Consept

This was inevitable though unfortunately, just hope not too many are hurt

Great vid, i like both those guys

It's not so much that you drop it completely, not many can just decide and that right away, it's more you become aware of the illusion. You have a choice in that you can believe whatever concept you want, this is what's taught to us as we grow up and to some extent its true, but it doesn't change the ultimate reality that is that you're just awareness. This is not a belief or concept this is something that can be directly experienced or directly seen, if you just believe the concept it makes it no different than any other belief. Your choice essentially is to believe illusion ie your mind or experience reality. You may believe that illusion let's you do different things but to compare it you'd have to experience Non-Duality, that's the investigation you need to conduct

Your awareness comes first, everything, including your ideas about Non-Duality or anything else are within your awareness. Your getting lost in ideas, ideas are just content that you are aware of, there is no self that can benefit from an idea of Non-Duality, that is an illusion. The only thing in your experience that is not an illusion is awareness, this is something you can experience for yourself. I feel the way youre currently seeing it is that this idea of Non-Duality can help you live a better life, this is a contradiction because there is no 'you', that's what needs to be seen. Non-Duality is what's left when the self and all its ideas have been dropped, it's what has always and will always be there regardless of the content the mind throws up

This obviously is not surprising, but surely this is hard proof of an attempt to defraud the election, surely worse than alleged with no evidence fraud. So what is it actually going to take to make Trump supporters realise who this guy is? Or is it just an all out cult at this point? Potentially he could be hurting repubs with this type of thing

If someone does it unknowingly thats one thing, but you can infer intention from his general rhetoric in this case. Again its not that the term used especially offended me its just that it was obviously said to bait as it had nothing to do with anything, we werent even talking about Obama. For one thing black people are just more comfortable talking about race, as they have over the years gotten the short end of that stick. It has to do with power dynamics, so for example poor people can make jokes about being poor amongst each other but if a rich person made a joke about them being poor, it can come off as if they are being superior and looking down on them and also not really understanding their issues. Same with any dynamic like that, if an in shape person made a joke about fat people, if a young person made jokes about old people, if good looking person made a joke about ugly an ugly person. Its all the same, and also the definition of racism is believing yourself to be superior to another based on race, if you make a joke disparaging black people your intention may not be bad or even racist but it will definitely come across as such. If you take the 'Kenyan man' example its a way to reduce Obama to just his racial heritage as if thats all he is, so in that way the person saying it can in maybe think he or others are superior to Obama

Well I'm black so... But aside from that my point was more it's not relevant whether he's Kenyan or not, it literally had nothing to do with anything, but the person writing the comment knew that it might be offensive, which is something I see from the right a lot. It's like we have a right to say whatever and we're going to prove it by saying something we think would be offensive to you. It's just trying to bait people so that when they react they can say 'ha look how sensitive you are', normally I wouldn't comment but on this forum where its supposedly more 'advanced' people I don't think these type of tactics are needed or constructive

If youre trying to 'do' non-duality or take away duality, wouldnt that mean a dualistic perspective? The foundation is non-dual, you have no option of that, then anything you do pretty much lends itself to duality, all you have to do is be aware of this duality and see that youre not it. Its not some kind of lifestyle so to speak

You realise that OAN is heavily biased toward the president right, the clip i used was the actual Georgia Secretary of State along with surveillance footage of him literally explaining every movement. But if youre trolling do your thing, im not gonna argue with you

Referring to Obama as 'Kenyan man' is pretty racist, i understand you may need to drop the level of conversation for whatever purposes you have but please refrain from racism or any other prejudices

What do you consider good sources of news?

Ah cool, youve seen some undeniable evidence then? I got swayed by the numerous court cases that got thrown out, but what you got?

This is an easy go to usually from right wing, libertarian types, not saying you are that but thats usually who comes with this points, its an argument to make it seem like socialist policies shouldnt be pursued. Its lacking so much context its kind of ridiculous, there are many reasons why it didnt work in Venezuela, you can have a look into that yourself rather than using it as a check mate point - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Hugo_Chávez_administration#Cooperatives_and_economic_democratization One point for example is - "Since Chávez was elected in 1998, over 100,000 worker-owned cooperatives—representing approximately 1.5 million people—were formed with the assistance of government start-up credit, technical training, and by giving preferential treatment to cooperatives in state purchases of goods and equipment. There has been an increase in the amount of cooperative enterprises that have tax incentives in the new 1999 constitution. As of 2005, approximately 16% of Venezuela's formally employed citizens were employed in a cooperative. However, a 2006 census showed that as many as 50% of the cooperatives were either functioning improperly, or were fraudulently created to gain access to public funds." The main reasons it failed is that it was just poor management, corruption, no future planning. This of course is very likely in a country with high levels of poverty. In places like Sweden, Denmark etc, they also have a lot of social policies and have been pretty successful, not just financially but the citizens have more opportunities, less poverty etc

OK sorry if i missed it, so your solution is things like what Kapernick did, even though he was still demonised by the right and got sacked from his job. The other thing was to celebrate successful black people, this is done but probably not enough, theres a history of suppressing black inventors for example, these things arent taught in schools, mainly youre only taught about slavery in the context of black history. This can have not only a psychological effect on black students but not expose them to the knowledge of how successful some black people have been, which means they dont think they can achieve these things themselves. Even so black people do celebrate other successful black people its just not talked about in the mainstream as much. So youre suggesting things that have already been done, these are already part of the movement yet high levels of inequality, or if you like an unfair playing field, still exist, so question is should people just leave it at that and accept the unfairness or should they do something else and if so what should they do in addition to what theyre already doing, which you said were good things

Exactly, this is what i see constantly from people like Shapiro and Peterson, theyre very good at the criticisms but they offer no alternative solution. I have many criticisms and suggestions for blm but my aim would be to improve the movement from my perspective, not question whether or not it should exist

Again you still havent provided any solutions for the issue youve raised. I also agree consciousness is important to raise, but if people are in poverty and survival mode that is almost impossible to do so therefore you would want to raise people out of poverty or help them to raise themselves out and then you can work on raising consciousness. But i take from what you wrote that there shouldnt be an effort to move to a more equal society because we arent born equal and we should have to compete. Ill go with you on this for a second, lets say you and me are competing in terms of who can make a million the fastest, if youre born into a poor family who cannot afford private education, are scraping by a living, dont teach you anything about starting a business or a trade etc and im born with every luxury imaginable, i go to a private fee paying school, my dad has connections that get me a great job, i get money to buy my own house and start my own business. Its not really a fair competition then is it? If you believe in competition surely you would believe in fair competition, at the very least everyone getting the same education, medical care or justice right? These are the things people want when they talk about equality, if you want a meritocracy then follow it all the way through and youll inevitably end up with a more socialist society

OK so youre saying do nothing? You have to really be specific here and im gonna push you on it because its the crux of youre argument, youre saying what not to do, that has merit, but also it doesnt usually work. The example i gave earlier was Kapernick protesting peacefully which he got a lot of hate for from the right, they said that he should not have disrespected the anthem, flag etc. So we've established that a peaceful protest can be and was disregarded. The only reason why people are talking about BLM is because of the current protests many of which were actually peaceful. So i ask again what can be done, doing nothing has obviously never worked in history so i dont think that answer is valid. Also a fear that you wont be heard, makes sense as people havent been heard that is the point

I think youre kind of dismissing this question and it is very important for your topic. Youve highlighted criticisms of blm which is cool, but then you have to look at what was the purpose of your criticism? You agreed there would be a need for something like blm but youre not happy with the current movement, so what would you do differently or how would you address the current disparities of race or at least the discontent people feel? If you cant answer these questions i dont think you should really criticise as you cant come up with a better or even a different solution yourself. Otherwise the end point of your criticism is just blm is bad

Do you think blm or something similar is necessary? If so how would you combat racial inequalities? Keeping in mind if you do protest peacefully you would either not be listened to or if you're high profile like in the case of kaepernick be demonised, lose your job etc

Interesting, so just to clarify their points @Claymoree , as i understand it youre saying you just shouldnt take any news coverage seriously as it can be twisted whichever way, keep in mind this is Sky news which is owned by well known conservative Rupert Murdoch. But this kind of argument is an ad hominem attack whereby you call out in this sky news rather than directly addressing the issue raised, keep in mind the full audio is out there in which you can listen and then directly respond to. @Nyseto Excuse me if i mis-characterise you, but it sounds like youre saying the left is just as bad if not worse than the right in which case theres no point in addressing this particular incident because the left has done something just as bad in your opinion, which is that they demonised him. But again theres no direct addressing of the issue at hand. Its the equivalent of saying if a specific man abuses a woman, 'well women abuse men too so....'. What I've seen a lot, potentially on both sides but definitely more on the right, is these type of low quality arguments, I label them low quality arguments because they never actually debate the central point, (Ive left a picture of the debate pyramid below). This has almost become common practice now, in that low level debate tactics to distract from the main point is a valid argument. It makes it quite obvious that a logical debate is impossible because the position just doesnt make sense, therefore to enter into one would look ridiculous, so the defensive ego kicks in and gives you options whereby you can distract and pretend that theres no point in debating the central issue. I think its fine if you support or sympathise with Trump or even criticise the left but there has to be a higher level debate about it otherwise how does it help you get to truth? In the case of this recording, you have a president on tape asking an election official to 'find votes', he is rebuked by the election official and told that no there is no evidence of what youre talking about. This, in a democracy should not be accepted in anyway, so if you are going to refute the point, please directly address it without mentioning democrats or the left or whatever else. Or failing that enter the meta-conversation about why Trump supporters accept and support this behavior and what it would actually take to get them to see these actions for what they are.

I dont know what you mean by people calling those that leave a country cowards, i dont think anyone has said that on this thread. You could argue some, that leave are selfish if theyre trying to do it specifically to avoid tax but thats a different argument. To me this thing is simple, we dont know whats going to happen in the future regarding anything, so all you can do is make the best decision at the time. Regarding brexit, can we say the best decision was made? Definitely not, there is no economist or any other expert you could find who would say it was a good decision. So its like saying Im going to decide to eat junk food as a way to help my diabetes, no doctor or expert will agree its the right choice but you can always say, 'well who knows what will happen'. The fact that the main reason why people voted was immigration which ive pointed out doesnt even really make sense in terms of Brexit being able to sort that out, should tell you that even if the UK is fine after brexit the people were manipulated into voting for something that will most likely be against their best interests, (according to economists).

OK breakdown how being out of the EU instead of in will help with the problems you've highlighted

I wouldn't go as far to call all of them racists, but there are a decent amount of racists in the UK and I can bet you all actual racists voted to leave. You can be nationalist but the arguments still have to make sense, if youre voting for something that could potentially damage your country then how can you even claim to be a nationalist? If they want to sort out immigration that is something that could've been looked at and changed whilst being in the EU. A lot of people literally thought all immigrants would have to leave once we left, also race hate crimes went up significantly after brexit.

Of course, i wasnt saying everyone that voted is stupid, i just found the video funny, its not so serious. Having said that, on that channel there are a lot of people who call in that have similar perspectives, even in my own experience talking to people im yet to hear a coherent argument of why we would be better off out of the EU. It usually comes down to immigration and this was what the campaign was based on, Ive attached an example picture of a brexit advert. The argument that the EU is responsible for problem with immigration is just not correct at lacks a lot of context, ive pointed out why this immigration argument doesnt make sense in an earlier post. So if the decision was based on this it is a stupid decision, anything after the fact is just trying to justify it. There maybe other good reasons to leave and im more than open to hear them i just havent yet. Yes things always need to change and evolve, i just feel that Britain does have a bit of an obsession with this idea of 'sovereignty' and independence sometimes to its own detriment, its very possible to be both independent and work as part of a collective that is mutually beneficial, espeicially in a world thats growing evermore closer together. Another way would be to educate people about politics and critical thinking, instead of giving them misinformation and targeting their fears to make them vote a certain way. Freedom to vote should also mean freedom of manipulation

Im not really saying its specifically because of the EU, it is hard to pin down and as you say there are a lot of variables. The point is that its hard to make the argument that the UK has been hindered or been worse off because of the EU when the numbers are actually higher than American growth which has no such restrictions and is a world super power. So essentially we're trading in something that has worked at least as good as high performing economies and gambling on something that every economist is saying is a step in the wrong direction, i just dont see the logic. Inequality is still a problem of course but this would be something domestic government can really make a difference with through policy, minimum wage increase etc. In fact the EUs human rights policies at least acts to try and prevent exploitation of people.