Consept

Forget the narrative, what im talking about is applying the law to everyone. If a civilian commits a crime (providing their not connected to the police or someone powerful) theyll get arrested if the evidence is there. If a police officer commits a crime he'll most likely get off, this is endemic in the police and its not to say police are bad, because its human nature to protect your 'tribe'. However their tribe is the only one that can be above the law of which they are supposed to uphold, and of course people are going to feel that that is unfair and so you will get the reaction from the public because people rightfully dont feel that the police are on their side or are there to help them, especially if they kill people illegally and get away with it. I mean its literally only 2 or 3 that get convicted despite 1000 shootings a year, 100 or so involving an unarmed suspect, i dont know how that can foster trust.

Right but this isnt something thats definitely true(mbti), it is just a concept, its a map but thats about it. What would make it true for you? Ultimately youll find another map and think thats 'true', for example Jung, who ive read as well, is still just a map, maybe it works for more people, who knows. I think currently youre looking at why things arent true and that is important, but what i notice is that theres usually partial truth or something to take from everything. I'm not really resistant to you questioning it im more questioning the reasons behind your questioning, as its important to establish the intention behind such a question, and then also i felt you could benefit from considering it. I felt that you had already made your mind up on it and maybe wanted to confirm your findings which would then lead to battles in the thread which dont really lead anywhere. Jung is great for example but i could easily bring up many criticisms about him, such as lack of conducting experiments to demonstrate his ideas, theres many more - https://www.europeanmedical.info/cognitive-therapy/the-unscientific-nature-of-jungs-psychology.html#:~:text=One of the earliest criticisms,as well as its content.&text=The charge that Jung's psychology,archetypes and the collective unconscious. https://classroom.synonym.com/weaknesses-carl-jungs-theory-8505105.html We could then go back and forth about whether hes true or not. Ultimately you would only know by testing it yourself. So no i dont really like amassing concepts for the sake of it, but if something rings true to me and i test it experientially then thats good enough for me, also i dont really take it so seriously. But anyway its good what youre doing you should read and explore

Yeah but when cops do legitimately fuck up, their colleagues cover for them, i very much doubt that of the 1000 police killings every year since 2005 there are only 35 'bad apples' (cops convicted). If a pilot crashed because he was drunk and his co-pilot and traffic controllers covered for him that would be a bit insane, might happen though who knows

What @Serotoninluv is referring to is that you are seeing the 'pieces' that match with the narrative you follow or believe. You could look deeper into the whole thing as to why are there disproportionately more killings in that area by black people, you may stumble upon the fact that white people kill each other quite a lot as well. But if you look at the whole picture, poverty might be an part of the issue as well as other factors, then maybe look at why black people are disproportionately in poverty in America. Your view currently, without being insulting, is quite limited, its just a simple 'black people kill each other', if you expand your view its never as simple as you initially think it is. Its like if you were going to study sociology to work out the route of societal problems, before you started you would have a view that you swore was true but after you started studying youd realise there is no one, simple truth, people and societies are complex. You should explore with an open mind

Why i ask is because it seems youve come to a conclusion and you want to convince others of it, in a way you want to 'win', that may not be true but its just the impression i get. The way i see mbti, regardless of the science or whatever behind it, someone wrote some personality traits down that i related to and felt defined my personality quite well, which allowed me to then look at my personality more objectively and be aware of my tendencies and essentially be more honest with myself. Now does that mean everything was true? no, but it gives a general framework that i felt worked for me, the map is still not the territory, but a map is useful nonetheless. Of course dont take it as 100% accurate.

Some maps will work for some people, i dont think every map will resonate with all people. Psychology and medicine can provide varying results, like for example ssris may help some people and have no effect on others, is it then worth saying theyre useless on that basis? I would like you to consider and answer this question, what is your true intention behind this post? really consider this

By their nature conservatives main thing is to keep the status quo, so they are not for change unless it was to enhance their interests ie tax breaks for the rich, unregulated market

Just thought I'd put this here, an interview with Rayshard Brooks shot a few months ago

Its a big stretch to say Trump handled this well, he made many mistakes and was set on ending the lockdown in April which wouldve been a disaster. China could have done much better as well. I think in most places those with compromised immunity were isolated. But it is a hard job to be in charge when something like this happens, i think preventative measures are key so hopefully everyone learns for next time

I agree with with pretty much all of your points

i wouldnt say its fear, fear would be that theres no basis to be worried about it and then you over react based on not a lot. I would say there was a lot of basis to be worried about covid considering what happened early on in Italy. Me personally it wouldve been too much of a gamble to say 'despite strong advice from all of my advisors and experts, im going to risk the lives of a few 100 thousand people so our economy can stay open, i have no basis for this decision other than i dont trust my advisors and i dont think a disease can be that bad'. I honestly dont think many people wouldve have made that gamble, for example would your gamble your own families life in such a manner? A sensible position would be to lockdown initially and then get as much research and what not so you can make an informed decision rather than just say no lockdown without sufficient information. The Brazil bitchute vid would need more context, i dont know whats being said, if its new, nothing, so i cant really comment on that, as in i would need more information before making a reaction

Im with you it should be examined, but my point is that what would you have done differently, im not saying that in a challenging way, im just saying examine what you would have done in that position yourself. Ultimately, people have talked about a virus killing a lot of people for the last 20 years, even George W warned about it, no preparations were taken, thats more the issue. This could have been dealt with easy if there was real pre-planning and preventative measures, Trump released a budget just before the outbreak that was going to cut funding to the CDC, so there really was nothing in the way of planning for this. Another point is that this is exactly the type of disease that could be dangerous because its in a sweet spot of not being very fatal (if its too fatal it wont spread ie ebola) but being quite contagious, which means that it can get around quickly and be deadly to the people it will be deadly to. So this is what the people that foresaw it were worried about. Even at a death rate of 0.2% if the whole world got it youre looking at around 14,000,000 deaths which is pretty significant, obviously thats simplistic and a worst case scenario but again I dont think you would take that gamble. You can think its not believable but with due respect, youre not a virologist, so essentially you will be telling people who have dedicated their lives to the field that they were wrong and taking a gamble on that basis, in which people definitely wouldve died. If youd like context for it the Brazilian president did something similar and its been a complete mess there - https://www.nytimes.com/article/brazil-coronavirus-cases.html

@Parththakkar12 Ok so lets say, you were the prime minister of Britain, at the time your information was that if we dont lockdown 470,000 people will die (thats what some have said would be the number now without lockdown in the UK). So the question is would you confidently say that we wont do a lockdown knowing this number, so at best gambling with lives and possibly killing 470,000 people, most old but not all, or deal with the problems that youve highlighted? I agree they are issues but potentially will get better over time

I don't think the suicide rate is any higher than last year at least in the UK of course that could change but for now there's nothing saying the lockdown caused more suicides, not to say the lockdown didn't have issues, domestic abuse etc. The other thing is that if the economy can't survive a lockdown for 3 months then there's a lot of problems with the economy than we thought and it probably needed to be exposed. Hopefully we can move forward and either improve the system or overhaul it in favour of some form of socialism

Its true, the playboy mansion was basically an ashram

I'm not sure that the info at the time was that it only kills 0.1% and that it's majority old people. Also here in the UK Boris Johnson initially said he was going down the herd immunity route and the whole country was in uproar. Further to that Sweden he didn't do a lock down have the most amount deaths compared to their scandanavian neighbours in some cases 10x more and the amount of anti bodies in the population is not much better than their neighbours, no where near enough for herd immunity. If an uncertain decision was made, which plenty were of course, but something like not doing lockdown and the countries health system was not fully equipped which was the case in many places, it could've been a lot worse.

I see what you're saying, kind of like a challenge for them to bring him down to their level

Check out the bikram yoga guy that was a mess. It feels like the power differential is too wide, a follower of a guru almost sees them as a God so then to take advantage of that I dont think thats cool or at least not in the best interest of the student. But then question is what does a guru do if they want sex or a relationship?

he could be doing it for attention its not impossible but i think theres been a clear shift in consciousness. I saw his videos when he first did the aya and obviously it was probably too much too soon but he definitely experienced something. I think it could be a positive he just needs to integrate it more but that will come in time. Its interesting because his normal audience are literally the opposite of what hes talking about now so im intrigued to see where he goes with it, he could get lost in the chasing views again but we'll see, good luck to him

I think if youre criticising the handling of it, and dont get me wrong there are things to criticise, how would you have dealt with it given the information that was given in February?

Teal Swans a strange one, not sure if shes beyond turquoise, but anyway theres been enough threads about her. Id say Lisa Cairns, Pema Chodren, theres more but not coming to mind

Ultimately, without being too simplistic, if you have a society where anyone can carry guns there will be problems. I can't see how a society, especially one with wealth inequality amongst other issues, can both have guns and not have issues around guns.

This is a big part of it, if the guns were reduced i think police would be less on edge, there would be less police shootings etc. But its such a big business in the US i just cant see it happening. I mean kids literally get shot at schools and they still dont consider it, in fact a solution ive heard is more guns and training for teachers. Ive been stopped a few times and at no point did i fear for my life, it was an annoying situation but thats it. I would argue with them and question why theyre doing it but i dont fear any violence from them. Obviously i know if i was to insult them or swear at them or resist they would arrest me. I cant imagine what i would be like to genuinely fear for your life from the police, that Castillo shooting was horrible and speaks to how unnecessarily tense guns make routine situations

I know what youre getting at, but i just think in any other context of a man shooting another man in the back, take away the uniform, its a heartless act. Now is being in the police and being able to kill without consequence a big factor of course, but that shouldnt be the case. Like you said if it was your dad it would be the worst day of your life and you would see all the ways it couldve been avoided. Fair enough there are situations where its unavoidable but this for me couldve been avoided. I think we should have compassion that this man couldve been someones father or husband or brother or whatever. I think if you would have compassion for your dad in this situation and are able to look at how this could be avoided, you should have compassion across the board.

Im surprised its even 6.6 guns per 100, of course i get that police have to have guns in the US (gun control is an issue by itself) but my point was that if they let him go while he was running away, so what? They had his car he wouldnt have got very far, there was cctv, they had his details, he wasnt really violent so just let him go and pick him up later, thats what they probably wouldve done in the uk. Im also thinking that part of it is pride like the cop didnt want to 'lose' the situation, of course its speculation but i think it could be true