Scholar

The problem is that morality is subjective, and you don't understand what it would mean, on a systemic level, for civility to be replaced by personal-ethics vigilantism. Do you eat meat? If so, why shouldn't a vegan poison your next meal, if you are basically a person who pays for murder and rape to occur? The CEO is bad, but what about you? How evil are you for living in a society of mass animal rape, torture and murder, but doing nothing about it? In fact, you gladly benefit from it, and when confronted about it, much like the CEO, you will find any excuse possible to dismiss the absurd, self-serving evil that you engage it. You don't understand what it means to have a society that greenlights killing on the basis of morally progressive notions. Partly you don't understand this is because you are far more primitive and lacking in moral development than you assume. The only reason why you are so upset about this CEO, and not about any meat-eater that you walk across the street, is because it is trendy to talk about socialism on social meda. That is literally the only reason, you are basically a NPCs drone that has been brainwashed by a technology and the society around you. Start using your mind to question yourself deeply, because in essence, you are no different than the CEO in your profound ignorance and moral depravity. You are willing to kill others, not realizing that you yourself are worthy to be killed if you were judged by your own moral standards in a way that was ethically consistent.

Nobody is denying this. None of this means that the law should operate from utilitarian stance, but from a place of principle. It is essential that these principles are maintained to the highest degree possible, that in the eyes of the law, all men are equal. Yes, everything in society will seek to bias itself towards a self-serving survival agenda. But for the greater system to function, the principles are essential and must be upheld. We cannot have a law that treats rich peopel better than the poor people, and it should be obvious why this cannot be the principled stance, and why society at each point has to do it's utmost to abide by it's principles to the greatest degree possible.

Of course it does lower our consciousness. The death penalty is far more costly and it gives the state the completely unnecessary ability to kill individuals who are defenseless. There is zero benefit to the death penality, and only negatives, like the costliness, the low consciousness attitudes it encourages in people (revengeful thinking and a fundamental lack of compassion and understanding of why people commit such crimes, which means the root cause will not be addressed). There is a reason why more developed societies do not engage in the death penalty, and view it as a violation of their principles of their own humanity. A major downsite is that any system will be flawed, and therefore, innocent individuals will be killed. The death penalty is basically one of the most severe forms of psychological torture there is, and subjecting even one innocent person to it is not worth killing a thousand criminals. There is also no evidence that the death penalty in any way discourages individuals from committing crimes. I think you are just very pampered and have a dysfunctional relationship to violence. You don't understand violence, partly because of your severe rejection of it. This makes you unable to understand trauma, partly because you never experienced it and likely have little compassion for people who did, and how it transformed them. Therefore, it is easy for you to dehumanize criminals and people who commit such acts, as you do with people who you call ignorant, stupid and so forth. This is apparent from your videos and your expression of disgust towards aggression and aggressive people. Life in prison is in no way "coddling" criminals. You are incredibly immature in the way you attempt to deal with undesirable behavior. This is not a surprise though, it seems to be a function of your general sense of superiority and lack of empathy towards individuals you consider "low consciousness". This is basically the result of years of narcissistic attitudes and dehumanization of individuals who are ignorant, and your general tendencies for arrogance and superiority thinking.

There is the saying, what you resist, persists. Any tripper will understand that. And this dynamic is partly the case because attention is life-giving, in a fundamental sense. In a metaphysical sense, existence is attention, life is attention. In a dynamic sense, attention is life-defining. This means that that which you will give attention to will define you. In an evolutionary sense this is clear: The functionality of a body and mind is precisely a reaction to the attention the organism must give to survive and procreate. When you give attention to Trump, and you react to him, that reaction will define your being, it will define your existence the moment you react to it. This can be imagine like a plant that must react to it's surroundings to grow and reach the light. Each obstacle in the way of the plant defines the plant, it's shape, it's path of growth. This, in a deeper sense, is an interplay of the fundamental nature of Duality. Things do not merely come in opposites, but rather, opposites are codefining. The opposites require each other for their own existence, in a sense, the opposites yearn for one another. Life and death are essential parts of one another for this reason. Twin dualities are fundamental in this way: When you react to something, not only are you beginning to be defined by the thing you react to, but importantly, you equally define the thing you react to. Trump is not merely being given existence through your attention, more importantly, the nature of Trump is determined by your reaction to him, as he equally resists your reaction to him, which in turn defines him. This means we observe the twinship as the codependent, codefining nature of parts of reality. During a dream or psychedelic trip, this twinship within the self is obvious. Your fears become manifest, and as you resist your fears, you define them through your resistance. The interdependence is clear, and the resolution of that fear will stem from how the interaction transpires. The fear can deepen through a further resistance, or the fear can be transformed, by transforming you in the first place. Notice this, that the fear ceases (it doesn't cease, it transforms) as a result of that very fear changing your nature (by for example overcoming the object of resistance through acceptance and integration). The grow requires your twin, the fear, as you either define yourself more clearly, more vividly, or unify into a transcendend form of existence. This is the nature of consciousness, and in a societal scale, this is the nature of the collective consciousness, amplified by technologies that, of course, select for attention as their primary currency. This is why it is not as simple as not giving it attention, because reality is not entirely determined by your attention. The shadow, that which is beyond attention, is always present. A neglecting of the shadow, a denial of it, will lead to the growth of the shadow. You cannot deny the existence of your twin, because it defines your very nature. You cannot be complete, unified, if you do not recognize it's presence. This is why both censoring and attacking these things does not make them go away. What is required is a transcendence, fundamentally through unification. Solipsism is true only in so far as the world is your Shadow, and each part within the world plays its role in defining you, as you define it.

lol, the Return of the Schizos. But yeah it's obvious that Destiny always had some serious self-control issues, he might be a sex-addict to be honest, although given we don't have a full picture it's hard to say what exactly happened.

This is delusional thinking. They already are dealing catastrophic damage to themselves by sacrificing generations of men to this war. This already proves that they do not care about this demographic issue you are describing. The essential reason for why a free Ukraine cannot be possible under the imperialistc Russian regime is because it threatens their own regime. There cannot be an alternative in their sphere of influence, especially with such deep cultural ties, that will allow freedom and western values and prosperity, giving the russian population a constant reminder that their brothers and sisters (sometimes literally) live far better, more free and prosperous lifes than they do.

The worry today is that people are so disconnected from reality, and hallucination of reality is so prevalent, that they might recontextualize a contact with reality with a further delusion. The germans after world war 1 are a good example. They suffered the consequences of their war, and instead of taking accountability, Hitler exploited it to frame the german people as victims, and the jewish people as the perpetrators. That's the scary thing about human beings, that sometimes reality will not wake them up but simply lead to more delusions. And a large portion of the US population basically will stand behind Trump no matter what happens. You can already see the attitudes of them changing, where they will now accept inflation and economic hardship in favor of american isolationism, when they would previously not accept any hardship. When people are radicalized, they might simply be willing to make the sacrifices to maintain their delusions. This is not unique to Jihadis, it has happened throughout history. Just look at the Russians and what their population is willing to endure for their loyalty towards Putin and the russian nation. Never would we have thought that people would be willing to die in a world war 2 type scenario as cannon fodder to gain a few inches of land for their leaders imperial ambitions. We thought people would no longer be willing to engage in such sacrifices as a result of peace and progress. But this is simply not the case, we were wrong. The hope is that there are not yet enough people to allow for such a transformation of the political system. But in nazi germany, it didn't even require a majority to achieve that. Delusion and ignorance is exceptionally dangerous. And yes I don't like spending any time on this topic either, it's absolutely assinine that I have to think about this in the first place, and waste my time and energy on this. The problem with this is that if you get hung up on the culture, and react against it, you will be defined by the culture as well, which will just increase foolishness. Like all the atheists who fight against religious people. They are better than the Christians, but they have defined themselves through opposition to such a degree that they are equally stuck in the primitive culture of today as the Christians are. It's like, just to be able to engage with these topic requires you to engage in primitivity that will then lead to you wasting your time on primitivity rather than on your higher ideals. But at this point it feels like it would be irresponsible not to contribute. If every reasonable person removes themselves from politics because of how degenerate it has become, then politics will only get worse, and that can end in disaster. So that is the question, do I just focus on my life purpose and pretend the world does not exist? I truly wish I could, but it does not seem like this can be afforded anymore. This is partly because I don't even see a solution in sight. Social media is just getting worse and worse, people are becoming more ignorant, more biased, more self-serving. Popular media is just filled with vile, disrespectful individuals who basically are just arrogant and hateful. And these people are the role models for the youth, amplified on steroids by never before seen technology.

I agree that they don't think they will lose, what I mean by the understanding is that there is an intuitive grasp that progress eventually will undermine their world view and what is common to them, which is true. It threatens their identity, which is why they react against it so harshly. This is what a lot of progressives don't understand about bigotry and conservatism in general, it is rooted in identity. There is actually an easy way to avoid the backlash by celebrating those aspects of past worldviews that are positive. For example, with a Christian, you can focus on elevating good aspects of Christianity, like ideas around love and compassion, forgiveness, understanding sin in the context of a failure, not evil. Things like honesty and truthfulness. Maybe some of the traditions you can celebrate and even integrate it into your progressive culture. But this is not possibly at lower stages like orange and green because their identities tend to evolve through a rejection of past elements, which often can be an unhealthy progression. A typical example is a teenager who resist the oppressive norms of stage blue by being reactionary and specifically negating those values. Being rude, being uncivilized, being anarchical, maybe even being a satanist in the extreme. Stage green has been engaging in this type of thing a lot, rejecting white culture, institutions like the police and so forth as a way to create an identity that rejects the flaws in those things. The problem with that approach is that you lose contact to those things, which will make it impossible to allow those things to progress themselves. If you reject the police, it will grow more and more corrupt. You have to love the police to be able to improve it, you have to see the potential in it. In a similar manner, even if it is difficult, one has to identify the potential in the lower stages and amplify those. When speak to Christians, appeal to the modern ideal of Christ, the ideals of compassion, humility, loving thy neighbour and so forth. Things that such individuals can relate to and that are positive. The ideal way of societal progress is to maintain an identity that collectively evolves. A lot of friction occurs because of the split in identity that occurs as people abandon the common culture and attempt to create a counter-culture. Although the counter-cultures can integrate into the main culture, as long as there is not too much friction. But given the time of social media, in which hostility is amplified to the maximal degree, that the only thing that is amplified are the differences in identities to cause as much engagement as possible through cultural war, this basically becomes impossible. And this is not a trivial thing, this is actually an existential problem that we have to solve. It's a more pressing issue than Climate change, and really any other issue, because every other issue becomes impossible to solve as long as this problem is present. You can see this everywhere now, that stages identify themselves through the rejection and opposition of the other stages. As soon as this happens, evolution through the evolving of individuals becomes significantly hampered. Previously, stage orange perceived stage green as cringe and airy fairy, but because of the radical the rejection of stage orange by green, it grew into viewing stage green as a genuine threat "they want to take my freedom away". When the conservatives look at rock-n-roll and realize "Oh they just want to have fun and be free", they might reluctantly tolerate it. But if they start thinking "Oh, rock-n-roll wants to destroy Christianity!", that's when things start locking up.

The reality is that all of this is literally fueled by conservitards who cannot let go of the past. They do not want to watch their depraved, outdated, unnatural, unsophisticated and self-serving world views die. But their world views are doomed to die, because of how corrupt and depraved they are. But to hang on a little longer, they are willing to make a deal with the devil. You can see this with people like Ben Shapiro, who know that Trump is utterly corrupt and a threat to american democracy. But after realizing he will run again for president, his tune changed. Suddenly he would not speak ill of Trump, because if Trump loses, it means the progressive win, which means his conservitard world view is one step closer to extinction. You have to understand that people like him are perfectly willing to risk seeing the world burn in hopes that they can maintain their cherishes view of the world. This is what identity fundamentally entails. This is why progress must come slowly, almost invisibly. When the conservatives notice their certain doom, they resist, and they often resist to such a degree that the only solution becomes war. So, for most of history progress comes in such small steps that the conservatives don't even know that their worldviews are fading away. But now they do know, they are self-aware enough to realize that every step of progress, no matter how mundane, will eventually spell their doom. They understand this, so that's why they will resist everything that is progressive, in an utterly mindless fashion. Remember, the conservatives of today are the progressives of the yesterday, and the progressives of today are the conservatives of tomorrow. Conservatives do not stand up for the "values of the past", they stand up for the values they grew up with, which are values that progressives had fought for. You don't see a lot of conservaties engaging only in missionary sex because it is the most conducive to procreation. You don't hear them condemn rock-n-roll. You hear them plapper about what is unfamiliar to them, what they personally have not grown to understand as the common world. This is why conservatism is fundamentally self-serving and egotistical. It is all about maintaining your personal timecapsule of the world as you have come to understand and love it during your childhood.

But nobody is saying he doesn't self-delude himself into thinking this isnt a self-serving power grab. Like Hitler, he probably has amazing justifications for everything he does. Yes, we get the point, every human thinks what they do is justified. How the fuck does that relate to ANYTHING any of us said? What is the point of bringing this obvious fact about human psychology up each time someone points out Elon's corruption and desire to entrench more of his power and consolidate as much wealth in his own hands? This isn't some sort of writing class on having empathy for the bad guys so you can write more compelling villains for your tragicomedy, this is real life, where we describe the relevant, politically functional dynamics. We don't need your 101 psychology class, jesus christ.

Spiral Dynamics does not work in the age of social media. The dynamics have completely changed through the invention of that technology. Someone will have to build a new model on new data-sets that will be relevant to the 21st century and beyond. While some things might still hold true, the evolutionary pathways are completely altered simply because of the new ways identities get to express themselves in this environment.

That's not an argument lmao. You can't look at Hitler before his rise and go like "Boy who cried wofl". Yes, there is a balance to be struck here. Why do I have to explain this to you as if you were sub 90 IQ. Look at what is going on, it's absolute insanity, already the damage is monumental, and you are still going "Trump derangement syndrome" like some sort of cucked NPC who hasn't been given enough lines of dialogue to be gifted with even a semblance of intelligence and agency. For the love of God, look at what is happening in your country. You criminalized abortion, your president is spreading literal russian propaganda and completely fabricated information. Elon Musk, the richest man alive, has complete control over the most meaningful information technology in your country, and is blatantly using it to spread his own agenda and propagandize the entire world, and is now in charge of the very institutions (and dismantling them as we speak) which are supposed to put a check on his oligarchal power. Donald Trump is literally doing everything he possibly can to dismantle your democracy and all checks on power you have. You can't just treat politics like a wrestling match. This is real life, people are actually dying, right now, because of all the things Donald Trump has done.

It seems that my explanation was not clear enough. To boil it down to idiocracy level logic: If I am wrong, worst thing that happens is I worried too much. If you are wrong, you lose your democracy, you might enter civil war, and China, Iran and Russia will exploit the fall of the US to basically go for a world war type power grab.

The scale of the damage to democracy that has already been done is monumental. You can't simply brush off the seriousness of what is happening. This isn't some sort of bet on the outcome of a football match. if you are wrong about your evaluation of what is occuring, and what potentially can occur, this is going to end in ways that might be irreversable for decades. You have no idea what will be the case in 4 years, because Elon Musk, the richest man ever to walk this planet, is fully invested in propagandizing the nation with the most influention information technology in the history of mankind. If you cannot see how fucking insane what is going on is, you are part of the problem. The problem is, you will not value peace and democracy until you lose it. It's unthinkable to you that you would have to fight a war for survival in the next year, or in 3 years. But that's exactly what the Ukrainians thought. Reality can change very quickly, there is nothing that maintains stability other than human beings and their values. If you do not stand up for them, and if you do not act in the fact of ridicilous red flags, then it is literally only a matter of time before things collapse. Even if it was the case that Trump was not an existential threat at this point, the fact that he can get away with this means that any actor who will be willing to destroy democracy will know that there is nothing that will stop him, because everyone will simply assume that democracy cannot fall, that the balance of power is eternal, that the system is fool-proof. This is exceptionally naive. Americans are deeply ignorant, underdeveloped and childish. That fact alone should give you existential dread, the fact that so many people in your country are so profoundly ignorant. With ignorance on that scale, it is only a matter of time before catastrophy ensues.

He stated in his last appearance on Joe Rogan that climate change is basically not a thing. Sure, 4 years ago I had the perception as well that Elon Musk was an ideologue, and maybe he was, or still is to some degree, but to continue lending him credence and charitability after the way he is acting is simply not rational, it makes no sense. The guy is a Göbbels in the making, his only purpose is to serve himself.

Ah yes, the people who get their news from twitter-propagandists.

But you are being too charitable, nothing he is doing is good for society, and his behavior does not indicate this in any way. He has been acting in bad faith for a very long time, he is just branding himself as the savior of mankind to be better able to consolidate power. You have to realize that the move Elon did, by buying twitter and using it as a literal propaganda tool (he made it literally easier for bots to operate and removed labels on state-funded entities, which allows authoritiarian countries to freely propagandize the world), is comparable to the wave of propaganda in the early 20th century, which also was fueled by technology, that lead to the rise of fascism and communism. He is doing exactly the same, and you probably underestimate how bad this can get within one or two generations. What is currently going on in the US isn't merely comical, it is existential. And it must be treated this way. Hitler was more genuine in his aspiration to do good for his people than Elon Musk is.

Lacking nuance? If you still think Elon Musk is anything but attempting to create an techno-oligarchy which will put him at the top of the world's power hierarchy, you really need to pay more attention, lol. The guy isn't doing this to actually fix any problems, he is 100% self-serving in this. It's not lacking nuance, it's actual, blatant corruption.

I want to get a basic overview of what the community thinks about consensual incest. Specifically what I mean here is consensual incest between two adults or between two similarly aged minors. (referred to as consanguinamory) I want you to consider questions such as: Do you think consanguinamory can happen? Meaning, do you believe consent between family members can even occur? If not, why not? Do you think consanguinamory is immoral? If so, why? Do you think consanguinamory is disgusting? If so, why do you think you feel that way? Do you think consanguinamory is inherently dysfunctional or unhealthy? If so, why? Do you think, in regards to any of these questions, that it is not always the case, but most often the case? If so, what lead you to believe that? What do you think of individuals who participate in consanguinamory? Do you view them as dysfunctional, perverted or lacking options? Do you feel anger or hatred towards them? Do you pity them? Could you imagine that two individuals might engage in consanguinamory for the same reasons any normal person might, like wanting to spend their life with someone the person they love? If not, why not? Do you think most cases of consanguinamory will always be unhealthy, dysfunctional and so forth? If so, why? How prevalent do you think consanguinamory is? How prevalent do you think sexual interactions between consenting family members are? How often do you think those come with significant harm, even if they are of consensual nature? Explain why you evaluate it the way you do. Do you think inbreeding between close relatives has a high chance of birth defects? If so, how high would you estimate such risks to be? Do you believe this risk to be inherent to inbreeding? Do you think consanguinamory should be illegal? If so, why? Do you think consanguinamory should be socially stigmatized? If so, why? Do you think consanguinamory should be be discouraged? If so, why? Do you think inbreeding should be illegal? If so, why? Do you think inbreeding should be socially stigmatized? If so, why? How do you look at harm prevention in general? Do you seek to approach it through law, stigmatization or education?

Just think about how absurd it is the the richest man alive has such low ego/development that he would fake being good at a game. And think about how he views the average citizen to think that he could get away with it. And this guy is the top oligarch of the United States. We truly are entering idiocracy, how is any of this even real. Trump itself is an absurdly surreal phenomena, but it's just getting worse and worse. The lack of integrity and anti-intellectualism in american culture is truly disgusting. You americans are like a plague on the world, and the sad reality is that you are the only real option we have, given that the alternative is authoritarian dictatorships like China. I pray to God that the Indians rise in power and establish themselves as a world dominance with a culture that is more sophisticated than whatever surface level, vain and childish culture the US has come up with over the past few decades. The sad thing is that you guys are dragging us all down with you, by being the cultural center of the western world.

I'm at my wits end. I just can't stabilize my thyroid, it keeps acting up. Taking iodine will cause insane irritation and inflammation in the thyroid. I feel better for a while and then symptoms get worse and worse. But I also just feel terrible without iodine. I tried all the things to try. Selenium supplementation, which for a while I thought had helped, and dozens of other things, but it keeps being unstable. It's beyond frustrating, even something as simple as the weather changing from summer into colder weather just is putting me completely out of balance, with severe symptoms of depression and all the other ailments that come with Hashimotos. I tried things like probiotics too, and various supplements, as well as dietary adjustments. This is by far the worse problem in my life.

Then what you say meaningless. Every single human right has been achieved by extremism, according to this standard. Every single moral step forward in the history of mankind was extreme, relative to what was normative.

The problem is that, ethics being a matter of persective undermines your entire point. Of course to the racist, the abolitionist will be annoying and "psychologicall unwell", and radical and unhealthy. But why would the abolitionist care about this? He thinks slavery is immoral, so of course he will be willing to kill you. What you are missing is that moral relativism the way you employ does nothing but serve the status quo. You basically demand of individuals to maintain the status quo, to not get on your nerves, because morality is relative and therefore everyone should be left to do what they please. But this only works because you are not the one who is victimized. It's a profoundly ignorant state of consciousness you reside in. You are utterly blind to your own evil. In the end you just find it extreme because it doesn't fit your self-serving value system. Malcom X was also extreme, and what you are doing by appealling to some utilitarian Philosopher, is basically appealling to Malcom X to dismiss the abolitionist (or equal rights) movement, because he is radical and extreme. You can disagree with the vegans, but in the end the light of consciousness will win over the darkness. Your archaic worldview will perish, and everyone will see how blatantly biggotted and selfish you were. And I don't even mean this in a profoundly condemnatory way, it simply is what it is. It's like people who argued abolishing slavery will come with all the former slaves dying of starvation and disease because they will no longer have employment. This exactly transpired, but that does not change the fact that the racist slave-owners simply appealled to that fact, not because they cared about slaves, but because they would appeal to anything that would make the other side seem unreasonable. Veganism is like human rights and the abolition of slavery. But you are missing a far deeper point, in that the moral relativism you subscribe to give every radical vegan a perfect validation of their actions. They could engage in terrorism and be perfectly morally justified, because morality is simply a matter of perspective.

Because veganism is not a diet, it's an ethical stance. Diet is simply one part of remaining consistent in regards to human rights and basic ethical foundations that we as a society subscribe to. What you say is as profoundly ignorant as maintaining a stance that because ethics is subjective, therefore whether or not you want to be racist is a matter of opinion and anyone who tries to speak against human rights violations is a radical because these stage orange oafs need to accept that not everyone is going to agree on what basic human rights even are. The truth is, you are not developed enough ethically speaking to even be capable of understanding the vegan position. Moral consideration for me but not for thee.

Sure, shaming is not the best tactic, but every shaming vegan is better than a non-shaming non-vegan. Both in regards to their development as humans, as well as their basic moral character.