Consept

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    2,690

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Consept

  1. Posted

    43 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    Owen isn't doing the conspiracy narrative for the money, it's because his life's work and RSD was basically canceled by the MeToo crackdown that platforms did back around 2016. It's obvious this affected and hurt him deeply so he takes it personally and needs some way to explain it to himself. He doesn't like platform moderation because he wants to put out very edgy content. But he doesn't realize how such content hurt women. So it's not that he was being censored for his ideas, the immaturity and sexism of pickup simply hurt too many women and so there was a backlash. This is not elites controlling him. This is just the natural consequence of being insensitive with what you say. Saying edgy things hurts people. Promoting hardcore pickup also hurts people. Owen doesn't acknowledge this enough.

    In general Owen is an intense, edgy, and hardcore guy. He loves to challenge mainstream norms and lifestyle. So it makes perfect sense for him to be deeply opposed to things designed to protect the masses. He likes to live more dangerously and aggressively. That's his bias. He does appreciate the function of those mainstream safeguards nor the wisdom of some important mainstream ideas like anti-sexism, anti-promiscuity, and anti objectification of women. There are deep problems within the pickup lifestyle which Owen seems to be in denial about. Mainstream culture is actually right about that. But needs to deny that to keep doing what he is doing.

    Interesting insight and i guess you know him a little bit but it makes sense. I agree i dont think hes doing it for money but i think it would be hard to not be aware that when he talks about conspiracy orientated topics he gets more views, at the very least he will try not to alienate his audience that do believe in that stuff. For example in a recent video i watched he was talking about the will smith slap and he was very charitable to it being a set up although he didnt think it was, it jus struck me that although his point was the opposite of the conspiracy take, he still had to appease that side of his audience. 

    Also i get the impression with him that he does want to get to almost Tony Robbins levels, that seems to be the goal and to get there so it would be hard to not take all these conspiracy fans with him. Having said that i think he does have excellent insights in terms of social and spiritual and i think its great that he can put those two together, because thats not often done. I just dont think he realises how these wild ideas affect his credibility. 

  2. Posted

    4 hours ago, Raze said:

    As for the conspiracy stuff, I have a feeling he’s going to double down on it.

    Yeah i think its similar to how a lot of youtubers became right wing and trumpists, theres certain audiences that just yield better fruit in terms views and then money, although the money might not be important. If you think Rupert Spira is one of the most respected non-duality teachers in the world right now but only has 152k subs with around 20k-40k views per video. Compare that to Russell Brand who has 5.5 million subs and gets literally millions of views per video, add to that his channel blew up only when he started doing conspiracy content during the pandemic ( https://socialblade.com/youtube/channel/UCswH8ovgUp5Bdg-0_JTYFNw/monthly ) for a few years before it was growing slowly. His own spiritually focused channel has not seen anywhere near the growth of his main, now conspiracy orientated channel.

    So I think its interesting how easy it is to get drawn into whats selling, theres a huge incentive for Owen to lean into conspiracy stuff because his audience is susceptible to it, the way he talks sometimes is almost like he doesnt believe some of the stuff but he also doesnt want to condemn or say its stupid because he knows that a deal breaker for his viewers. This is the same with Brand, he'll say something like 'whatever your theory is on the vaccine...'. They may say that they have to do that just to get more viewers and once they get them in they can give them very important information, but im not so sure i think playing into it actually makes the viewers focus more on the conspiracy stuff as now this person they respect is kind of agreeing with them. 

    Also its a good analogy for revolution, you can say that Brand & Owen are constantly screaming for one, but now that they have some power in terms of their audience, theyre very quick to manipulate this audience by playing into their audiences fears and getting them more engaged in this way, essentially doing what they criticised the mainstream media of doing, so this revolution of media is the same but not regulated. 

  8. Posted

    Yes true but its not your job to fix people and if it was its very difficult. Also in a sense they don't really matter because we don't know them, we know you and are trying to help you, so in that way we can only advise you on how to grow and improve yourself. If you want us to condemn these people even if it is valid, that we have no context, for we can do that but I'm not sure it will help you. 

    My question would be do you want advise on where you can grow or improve or do you want us to agree with you on the traumas of these other people?

  9. Posted

    OK I guess what I was asking is, is everyone else the problem or are you at least something to do with the problem?

    To me the fact that you are not taking responsibility in anyway for your situation would be a red flag. Taking responsibility could even look like you expected too much or you were too full on from the start. If you're expecting someone to be completely loyal and to like you intrinsically for you straight from the jump you have to know it just doesn't work like that, relationships have to built and for that time is needed. Most people initially will like you because you make their life better in some way and then eventually a deeper connection may be formed. 

    But for you personally I think you need to recognise why you might be putting people off. This post is even a good example because essentially you wanted justification and people to agree with you that the people you were friends with are bad and that friendship itself is an illusion. Any attempt to address what you may have done and how you could grow have been shut down. This is very off putting for a potential friend because they will get all the blame from you for something not going right. 

    I'm aware that you will even see what I've written as an attack on you, which is nit the case, but I'd encourage you to really go deep on yourself and look at where you may be going wrong in this aspect. I know this is hard to do but it is the only route, posts like this just enable behavior that has not been working for you. 

  12. Posted

    4 hours ago, thibault said:

    Regarding all these discussions on transgenderism, I think it is much more useful to look at it from look at it from the larger transhumanist view, otherwise none of it makes any sense.

     

    If we assume that we are moving to an era where we are going to be pushing the limits of our bodies through electronic implants, genetic modifications and the like then we can assume that sports will move towards a single category where winning means having talent as well as the best technology much like Formula 1. Imagine cyborg fights, races in the sky, etc... If we think this is where the world is going then all these trans discussions make sense. Otherwise they don't. You decide.

    No doubt this will be the case in the future but i think there will always be a space made available for people without those enhancements. For example in the body building world many people compete using steroids but there are also many 'natural' competitions. If you think about the whole womens category in sport in general it has been specifically protected from men because men will have an advantage over them. So i think there will always be an effort to have 'natural' competitions, the popularity of them may change but who knows

  13. Posted

    4 minutes ago, SamC said:

    Gold man! Thanks. Ever since I was a child I was obsessed with the idea of having sex. Now I realize that it was a projection and not what my soul was looking for.

    Sex is amazing but it won't fullfill you. It's like any other need. You need it and when you don't have it its the only thing your mind is seeking... but when you do have it, we take it for granted and look for the next thing to fullfill us.

    Now I want to built up a new way of viewing sex and see and experience sex for what it is, not for what my mind projects about having sex.

    Exactly man, at the end of the day its progress because youve had the illusion of what sex can provide you broken and realised its not the solution to everything so definitely a step forward. I think you can view it as any other sensory experience, like for example Ice-cream as in proper haagan daz or you know really good ice cream, if you have it its great and in that moment youre eating it youre enjoying it so much, but you never feel like its going to satisfy you passed that moment, it doesnt hold that expectation. If youre not having it at any given moment youre not like 'if i could only have ice-cream right now all my problems would be sorted out', youre just not having it and when you do have it youll enjoy it. 

    With sex theres almost this promise of something more and it makes sense from how everyone (esp us guys) talk about it, but its all wrapped up in different things like ego gratification, status, acceptance, wanting to be wanted etc not just the sex itself. If you drop all this (which is very difficult but possible), then sex can more be an expression of connection rather than just an act onto itself. If you think about it we all seek connection its probably one of our main drivers and a lot of depression and mental health issues, comes from lack of connection. Sex can almost be a way to 'hack' this connection issue and feel connected to another temporarily, but ultimately it doesnt solve the connection issue by itself for any substantial length of time. 

  14. Posted

    I think the issue youve built up the act too much as if that alone is something that would completely fulfil you, if it was that easy there would just be constant orgies all over the place. Even if sex does fulfil you it is always just temporary and in the moment, thats why if youre with a partner youre going to have sex a lot more than once. But this is normal if its your first time, we always put high expectations on these things, but i think once these are taken away it can open you up actually having quality experiences. So maybe you build a connection with someone youre really attracted to even if its just during the course of a night, pulling random girls from the club that youre not really attracted to is not gonna lead to amazing experiences 

  16. Posted

    I got a used BMW 1 series for £3600 and only 60,000 but it gave me a shitload of problems. I would still recommend getting a used car though because even if let's say I've paid double for repairs, I can still sell the car for around the same price if not more because of current prices. If you compare that to a new car you bought on finance you're looking at £25k for the same model just a few years newer. It might not seem like you're paying that much because they'll say 300 a month, warrenty etc but ultimately over say 5 years, you'll be paying a hefty amount plus interest. 

    If you calculate the difference between my used car and the new one even without the interest it's a £17,800 margin, so for me I'd rather have the money esp if you invest it, so imagine you'll make 10% on that as well. 

    If you have a lot of money though and you really want a new car, youd be better off getting a car loan as low interest as possible and then investing the rest somewhere that will give you a higher rate, don't buy cash in this case. 

  20. Posted

    If you take the definition of racism as a person or group of people who believe they are superior to another on the basis of race (which i do personally) then yes it definitely is rqacist. However I would say that every religion falls into this trap (as well as many different groups of people). If you notice every religion has derogatory words for non-believers, christians have heathens, muslim kuffar etc etc, its a built in thing because religions on some level know what it takes to keep people believing in them, which is to believe that they are the ones with the truth. 

    You mentioned that Jewish people have lived out their prophecy and become a very popular religion, but really every religion says that even ones that are now defunct, so obviously someone had to be right. As they say history is written by the winners 

  21. Posted

    OK ive contemplated this issue after watching a bit of the debate with Destiny and i think ive got an overall understanding of it, let me know if you agree: 

    Essentially there are 3 different arguments around the trans sports issue - 

    1. Some trans people and advocates of trans people who believe that Trans women in this case, should be 100% recognised and accepted as real women, this of course includes being able to use bathrooms designated for women and competing with biological women in sporting events. Anything less than this is taken as saying trans women are not real women. 

    2. At the other end you have usually more conservative people, who dont accept trans women as women and dont think people should be able to change genders. In fact its seen as a degradation of society that they are even accepted and celebrated in society, its almost seen as an attack on masculinity. They of course dont believe trans women should be able to compete against women in sports. 

    3. The rest is those who are in between, they either dont really care too much about trans people anymore than anyone else or they even support them and theyre right to be, but on the sports issue they dont believe that trans women should compete with cis women because of biological advantages. 

    The moderate 3rd view for me is the most logical, there is a huge difference between a trans woman and a cis woman in terms of advantages, a quick example is that the number 1 ranked 100m sprint time by a women since records began would not even got that woman into the top 10,000 mens times, which means essentially you could have the 10,000th best time as a man and if you became a woman you would literally have the best time in the history of women. Theres countless examples but i think that is the most stark. 

    So heres where the issues arise, for the most part trans women can live there life as women without too much trouble, but the competition argument will hit against this so if the 1s are going to keep their argument they have to contend with this issue. The 2s use this issue as a way to justify why trans people shouldnt exist, although they are right about the specific competing issue the rest of their argument falls short, which is why they tend dwell and over exaggerate the issue. 

    The 3s are not trying to sneak in any ulterior argument they are just arguing directly that trans women shouldnt compete with biological women. What ive seen happening in the Destiny debate as well as others is that the 1s try to paint the 3s out to be 2s. This is simply not the case especially in terms of Destiny who i think argues against 2s constantly about things like trans rights. If he got banned it wouldve been because they successfully managed to label him as a 2. 

    The solution in my opinion, is to change how trans people are thought of in general but especially when it comes to 1s. Trans women are different from biological women, theres no way around that, they are distinct as trans women in that their biology is different, their life experience is different etc. But the key is that what they are as trans women is completely valid and is a category in of itself and so should be fully respected and accepted, their human experience is completely different to cis-gendered people and vice versa. Because this view is not taken by 1s it leads to these types of debates which can only exist if you hold the belief that they are indivisible from cis gendered women. 

  22. Posted

    @Yarco

    There is a wider context to this, the UK has a long history of racism and violence stemming from that racism, both from normal people and police. There gave been many cases in the past where black people have been murdered for being black. Also been ostracised from society or just generally harassed, attacked etc especially in regard to football, as in it would be normal for football fans to attack any black person they see.

    Today it has improved a lot but I think Britain sees itself as a country that tackles racism and as such, you could argue that they may overreact to an incident like this but its almost like they're making an example out of the guy. It may look harsh and may even be harsh but within the context any acceptance of this where you let this kind of thing fester can have real world consequences. 

    The other point with the politicians, in the UK there has definitely been one if not two politicians murdered in the last couple of years by people that have tweeted hateful comments at them. This is a fine line because there has to be criticism of public figures but I think there's a line between that and actual hate speech that could lead to something worse. There's also the factor of really affecting someone and being a cause fir them commiting suicide, which has also happened.

    I get what you're saying in that you should be free to say what you want, but these a directed comments that the recipients see. If you're talking to your friends you can say whatever, but if you're directing comments like 'hope you die bitch' to the actual person that would be the equivalent of calling them and saying it, or leaving notes at their house or in public places, potentially even worse as the whole world can see them forever. 

    Also UKs not that bad, I've lived here all my life and never paid a TV 'loicense' (we don't talk like that ?)

  23. Posted

    4 hours ago, Terell Kirby said:

    @Tudo By posting a question like this on an online forum .. that’s a pretty good hint that you’re most likely toxic and in denial.

    That's pretty harsh, the fact that op posted that question could also show that they aren't toxic as that's not something a toxic person would be concerned with. Either way at least there's some self awareness and a desire to improve themselves as a person  

  24. Posted

    @Razard86

    Sometimes in these debates people just kind of end up talking past each other. You seem to be making the claim that men are physically more athletic on average and when it comes to professional sports will most of the time come out on top, therefore making it unfair for men and women to compete (trans included). I dont think anyone is disputing this, if they are it would be a silly argument as its quite obvious. 

    3 hours ago, Razard86 said:

    TransAthletes DO dominate female sports

    The dispute is in this statement, i think it would be pretty hard to make the argument that trans athletes dominant any sport. To dominate a sport youre talking about being at the top level of that sport and this is just not the case. Apart from obscure Polish mma you wont find that many competing at a high level. Dont confuse this with some may have the potential to or that they have an advantage. Now there could be a number of reasons for that they dont dominate female sports, it could be that theres such a small number of trans people, relatively speaking, that theres unlikely to be a pool that are going to compete at a high level at every female sport, it could be that they just dont want to compete because they feel its unfair, whatever the reasons there isnt a massive issue with trans-women taking over female sports, even with it being more acceptable to be trans now. So again i think this issue is way over blown imo