DrugsBunny

The irony. ???? Douche for brains, just because young people don't die from it doesn't mean they aren't vessels for further infections, they can easily spread it to older people and the more people who have it REGARDLESS of whether they die from it, the more likely the virus will mutate into a deadlier strain. This has already happened several times. Judging from your post history I'd imagine you probably think the Jews are behind that though. ? If your Andrew Tate or Martin Luther King positions were isolated opinions I would not have chastised your position as brazenly as I chose to, but considering these positions in tandem with each other it's safe to assume the worst conclusions regarding your overarching political temperament. If you truly want to atone for this recent spew of asinine drivel I would gleefully invite you to douse your hooded Klan apparel with leaded petrol and light up a box of matches. Bonus points if done without stripping the robes first.

@bloomer: Andrew Tate - GOD Martin Luther King - SATAN Vaccines - POISON Looks like we've got a true genius on our hands, watch out guys.

I was quite clearly being facetious there. Just consider it a gesture of much warranted disrespect. /thread Edit: "No you!" *facepalm

@Leo Gura The dude has Andrew Tate apologia in his thread, it's not even a huge leap to assume his masculinity is a major point of insecurity for him.

@bloomer We don't celebrate MLK because he was a great husband, he is celebrated because he was a revolutionary civil rights leader, but I imagine you already knew this and merely sought to express indirect contempt towards the concept of civil rights as an embittered reaction to your black counterparts who consistently emasculate you in the sexual marketplace.

Sounds a bit like dogmatic hearsay. I imagine if such "masters" existed ages ago they would also exist today, albeit modern sensibilities likely preclude the necessity to even recognize such people with the same prestige that used to be afforded to them, thus we never hear about them, and if we do, they are only recognized as orthodox spiritual teachers and nothing more.

There are reasons to believe this isn't necessarily true, but there are also reasons why this unnerving theory would actually be true. My life has been very difficult in the past few months, and I'm giving more credence to these darker explanations of reality. Obviously Leo's worldview is one that would encompass this possibility albeit under a brighter context: God is all-loving and created this because it's all love and nothing matters. How could I go about proving this to myself? I've always suspected reality was up to no good, so I just want reasons to be more positive.

@Leo Gura What about your video "What is goodness? - Good & Morality Fully Explained" where you claim everything is absolutely good?

This gives way too much shameless deference to spiritual hearsay. As if you can possibly know something like that for certain.

Struck a nerve I see. Mind telling the class your opinions on the Jews, and the LGBT movement? Remember, when someone as bigoted and conspiratorial-minded as @Oeaohoo criticizes you, it's a sign you've evolved beyond concrete scraping knuckle-dragging.

Jordan Peterson would be proud. Political pseudo-philosophy at its finest.

Oooof, I stopped reading after the first half of asinine drivel, gave my response, only to afterwards read the last half of your post to realize you are having a manic episode. Get well soon, best wishes..

I was previously wondering who was correct, you or Leo, but now that you've said this I know you have no credibility.

You act as if they're doing something wrong, or leading people astray. What they speak of seems like a great way to permanently improve life, whereas what you speak of seems like a great way to have an exhilarating hour or 2, gaining unspeakable insight, but life would ultimately stay the same. If it's not too much effort, it'd be seriously worthwhile to hear you carefully detail why this perspective is incorrect.

Here's a woman who very believably claims to have permanently liberated herself from duality and all egoic suffering. I've listened to her for hours and she doesn't speak of the crazy peaks of God-Realization found on Actualize. This state of being seems to be the most desirable. My question, if it is even possible to answer, is why would I want temporary "deeper consciousness" over permanent liberation? @Leo Gura Perhaps you're not willing to expend the effort to carefully explain this as a mere forum post, but maybe you'd be willing to make a blog post that clears up your perspective on this.

@Tahuti @Leo Gura

@Leo Gura It would be worthwhile to hear an explanation on exactly why impermanent peaks of God-realization are better than a permanent liberation from the ego-mind. If I were given the choices to attain one for free, I would definitely pick the permanent no-self that Daniel Ingram talks about over the God peaks you discuss, but can you please explain why I'm supposedly wrong to do that?

@Leo Gura Honestly, isn't there a case to be made that permanent cessation of bothersome egoic identify is better than temporary glimpses into God-realization, even if those states are unspeakably good?

Where exactly have you seen any writing of his? This is a video.

I find it funny that your last post to me, less than 24 hours ago, was asking to "part ways" so as to avoid animosity, then immediately you impulsively liken me to this unhinged troll, which is clearly a satirical character being played as a joke that you didn't pick up on at first.

100% Correct. I like Leo's content, but his political takes consistently breed a festering cesspool of mindless followers who reflexively adopt his positions, as they feel sufficiently emboldened by brazenly deferring to the word of their enlightened master without second thought. I would have less contempt for this lazy deferential submission if it were being done towards Leo's spiritual perspective, but we commonly see people defer to this sycophantic negligence with respect to his politics, which are in no way strengthened by his supposed spiritual mastery. ____________________________________________________________________ Attempting to invoke a supporting perspective which already agrees with you while asking if you're being bad-faith is too much unintentional comedy for me to process, lol. Do you really not see that you're already bad-faith with this blatant appeal to authority? If you find it humiliating that I would respond by directly addressing your rhetorical short-comings, then perhaps that warrants further introspection on your end regarding why accurate descriptions of your conduct evoke such humiliation. Do you really think you have out-classed me with respect to argumentative hysterics? I'd like to remind you that you initiated this interaction by responding to my very tame post seen below -- "People knocked on doors, did canvasing and grassroots fundraising to get her elected. She betrayed the values she ran on, how is this not a traitor? I'm personally willing to call her far worse things than a traitor but lets just stick with that for now." -- which you responded with -- "Can you two pack it in with the bullying of moderate centrists? At this point you guys will never ascend to Spiral Dynamics stage yellow with all this demonizing, name calling and inflammatory use of language" -- Your unflattering denunciations of my character are fair play, claiming that my innocuous statement serves as a significant hindrance to my personal development, but if I follow suit with an appropriate response, this makes you "cognitively, morally, psychologically and intellectually superior". My only short-coming is that I would willingly defile my own integrity by awarding such asinine drivel with even my fleeting attention.

@Danioover9000 You posted this on my thread a couple days ago. Read it carefully and try to convince yourself that it makes even the least bit of sense. Ordinarily I wouldn't bring this up, but this literal coat-hanger abortion of an attempted cogent sentence perfectly encapsulates the insecurities of a desperately juvenile attempt to give the impression of far greater intelligence beyond what you actually have, which would explain why you resorted to the following nonsense seen below. It cannot be understated how nakedly embarrassing it is to reflexively cast people into some nebulous colors model as a makeshift cover to conceal a childlike inability to intelligently engage with the subject matter. You have won my 100th eye-roll of the day, sir. Congratulations. This is just juvenile, and my mental health has been sullied by even affording this any modicum of my attention. Do you actually believe you've exposed some weak point in my perspective by insisting that my response to an overtly negative event happening means that I'm "triggered" merely by posting a response? You would be seriously devastated (if it ever magically occurred to you) by the epiphany of how bafflingly unequipped you are to even participate in this discussion with the rest of us. Unironically about to adopt "You are so hubris" as an inside joke among some IRL friends, lol. Were you trying to outclass the incoherent drivel you vomited onto my thread a couple days ago?

Dunno why this popped up in my recommended videos, but this woman seems certain that Leo's "Infinity of Gods" Awakening was "lucifer" and not the "lord and savior". Supposedly, merging with another "sovereign" consciousness can only be demonic. The woman seems pretty sus, but I've definitely experienced negative entities, so it'd be worthwhile to hear a convincing refutation to this woman's ideas.

You'll be hard-pressed to attain a coherent answer on that from @Oeaohoo, the homophobic Q-anon tier conspiracy theorist butt-buddy of @AtheisticNonduality, who both collaborate off-forum specifically to call on one another to defend their posts by bolstering each other's positions so as to give the fabricated impression that their juvenile perspectives hold more merit than they actually have. This is why, out of the 4 distinct users who expressed alignment with my position, they both chose to go after me specifically -- because I am the one who called out @Oeaohoo's homophobic lunacy in another thread a week back. They will pretend to be "enlightened stage yellow systems thinkers", but if you look closely at their content, it is obvious they are very committed to pedantic posturing and pretentious side-stepping. Notice that @AtheisticNonduality responded to me with a verbose paragraph about the necessity to engage in cautious epistemic grounding, and claiming that I had missed the nuance being discussed, when if you go back and check, there was no such conversation taking place. He just wanted to use a pompous slew of impressive sounding words which hold no validity in context with my post. Don't be deceived, these people are the lowest of the low intellectually.

Do you actually listen to yourself? Lol. There was no discussion of cautious epistemic grounding, holistic thinking, or whatever you'd call the drivel described above when I made my post. I simply said Sinema betrayed the values she ran on, and you superfluously chimed in with your brave and indispensable "ewww stage green" retort. I responded by pointing out that it's more effective to specifically state your counterargument rather than casting people into unsubstantiated categories on some tenuous colors model, and apparently you seemed to think that I overlooked the more substantial conversation taking place where yourself, Leo and everyone else were discussing "the more systemically and holistically sound approach" to understanding politics. I've noticed you very commonly fly off the handle with exaggerated condemnations of people you disagree with. First I'm a "brain-rotted authoritarian" for rejecting homophobia, and now I'm a "mouth-foaming keyboard warrior" for rightfully stating that Sinema betrayed her constituents. Have fun with that.