What Am I

If I were you, I'd pay extra close attention to the bolded section. Nobody knows exactly what will happen, so it'd be a mistake to consider mayhem to be a forgone conclusion.

I have no doubt there's small-minded individuals who hate someone simply for being different, and the label of "bigot" would likely be appropriate. But that label can also be used to shut down any questioning of the validity/value of the proposed behavior. It's a social term which everyone fears being applied to themselves, so many nod their heads and just go along. Though it seems like that attitude is beginning to dissipate. Not to be cheeky, but if I were to ponder why heterosexuality is considered the standard paradigm of reproduction, I'm guessing the answer would soon come to me, lol. But I don't have anything against homosexuality or even any other type of sexuality for which I have no awareness. I just think that we may be playing with fire when the concepts are encouraged to disseminate en masse via social contagion. I want to reiterate that I'm just observing and noting. I'm not exactly a warrior against these new sexual/gender revolutionary times, and I've basically never voiced my thoughts besides this conversation. Perhaps in the eyes of some, I'm an intolerant monster regardless, but I feel pretty comfortable in my opinions without fear of having performed some manner of immorality. Is anyone willing to take a shot at my question? I promise, it's possible for me to be swayed by a good argument.

I think it was perfectly fine when we acknowledged that there can be feminine men and masculine women. It was an observation of reality that was clearly evident. But things took a bit of a turn when we started championing the idea that feminine men could in fact be women and masculine women could in fact be men. It seems like an unnecessary blurring of lines that served no real purpose beyond causing social discord. On a whole, what was really gained with the adoption of this concept? Similar to the above, I think it's great to acknowledge obvious realities, like hetero and homo sexuality. But something changed in the discourse, and suddenly a far larger portion of the population was convinced (perhaps coercively) that they no longer wanted to follow the standard paradigm of reproduction. If this happened in any other animal species, we'd likely study them with a great curiosity as well as a concern about their eventual endangerment/extinction. But since it's a human social topic, questioning or investigation became naturally stifled for fear of causing offense. I may not have made the best arguments. I'm not strictly against this kind of stuff, so I honestly don't care enough to overthink it. Someone who has delved deep into gender studies may have a good retort. I do wonder though, what exactly is progress? How are we defining and measuring it? If you or anyone else has an answer to this one, I'd really like to hear it.

Good observation regarding the progress that's built on fear producing shaky grounds. Definitely agree there. I think it's also fair to question rather some of what we saw was actually progress. Does the line between genders really need to become so fuzzy? And does sexuality really need to be ambiguous and deviated from the animal-like drive for a male to impregnate a female and create new members of the species? I may not be the most qualified commenter, but in my opinion, that's a potential recipe for disaster, which could eventually end us. Messing with our act of reproduction on a large scale seems unwise.

Yeah, I think this is overall the truth of the matter. At the same time though, there's some true believers in my HR and other departments who feel a type of religious zeal about spreading the good word. So I guess the sincerity is a bit of a mix, depending on how aligned with the ideology the C-levels and employees are.

Well, like I said, it's perceived that way now, whether it's true or not. I happen to think the truth falls somewhere in the middle, with ideas that appear nice on the surface but end up being somewhat harmful in practice. Sort of. I view it as they were once neutral on the ideology, then tried to appear progressive, and are now attempting to go back to neutrality. It may not be possible, because, as you say, it will be labeled as regressive.

This is a scary concept. I'm old enough to remember the previous political correctness phase back in the 90s. It was a good amount more tame than this current one. I shudder to think of what the next one would be like.

I saw a meme earlier that stated, "For all the freaking out we've seen, we're one week into a four-year term that hasn't even officially begun yet." I guess we all need to fasten our seat belts for this wild ride.

I actually agree with this. I hate to give out free advice, but it may be wise for those on the left to apply the old adage, "If you're not explicitly with me, you're against me." A ton of people have been too subtle with their stated allegiances, and it obscured the left from knowing who aligns where. I could have told you years ago that Lex Fridman leans in the direction of voting Trump. Same for a ton of other similar figures.

I think it's more so what pronouns represent, which is something like a fanatical ideology. Or at least it's perceived that way, whether its adherents are actually crazy or not. Tolerance for that sort of thing has been diminishing, and it seems like everyone who once paid lip service would now rather distance themselves.

I don't have much to say about Lex Fridman as I don't even like him that much, but I can attest that certain things like pronouns do seem to be receding. Besides celebrities removing them from their bios, I'm hearing that a bunch of large companies are disabling the option in their MS Teams subscriptions that allowed employees to list their own pronouns. Something does seem to be changing in that regard.

Sure thing. Here's someone describing it who's way more eloquent than myself.

Gotcha, yeah, psychedelics are worth it just to show you the potential depths of your own consciousness, in addition to all their other benefits. Be careful with your dosing though, because they're way more intense than anyone could ever imagine when first starting out. In my opinion, a full psychedelic ego death from something like 5-MeO-DMT is semi-equivalent to the experience of physical death, without the body having to actually die, of course. I don't know how much you understand historical esoteric teachings in consciousness, but your signature leads me to believe you're at least a little familiar. Ego death is not an effect reserved by psychedelics alone. Anyone who has properly learned to focus their mind will eventually reach a very similar state. A psychedelic is just a brute-force method of achieving those same ends. Near-death experiences are another where you'll hear the same type of thing described over and over. So yeah, I believe ego death and physical death are related, with both involving the vacating/expansion of consciousness into the unitive whole. Without experiencing it for yourself, it'd be tough to understand why I'm so sure. But if you ever see it for yourself, it'll make perfect sense why I'm convinced.

Do you have any experience with psychedelics? If not, it'd be very difficult to communicate the experience without a frame of reference. We're talking about something that transcends the conceptual. When it happens to you, it WILL feel like the end of all things in reality, and death would be a somewhat appropriate description. Though it's actually even more hardcore than that, because it ends up being as if you never lived in the first place.

Come to think of it, you're right. Additionally, Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.

Would it be fair to recognize there's been somewhat of a flip in the parties' values? Maybe not a perfect 1:1 swap, but hasn't something changed between the time of the Bush-era conservative and now, with an equal-yet-opposite change on the left?

Rep. Wiley Nickel (D-NC) discusses his proposal to form a “shadow cabinet” and explains how it could work. It seems pretty unorthodox, and even undemocratic. But I guess it's a strategy.

Good sir, I present to you your 201st. This is the example I was thinking of when I made the comment. I have no idea if it's a common occurrence, but it's one example where it happened. Honestly though, when I've had my own super intense reactivations, it didn't feel as if they'd have any mercy on me depending on my current activity. But it's possible you're right. I've never been driving when it happened.

It might just be sleep deprivation talking, but I'm feeling burnt out on the fight. At this point, I'm about ready to accept my assigned role as a contributor to humanity's demise, lol. Life really is tough when everyone isn't on the same page. Maybe we're witnessing the end.

Personally, when I made my earlier comments, I was mostly comparing it to my own actions. It'd be really tough to argue the behavior of Trump and certain factions of his supporters. Also though, if the left has such a dislike for Trump, why would they want to emulate him? Seems like a regrettable miscalculation.

I know that you in particular have the skills to make an excellent argument. It's probably just Destiny's influence, along with other drama-filled media, that triggers a very human impulse to stir shit up.

My practice is more mixed, but zen has had a large impact. Along with other sects of Buddhism and Hinduism, plus most of the esoteric traditions. Long live spiritual practice, brother! I think there's some uncomfortable truths in here worth recognizing, even if it's likely not the whole story.

lol could be, interesting theory. As with any relationship, it's possible for one side to influence the other in unseen ways. Maybe the right is responsible for some of the left's behavior, and vice versa.