Xonas Pitfall

I think a helpful way to look at this is through specialization. Adults generally know more than children, but that doesn’t mean any adult is qualified to teach any subject. We ideally still want to rely on trained experts in specific areas. The same logic applies to governance. Wealthy or corporate elites might have deeper knowledge in certain domains, like business or finance, but that doesn’t mean they should have broad, unchecked authority across all areas of public policy. In an ideal system, decision-making would be more “policy-specific.” People with demonstrated knowledge and experience in a given area would have more influence over decisions in that area, rather than power being concentrated in a small group or tied to wealth alone. Right now, democratic systems often end up revolving around electing a single leader or "a vibe", and voters are frequently influenced more by charisma, identity, or surface-level messaging than by careful evaluation of actual policy. One way to think about it is that instead of relying mainly on a human representative system at the top level, you could have a more direct, structured participation system, where people engage with policy through, let's say, for a fun example, a web or mobile platform. On that platform, users wouldn’t pick leaders, but would be presented with policy proposals and asked to respond to them directly, through written input. Before participating, the system could also gather relevant context about each person, such as their experience in specific fields, how much of it is tangible and verifiable, years of work in those areas, relevant certifications, and possibly general knowledge assessments. Based on that, different aspects of policy input could be weighted differently depending on relevance and demonstrated expertise. The idea is that this could filter out low-effort participation to some degree, since many people would not spend the time engaging deeply unless they care about the topic. It could also help distinguish between different levels of understanding, where someone with direct experience in a field might have more informed insight into that domain than someone without it. A.K.A You can see whether the person wrote to “Should immigrants be allowed in the US?” “no because they are gay lol, death to all Mexicans,” compared to a properly written, logical, well-phrased opinion, that would be far more helpful both for data quality and for the actual informational value of the vote. That is much more useful than simply circling the name of a president they like to watch TikTok videos about. Of course, there are serious problems with this kind of system. One major issue is governance: who designs and regulates the system itself? How do you ensure the people defining what counts as “relevant experience” are honest and not biased actors? How do you prevent manipulation, cheating, or people gaming the system by faking credentials or optimizing for whatever increases their influence score? So this kind of system might be a kind of idealized direction; it is very much utopian for now. In principle, though, it tries to move toward a model where specialization, multi-perspective input, and reduced bias and polarization lead to more informed collective decision-making, rather than relying purely on broad, undifferentiated voting or personality-driven leadership. TLDR: I don’t think pure one-person-one-vote democracy works that well because it treats everyone’s input as equally informed. I think voting power should be weighted based on things like experience, domain knowledge, and how much someone actually understands a specific issue, so people who are more informed or experienced in a topic have more influence over decisions in that area. Obviously, you’d need really solid, fair ways to measure that; it could get gamed or corrupted.

"But Leo, You're So Privileged!" blog post is amazing. Thank you.

Unironically, Actualized.org videos

Try it yourself. Do exactly what you’re asking: remove all your assumptions and beliefs. What is anything you can be sure you know? Try to remove everything. The only thing you will be left with is pure “is-ness.” This is now, therefore it is. This is in my direct experience, therefore it is. This “is-ness” is truth, or pure correspondence that things are just what they are, not some other way or with some filter, assumption, or perception added to them. Just A = A. This is what it is. It won’t have any thoughts or any further veil of perception. It really does feel like pure nothingness, or a vacuum of existence, just pure being.

One thing I’m really grateful for with social media is that it exposes more transparently the kinds of people who run for these positions. Before, you’d assume, “Oh, well, hopefully these people have at least some knowledge and level of awareness before running for president, right… right?” How naive of me

Love You!

🤣🤣🤣

Women were very much at the mercy of men who financially supported the family. When you lose power, and someone has that much control over you, it’s easy to imagine how things can become abusive and toxic in a relationship or marriage. The laws used to be much worse, too, and you can still see horrible laws in some parts of the world, such as marrying off girls at 10-12, a lack of access to education, and extreme restrictions on freedom. There are even places where older men genuinely cry for and protest against higher ages of consent. On top of that, we still have pedophilia and sex trafficking rings. So to deny that toxic masculinity doesn't exist, or to claim it is only a reaction to feminism, is unreasonable. Toxic masculinity existed long before women had any real say. A lot of feminism emerged as a reaction to prevent these kinds of horrific outcomes and to give women more power and autonomy. I just wish people understood that when someone identifies with a certain idea, it doesn’t mean they embody the most extreme version of it. You can absolutely appreciate men who are kind, honorable, and genuine, while also not wanting to return to a time where women had to marry young, have children early, and depend entirely on one person for survival or derive all their value from that role. The same applies to men. You can value traditionally feminine traits in women without falling into toxic “red pill” ideologies that glorify power imbalances or assume feminism is simply about making men weaker or useless. People need to stop over-polarizing these issues, because doing so only deepens bias and fuels bitterness about society. There are genuinely good men and women out there, and there are also many who are trying to do better. This really shouldn't be that outrageous to say.

:,)

That’s very true! Let’s lead by example then: a new thread where we eternally terrorize Leo with superior taste. We should also hit his spiritual ego, how God is infinite, and how he’d find beauty in the filthiest of deathcore breakdowns. This ultimately proves his low to low-moderate (8/9) arousal level, mid-tempo (7/9), predictable harmonic complexity with no surprises, atmospheric sonic aesthetic, and soft electronic production (7/9) music touches nowhere near the expanse of infinite love. Bully him into submission. Kriya yoga with metal, guys?

Leo is just a drowsy hipster enthralled by his next safari expedition at heart. Leave the bald man and his mid-tempo (7/9) decibels alone.

What Is Real?

It’s more like asking, ‘Why is it impossible for an ice cream not to be made out of ice, water, milk, and flavor?’ When you ask, ‘Why is it impossible for God not to have others?’ it’s not that it couldn’t happen, it’s that then it wouldn’t be God by definition (its essence, nature). Or saying: ‘Why is it impossible for a cloud not to be in the sky and made of water vapor and tiny water droplets or ice crystals?’ I could imagine a cloud that’s as hard as a rock, sitting on the ground and made of stone!’ That’s fine, you can do that, but that wouldn’t be a cloud; it would be a rock by any common definition.

It’s an even more basic reason. Why do you want to be in a room that is cleaner and smells nicer rather than one that doesn’t? Pure sensations that you can tolerate. Why do you keep listening to a song that is more harmonized instead of one that’s a mess, like something a toddler made with spray paint? If someone is aesthetically pleasing, that’s what it means: it’s easy on the eyes. You want to keep looking at it, being around it, being immersed in it. You allow it to impact you as deeply as possible because it’s so beautiful. Something like that . . . That being said, people definitely find different things and cues more appealing than others, but there are some general qualities that point to survival, comfort, safety, and indicators of health. For example, we tend to find wider smiles more attractive because they can signal a broader airway and better breathing capacity. Because of that, your speech is naturally clearer, your energy is higher, and you’re seen as more attractive; you become more confident and expressive. That increased confidence makes you even more attractive, which people respond to even more, creating a self-reinforcing loop. If you start off attractive, you’re usually treated better, which boosts your confidence and makes you more magnetic.