dont think is correct, if you have a non-dual perspective you see everything as yourself or at least that youre connected to everything, in that sense its hard to hurt other sentient beings but is not as if youre trying to live up to some moral code its just that experientially it would be viscerally difficult. Really we are only able to hurt each other if our level of consciousness is low, a good example is if you join the army they have to brain wash you to some extent so that youre able to kill in battle, but even with this training many still get ptsd after the fact. This suggests that we're not really supposed to be killing each other but are able to do it if we drop our level of consciousness. If you have a high level of consciousness this is not even possible

Fair enough, well its more a definition issue, i would call it relative facts. Usually its fine but humans are subject to bias, emotions, imagination etc, you should always question your thinking otherwise youll end up joining a cult or following qanon or something. Final point, quote from wikipedia - "In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination). A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject." We wouldnt be able to know objectivity as we as humans are subjective individuals, to have a completely objective view in a human body is by definition impossible

I get what youre saying but i dont really agree it defines objectivity, it might define relative facts. Theres a quote i found on another forum i thought was quite interesting and relevant - "In German we have the distinction between Realität (reality) and Wirklichkeit (which best translates into actuality). Realität equals to the facts we have/know, while Wirklichkeit is what is above that/us." - A german guy

OK well thats a separate argument, maybe we'd be happier if we didnt question 'facts' you might be right. For most people thats the case but i think if youre interested in deeper knowledge you will question them, it could be argued that humans naturally will question so called facts and always push knowledge forward that is how evolution occurs. There were probably some cavemen sitting around saying its a fact only god can make fire and then someone questioned that and made fire themselves.