Emerald

The itches and white tongue thing reminds me a bit of Scarlet Fever. I know you said it was a reaction to the anti-biotic. But that's what popped to my mind reading this. Here are some symptoms... https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/176242.php#symptoms

Joker is definitely a movie depicting a mentally ill man's transition from struggling and falling through the cracks in Orange to becoming a shadow-leader in Green. It is Green in its critiques against wealth inequality and how society negatively impacts vulnerable groups, since the Joker comes from a the working poor class and also has a mental illness and was raised by someone with a mental illness. So, it deals directly with the theme of systemic inequalities and how they impact individuals living within the system that is Gotham City and also the mental health care system within Gotham City. It's a story about how some people fall through the cracks in our society and don't get the support they need, while everyone who excels in Orange just expects them to be like everyone else and compete in the rat race... even if they are like Arthur Fleck. So, once Arthur Fleck starts out trying to conform and "be good" and fit into an Orange Capitalist society that Gotham City is a caricature of. And this doesn't work for him. He can't fit. The social structures aren't evolved enough in this Orange society for him to fit or be accommodated to. He is oppressed and therefore suppressed... An no one REALLY sees him. And he feels it. There is no place for him to exist as himself without struggling or being ostracized or just generally misunderstood because of his mental illness and the ignorance of the people around him to the reality of mental illness... especially when poverty and mental illness intersect with one another. Those in more privileged positions are quite tone-deaf to Arthur Fleck's struggles, and so life is hell for him. And he lives a life of isolation. Then when he starts to journal and contemplate on things and experience contrast (through killing the rich guys on the subway and being celebrated as a hero of the working class) he becomes more empowered. But that empowerment comes in an unhealthy way. He becomes the leader of a systemically oppressed group of poor people that encompasses most people in Gotham City. So when he is empowered he becomes the Joker, and he is using unhealthy Green to empower himself and create fairness through chaos and a destructive leveling of power. There is no space for him to exist in society, so he takes on the space of the archetypal clown (aka trickster) and embraces his place as an outsider who seeks revenge on the powers that be. And his goal is to create anarchy where those at the top fall down, and he undermines the social structure that they've been thriving off of to turn the tables. And he rallies other similarly outcasted and vulnerable people to his cause, which starts a chain reaction against the rich... in a similar fashion to the French Revolution's leveling of power structures via public violence, rioting, and guillotining the powerful. So, he is inviting corrupt Green into a corrupt Orange society where economic oppression is the way of things (because, in this move, Gotham City is an ever-so-slightly more openly corrupt city than the average American city is in reality.)

It wasn't alcohol. It was Clonazapam (better known as Klonopins), an anti-anxiety drug that was prescribed to him by a doctor when his wife was going through cancer treatment earlier this year.

Certainly, there would be a struggle for a huge percentage of people in terms of feeling normal and having social acuity. It takes a while to learn the ropes. And I know from experience that it can be easy to feel awkward and abnormal. It's a feeling that I'm very familiar with. But even with that withstanding, take the most awkward (and even genuinely abnormal) person you can think of, and that person will still be able to get one date out of a hundred. That's why I said that I don't believe Leo's 400 approaches number.

400?!?! How?!?! This has to be an exaggeration. You could look like Quazimodo and have the social skills of a middle schooler and still get a date with like one in every hundred women you'd approach. Honestly, I could approach like 20 women, and at least one of them would give me a phone number... and I'm a woman. I get that you're trying to ramp up motivation for guys to approach lots of women by setting the expectations high for what success will mean. That way they don't get discouraged by not getting success within their first few approaches. But a lot of guys will see that and go, "Oh man. If Leo (who I look up to as a mentor) had to do it 400 times before he got any success, then I'm never going to get success. And what if it never gets better than a 1/400 chance?" You have to make the game seem winnable too... which it totally is. For the average guy, probably 1 in 30 approaches will work out. Are you really being honest about the 400 approaches number?

Stage Green is all about noticing how various groups are impacted by different systemic forces, including cultural appropriation. So, it's not that Green is hyper-focused on identifying dogmatically with a group like Blue is. It's that they recognize that the social system impacts people differently depending on which group people are in. And Green also recognizes that Orange's "everyone is an individual" perspective, glosses over and creates a blindspot in awareness toward many systemic social problems. And that's because Orange is (on some level) pretending that different groups don't exist and that they aren't impacted differently by cultural forces. It can often be difficult for people from the dominant culture in a region who are in stage Orange to understand the impact of cultural appropriation on minority groups, as they don't have any frame of reference in terms of being impacted by cultural appropriation by a more dominant social group. So, it can be abstract to understand for white people living in a white majority multicultural region why cultural appropriation would be a problem. So, Orange with its individualistic focus that has transcended Blue's hyper-focus toward absolutist group-identification and maintaining the ingroup, can confuse Green's awareness of collective dynamics and how they uniquely impact certain groups with Blue's social dogma around group identities. The difference is undetectable from Orange, usually because Orange fails to look from the collective perspective and thus can't shift into the proper perspective to see what's happening on that level. But there is a world of difference because Blue is about hyper-focus toward just one group that's seen as the best, and Green is about adopting a collectivist group-focused lens to notice macro-societal patterns and have an understanding of various social groups and trying to alleviate problems that those social groups are facing that may be in the blindspot of the dominant social groups. And you can't do the latter if you pretend that differences in social groups don't exist, like Orange does. You need to evolve to Green to see these larger dynamics play out on the global scale... which is also 100% a pre-requisite for Yellow as well.

@Raptorsin7 I'm a life-coach, and I've made between $1500 to $3500 per month doing it, depending on how busy I am. But I also have a moderately successful YouTube channel with about 30,000 subscribers, where I get about 60k views per month. So, I get all my clients through my channel, without having to do any dry marketing tactics where I try to pitch myself to acquaintances and strangers. I basically just release a bunch of free content, and then let them know that I also offer life-coaching. I would say it would be quite difficult to be a life-coach if you don't have a built in following. So, if you create a following first, you can definitely make ends meet and more doing life-coaching. You also don't need a perfect life or anything like that. You don't need to be a Tony Robbins. What you do need is the ability to meet the client where they are and facilitate inner exploration and growth in them.

@Himanshu The 8 Cognitive Functions are a really interesting topic for sure. And MBTI-wise, I'm an INFJ. And even though the type is quite rare as are the others you mentioned, the internet has a way of gravitating like-minds together toward the same content. So, there are a bunch of uncommon types here, and thus those types become common in this context. On the positive side, we get to actually interact with others like ourselves in ways that most people aren't... but there's still the trap of being an echo chamber. Basically, in a nutshell, we're in Leo's target market. My cognitive functions are as follows... (Dominant) Introverted Intuition - Discovering intuition internally, and seeking to know one's self and emotions deeply (Auxiliary) Extroverted Feeling - Reaching out to others and cultivating relationships and the ability to understand others' emotions. (Tertiary) Introverted Thinking - Having the ability to put feelings into words and organize thoughts in a way the mind understands them internally (Inferior) Extroverted Sensing - Being present with the sensory world. Funny enough, I just found out about a week and a half ago, that the Dominant, Auxiliary, Tertiary, and Inferior functions have a time-scale. My biggest hang-up personally, has actually been on my Auxiliary function. I've always been big on Introverted Intuition and Introverted Thinking, of which having my channel has really helped with my Introverted Thinking the most. But I have had some wounding relative to Extroverted Feeling, so I've been doing my best in recent years to really reach out which can be difficult. I used to make friends easily and invest in relationships easily, but now there is always kind of an arms-length wedge that I find between myself and connecting with others. As far as my inferior function of Extroverted Sensing, I definitely have some issues because I'm so internal with my focus. Intuition and thinking are both very internal, and I get caught up in a loop referred to as the Ni-Ti loop where I'm always trying to process my intuition and make thought-based meaning of it... but some things can't easily be processed that way or can't be processed that way period. Given that Jung was also an INFJ, I'm sure he was probably well aware of this loop, as his main hang-up was about finding meaning to communicate. But it's all very internal, so it can be difficult to reach outside when there's so much going on internally. As far as my Inferior function goes, in certain activities, like when I learned to paint realistically, it's really helped me get in touch with my Extroverted Sensing function. That said, it's difficult to have that meditative focus in a way that's ongoing and not just activity focused, so I still have a lot to integrate there. Also, all fo this is helpful to understand internally for yourself. But be careful in trying to map others, especially those who you just know from their public persona. They're only ever showing 1% of what's going on with them by nature of the medium. For example, Robert Moore (the Jungian guru responsible for writing "King, Warrior, Magician, Lover") killed his wife. And with the insights he shared, which are solid, you can see that the public persona doesn't exactly capture the full depth and breadth of that person. Heck, for all you know, I might have some bodies in the basement. Just kidding... I keep them in the attic. There are no basements in Florida... Too much groundwater.

Thank you

I'm quite sure that, like Warren, Bernie would support adding gender reassignment surgeries to his Medicare for All plan. The only things I've heard him say would be part of supplemental plans would be things like cosmetic surgery. But given that gender dysphoria is an actual medical diagnosis, it makes sense that gender reassignment surgery be covered under his plan. Even Obama, who is arguably center right in many respects, sought to lift the ban that was established that blocked gender reassignment surgery from being covered under medicaid plans. Also, it's 2019 now, and people are more informed about politics. In terms of policy substance, Hilary and Obama are both corporate Neo-liberal centrists that fundamentally would want to keep the status quo. It's not that type of politician that will excite the base, which is looking for progressive change and for someone to address the corruption that was before just accepted as norm. And nice personality skills aren't going to cut it. People actually want real change. And if they don't get it, many of them will skew toward liars and demagogues like Trump because they're just hoping for change at all costs.

That's totally true... It's three-breasted aliens or nothing for me.

TMI, but when I was 11, I used to sneak and watch the VHS of Total Recall when my parents were away and I'd fast-forward to the part with the alien with the three breasts. That was sex-ed for me back in the year 2000.

Warren is not left of Bernie. She's quite a bit more toward the center, by comparison. Also, an Obama-like figure would just be Hilary part 2. The base is really skewing more toward those with progressive policies, and not someone who will try to target this non-existent center and capitulate to the Republicans and the establishment.

When I was in my early 20s, I used to have a kind of fantasy image around the idea of being sexually desired by a wealthier middle aged man like in his 40s. Not super wealthy, but like middle class to upper middle class to my working class/ working poor background. But it didn't really have to do with the money or some idea of gaining upward mobility. It had to do with this fantasy I had around being desired a certain way with a certain setting that I appreciated at the time. And there was a certain type of music I associated with it, like Sade's "Smooth Operator" or some old vaudeville music. And I'd always envision that he would be surprised and grateful that I took interest in him because of his age, so he would value me. And it was really indicative of the type of persona I was trying to adopt at the time. I was working hard to fit in as a school teacher, which is a job that my personality isn't very well suited to. And I always felt like I was a square peg in a round hole in the work setting around all these middle class folks. So, I had these dreams of being able to vanillify myself and blend in as socially acceptable. And I wanted people to see me as a professional young woman who was well-put-together. And somehow, this played into this fantasy a lot. But really, this fantasy was more of an outgrowth of trying to fit a place in society that was inauthentic to me. And I'd always imagine in the fantasy, that this rigid middle-aged man with trouble expressing his sexuality was set free by me who brought back his youth for a time. And that he would open up only to me, and I'd be like a manic pixie dream girl for him. But it occurred to me, at some point, that this uptight wealthy man was really a representation of myself and my self-imposed limitations set in place by the type of persona I was trying to occupy that wasn't fitting for me. I was always trying to be a 40 year-old woman in terms of maturity in a 23-25 year-old body. And in trying to set him free in the fantasy, it was really a metaphor for trying to set myself free. But truly, the money was only one accessory to the whole image I was trying to embody. So, money might equal out to you as simply what it is. And it could indicate some desire for upward mobility. Or it could be some old reptilian-brain thing that lights up your pair-bonding response in relation to a man who is capable of providing. Or if you're like me, it could be that the money is just one symbol associated with an entire inner dialogue. And it will fall away, as mine did, upon integrating other aspects of yourself.

The dearth of positive masculine role models is one of the biggest problems I see for young men's development now-a-days. If a man wants to own his masculinity and be empowered in that way, there's not much healthy material out there readily available. At least, nowhere near as readily available as the toxic and half-toxic masculine role models that are harkening to the juvenile, domineering, and disintegrated masculinity of the past. Namely, the kind that suppresses the feminine at all costs. But who can blame them? Just like a son with an abusive father (or absent father), they know no other model of masculinity but the shadow side of it. And they come to hold up the shadow masculine as an example of the healthy masculine to be aspire to. Or, half-toxic role models like JP, will mix the healthy and unhealthy masculine... which leads to conflation of the negative with the positive and just thinking masculinity itself is inherently positive with no dark side to it. And this is very dangerous because degeneration will feel like improvement, which is one of the reasons I go so hard at JP. Now, I'm certain that healthy masculine role models do exist somewhere on the interwebs. But by and large, you'll find regressive masculine role models that men can actually feel the sense of masculine empowerment that they're looking for. Then, you have other guys that are healthy but not as masculine (or sometimes not healthy and suppressing their masculinity), and men who want masculine empowerment are put off by them because they don't embody the masculine archetype enough to stir their interests and needs. Also, most men already have a script in their mind about what masculinity entails. So, many men may miss positive examples of the masculinity by conflating them with femininity because their definition of the what constitutes masculinity has been corrupted... with very high social stakes applied to men who deviate from the masculine. That, compounded with the fact that most men just want to be masculine because they put far too much stock in women's opinions of them, it's just the witches brew for disaster. Because these men will flock to the toxic and half-toxic role models and become angry and resentful to the women they previously felt powerless to. And they tend to stay stuck in Orange thinking if they make it there. I agree with what Leftist Youtuber Natalie Wynn said about this at the end of her most recent video, in terms of men needing to create a new model of manhood and masculinity. It's a great video to watch... She's also trans-gendered, so she's lived both the male experience and the female experience, and has lots of great first-hand insights on gender.

@electroBeam My recommendation is to find girls to add to your social circle in general that you appreciate talking to and hanging out with. And to have a social circle that has close friends, distant friends, and acquaintances that is evenly stacked between men and women. Most women, especially women who are of a more Feminist sort, prefer warm approach to cold approach. And there is a whole process to falling in love with someone that cold-approach just doesn't allow for. So, my best recommendation is to cultivate a wide social circle of people who are cut from the same cloth as you, and see who you resonate with and who resonates with you. You can develop your social circle around a common interests to get somewhat of a guarantee that someone's on a similar page. You can even cultivate a social circle online and do Zoom chats and stuff like that. It may take a bit longer to get a girlfriend compared to doing cold approach, but it will most likely be worth the wait.

@Focus Shift Good video, sans the "anti-pc" and "anti-snowflake" guys like JP and the other guy. That just espouses more of the ideology that got incels into the spot they're currently in. And more than likely, they'll take a half-step up to those guys' level, feel the sense of improvement, and get stuck there. It's better than being an incel, but it's still a trap. But otherwise, I think he touched on some great points... especially the part where he was talking about changing the identity and the self-story. That's what I would have suggested.

@Zak Be careful with Stefan Molyneux. He's into some white supremacy kind of stuff. So, even if he has some good insights into philosophical topics, it doesn't necessarily mean that he's a high consciousness person. You have to weed out the dumb intellectuals from the actual high consciousness individuals.

I'm totally not surprised by this.

First off, the top marginal tax rate being proposed is 70% on every dollar made past the first $10 MILLION made in the year. So, it's not as high as 96% and the income isn't as low at $400k. It's actually a very modest tax proposal that would effect VERY few people. Also, the effective rate could be worked down to somewhere around 30-40%, even for people making over $10 million per year as there are many different tax breaks available. And new tax breaks could be created for businesses who invest in their business, create new jobs, and pay their workers well. Secondly, back in the 50s, when the top marginal tax rate was between 90% and 93%, it was known as "the golden age of economic growth." And that's because of the reason I listed above. When people know the tax rate will be high, they will be sure to do the things that will give them tax breaks including investment in their business. And that's what created the economic boom of that time. It really helped us get up out of the Great Depression. Also, businesses outsourcing and seeking tax havens is NOT a problem of us expecting too much in taxes. It's the result of there being ineffective legislation that has tons of loopholes specifically placed there by politicians who have been bought off by corporate interests. And that's the source of the issue. It's not about the amount of taxes. The businesses would do it anyway. It's about corporate and government corruption. And this is specifically why Bernie Sanders is the BEST choice for president. He will stick it to big corporations that want to leave to avoid paying their fair share. He doesn't take any money from them. So, he has no conflict of interest. He will close up all those loopholes that corporation use, and he will tax them heavily for leaving and outsourcing. And for corrupt politicians who stand in his way, he will use the bully pulpit and lead protests in that politicians home-state. Which, of course, would be a terrible look for them come election time.

Well said

Radical is not always more conscious. I could say that I believe society would be better if everyone rode on top of elephants instead of in cars to reduce carbon emission and that would certainly be radical... but definitely not more conscious. But let's be clear, though NOT everything more radical is more conscious, EVERYTHING that's more conscious IS more radical by its very nature. And if it weren't seen as radical, we'd already be doing them. It would be part of the new middle ground. We need to change the structure if we want to grow and evolve. And Centrism won't cut it. The middle ground just ensures the status quo continues and nothing gets shook up. And I also agree that we need to take all angles into account. That's precisely why I hold the views of society and politics that I do. If you actually consider the real world effect of politics and don't see politics as its own little bubble, you'll see that the "middle ground" has a lot of imbalances in it. So ironically, to be balanced, you need to change society to something more balanced... which will be seen as radical. You shouldn't define balance by "How much in the middle am I on the political spectrum compared to others in my society?" You should define balance in terms of, "What policies and worldviews should I support to help create a sense of balance and fairness in society?" And most of the most poignant balance-creating policies that would help us evolve into a less corrupt society are NOT to be found in the middle ground. Most of them are on the avant garde of mainstream society's political development (aka progressive). But furthermore, if you are a Centrist and take the "middle ground", it usually just means that you've only considered your impression of both political extremes and arbitrarily drew a mid-point in between both of those relative extremes. You haven't fundamentally done the work of venturing out into the real-world consequences of this "middle ground" thinking, and usually Centrists don't even have a clear idea of partisan groups that they've arbitrarily wedged themselves in the center of. They just go, "Hey, I think everyone should get along. So, I'm going to just support both groups because that's the nicest thing to do that creates the least amount of conflict in my life. It's more comfortable and it makes me less likely to be accused of extremism. Also, I don't need to educate myself at all, I just tout the virtues of being oh so balanced and tolerant and accepting." And that's how they decide upon their political and social views. Also, if you understand that the "middle ground" is a relative term defined by the current state of society and politics, and that so are the terms Progressive and Conservative... then you'll understand that Centrists are just as guilty of partisanship as someone who identifies as (liberal/progressive/conservative/left/right, etc.) Also, I gave two forms of what our society deems extremism in my last example... right (Nazi-ism) and left (Communism ala Stalin). I chose extreme left wing and right wing examples of societies where the "middle ground" is extreme in our view and the "extremes" are moderate in our view. But I can give plenty more... In some tribal societies, it was a "middle ground" practice to kill twins upon birth because the phenomenon was ascribed to a demon doppleganger of the original twin being birthed into society. It was extremism to even suggest there were ethical issues with this. In ancient Greece, when a woman was raped it was the "middle ground" that she was responsible for the rape as sexual impropriety on her part and she was expected to commit suicide immediately afterward to save her honor. And it was extremism for a woman to suggest she wasn't the one responsible for her rape or to stay alive. In our society, it's the "middle ground" that there is vast income inequality where the top three wealthiest people in America own more than the bottom 50% of people. In our society, it's the "middle ground" that big corporations buy favor with the government to stack the deck in favor of their interests and against the interests of the average person. In our society, (if you're American) it's the "middle ground" that public schools are funded off of property taxes, which leads to the wealthiest children having the best public schools and the poorest children having the worst public schools that struggle with funding and over-crowded classes. And it also guarantees a kind of de facto segregation where there are still poor mostly black schools and richer mostly white schools. In our society, it's the "middle ground" the people who work 40 hours per week are making poverty wages, where they can't even afford to live. And it's also the "middle ground" that the minimum wage hasn't changed in a close to a decade, despite the fact that the cost of living has increased as well as the level of productivity. In our society, (if you're American) it's the "middle ground" for people to go bankrupt due to medical debt and it's also the "middle ground" for 30k to 40k Americans die per year due to lack of insurance, under-insurance, rationing care, and not being able to afford prescriptions. So, this gives you just a little hint of the tyrannies of the "middle ground". So, if these are the "middle ground", we need to be "extreme" in order to change to a society that's more balanced and fair for ALL people. We have the capacity to do it. And if we do it, it will become the NEW middle ground eventually. And while capitulating to the center and the "middle ground", probably creates more harmony and balance in your life as a Centrist via getting along with everyone you're talking politics with in the center left and center right and not "fighting/demonizing" eachother within that 'oh so civil' conversation... you're not fundamentally considering how much imbalance these "middle ground" views are contributing to. So, actually be balanced. Actually consider things from ALL angles. Actually have a viewpoint that's based on more than just arbitrarily drawing the mid-point between the most common polarities within your particular society. Open your eyes to the actual real-world effects of your political opinions.

Currently human beings are like parasites to the Earth in the same way the maggot is to the apple. But the interesting thing about our species is that we have the potential to be a symbiote as well. Our technology can destroy the planet, but it can also help it as well. It's really just a collective choice that must be made to do the more challenging talk of living in harmony with nature and bringing science and innovation into that harmony as well.

The middle ground is for those seeking to preserve the status quo, including all the unfairness and corruption of the status quo. And those seeking to preserve the status quo are conservative by definition. Where do you think the "conserve" in conservative comes from? Don't fall for the middle ground fallacy. Centrism is no virtue. All it means is that you are in alignment with the views of most of the people in your particular society. And you happen to fall in the middle of the two most common extremes. And usually, it means that you are under-educated and people-pleasing with your views trying to capitulate to the norms of your society and the opinion of the majority. Either way, the middle ground is always defined relativistically, just as Conservatism and Progressivism are. So, it depends on what society you live in at what era in time, that determines where the middle ground actually is. And most people are like fish in water, and just take their experiences as the norm without question... and that's true no matter how obvious the corruption is to an outsider. In Nazi Germany, the middle ground was Nazi-ism. Was that the sweet spot? Furthermore, you were an extreme radical if you were anti-Nazi. In the old USSR, the middle ground was Communism and gulags. Was that the sweet spot? And yes, you'd be a radical if you were against the Communists. The only reason why you think that the middle ground is a sweet spot is because you define normal in relation to your society. And that's because you're indoctrinated to believe your society is normal and that your worldview is correct. And you miss the corruptions that need to be called out. And when progressives come and try to make positive change, you go "What about the middle ground? Everyone's getting too radical."