Carl-Richard

I also thought I didn't get high the first time I smoked it. There is a phenomena called sensitization. If you're an ex-stoner like me and you also were essentially traumatized by somebody poisoning you (+ you've had a large panic attack or ego death situation on weed, which was the reason I quit for good), it's not just paranoia involved, it's actual pharmacological and psychological sensitization going on. Then there are also individual differences in how you respond to weed (it is very psychedelic for me) and general introspective (and interoceptive) ability (long-time meditator, multiple big non-dual experiences). However, there are cases where even unsuspecting unsensitized people can get seriously high from second-hand smoke. It's just a question of concentration and time of exposure. If you're unlucky and you walk behind somebody on the street who blows a big cloud of smoke and you happen to inhale a big chunk of it before it has been widely dispersed, it's very possible that you will get high. It's a kind of a paradox: some people don't get high the first time they smoke, and other people get high from just a few puffs the first time they smoke. Some of it can be explained by sensitization, but I believe a lot of it can be explained by new smokers being inexperienced with the act of smoking and not getting enough into their lungs (and they are smoking in a situation where second-hand smoke is otherwise minimal, e.g. in a windy place outdoors).

Smoking in public is already not allowed. I just want tighter regulations. If people vote for it or not, it is what it is.

@theleelajoker I had a similar experience first night drinking with my college mates, first night out in a new town. Close to the end of the night, we sat down at some pizza place and started talking with random people who came in (also students). So this girl asks me "so you're from this here town *references my accent*?" I said "yes, true-bred 😊" (or something). Her: "Me too. Which part of town?" Me: *mentions part of town* Her: "Ah, where did you go to school?" Me: *mentions grade school I went to* Her: "Oh? I worked there for a few years as an assistant". Me: "🫨" Her: "You know this one teacher *mentions my contact teacher*?" Me: "yes 😯" Her: "She is now the principal of the school." And I was like "waaaaaaaaat 😵😵😵". Bruh, only a few minutes talking to this girl and she starts talking like she knows me AND blowing my mind at the same time 😂

Honestly, It was a kind of a throwaway thought in this context and was a humoristic nod to my other thread where I did debate voting Right or Left but for completely different reasons. But I could see myself sitting in a meeting arguing for stricter public smoking policies with regards to psychedelic-esque drugs, but as a representative of the Green Party 😁

It pushes the button of "through clever argument and reason, we can have our cake and eat it too, we can be efficient, pragmatic and caring all at the same time". The trouble though is that I do not have the deep penetrating knowledge of government or the economy to truly evaluate the arguments. All I can say "cool story bro, it would be cool if it were true, but here is another story which I can argue just as well, and we don't have the ability to simulate a science experiment with our government in a virtual reality, so we can't really test our policies in a rigorous way, we can only compare Sweden to Norway, apples to oranges, employment rates in 2021 with the covid pandemic in full swing to the employment rates of today". What this really is an expression of is my trauma of being straight out poisoned by somebody close to me as a prank with THC which actually made me "high" high, which was one month before an important exam and which threw me into a feeling of lack of control and heightened sensitivity to malevolence. So whenever I smell the smell of weed now, I'm reminded by how I was wronged and that I'm being wronged right now, and it's a heightened response compared to normal because of that trauma. But I still feel what I feel, so I express what I feel.

Yes, in fact, I'm running the forum live from the mental hospital now as we speak. Shame Leo is also schizo-friendic, my schizo-best-friendy. You know what is also not normal? Kundalini symptoms. You know what kundalini symptoms do? They make you sensitive to energy. What is also not normal is calling yourself "God". Or calling yourself "awake". Or thinking that you're the only conscious person in existence. These things can actually get you hospitalized if you're not careful and your hair is a bit messy and you forgot to brush your teeth and you slept bad last night so your speech is not as coherent as it could be. But we can run through a DSM-5 list (or ICD-11) together and I'll answer it as honest as possible.

There comes a point where it's no longer just "second-hand smoke", as in the dose is no longer negligible. Hotboxing a car, blowing smoke in someone's face, perhaps blowing smoke in the ventilation system of a gym.

I've also sent a police tip when some absolute knobhead transported an electric scooter on top of his electric scooter for 100 meters, placed it in the middle of the train tracks and left. When you put other people's lives, autonomy or livelihood in danger (a gym is a business), be it for your own gain or out of negligence, that's when law enforcement comes in.

I can't describe myself as hating people, and definitely not stoners.

Trueee. But it's intellectual on the same level as the posts in the self-development or politics sub-forum. It's not 🤓 intellectual, but 🧘 intellectual.

You can merge with other people's minds in expanded states, especially NDEs.

How many people do you think would honestly answer "do you value truth?" with "no"? Everybody is a fool. We're being fools right now. And there is being a fool and then there is being a dumb fool who retreats and backs down and collapses from a challenge. Who is insecure, contradictory, lacks integrity. Who argues a lot but then at some point decides they will not argue, for some non-virtuous reason, for a reason they can't argue for or stand for with their own values, for a reason they can't stand for if they were honest and transparent to themselves, not trying to hide from things and ultimately themselves. When you say "so very few people are truly openminded, it's such a rare skill, it's a gift", is the first word that comes to your mind "error"? No, you absolutely treat it as a virtue. If you didn't treat it as a virtue, you would not value it. If there is a non-virtuous behavior, you would more readily describe it with a fitting word. If you run into somebody who constantly makes errors or contradicts themselves, you wouldn't say "this guy is very openminded", you would say "this guy is very full of crap". Write down a list of five openminded people you can think of on the top of your head and then point out who is dullminded and wishy-washy.

It must also be said that there is such a thing as errors that can be called out. Openmindedness does not mean everything goes. You can contradict yourself and somebody can call you out on it, but does that make them closeminded? "They're closedminded to errors". Well, if openmindedness means embracing errors and accepting dullmindedness and being generally wishy-washy about distinctions, then openmindedness is no longer a virtue. It suddenly becomes not such a high thing to strive for. In fact, it might be a contradiction of the concept.

Wet noodle 🫠

Saying you value openmindedness is like saying you value truth. It doesn't say much. And often, people substitute it for being a softie who doesn't stand up to a counterargument or who is afraid to say what they feel or who doesn't have a opinion or a well-formed one.

Be honest with what you think is reasonable and engage fully with whatever is presented to you. Then you can present whatever view that you've been exposed to and argue in their favor, and you will also discover which view you think is more reasonable relative to which metric (and which metrics you find most appealing).

I smoked every single day, multiple times a day, for up to many months at a time. I have probably spent more money on weed than you have on cigarettes. I had just joined a cult that had slowly turned anti-drugs, I felt it was impeding my meditation practice, and my mom was kicking me out if I didn't stop. All in all, if it really matters that you quit, for you and for other people, for the things that you care about and also for your very survival, then quitting becomes easier (meditation in itself also helps, because nothing beats how it makes you aware of your thoughts and spontaneous impulses). But some people manage to quit by just quitting. They just say "fuck it" and get on with their lives. It doesn't have to be a life-changing event.

I was addicted to weed before. That is what makes me sensitive and react to rationalizations of addiction.

Is dying of an overdose worth it if you have a heroin addiction?

Try sprinting and compare sprinting for 3 seconds and then stopping for 3 seconds, and repeating that for 20 seconds, vs sprinting full throttle for 20 seconds. See which one you prefer. See which one makes you feel more energized and alive. When you put too many brakes on a movement, when you let the mind dictate too much how to execute the movement, rather than letting the body execute it within what feels best, you limit the body. And it makes you weaker (your body). Controlling movement means inhibiting it. This is how neuroscience works. Control is the interplay between inhibition and release. The more you control something, the more you inhibit it. The less you control something, the more you release it. Flow and optimal performance is at the balance of inhibition and release, and your body has a natural balance for its flow. You can only know that by listening to it, not by reading it in a book (although you can use it as a pointer). "This is how I should move my body because somebody else told me". "I have to limit my body's expression of energy so that I align with this outside source". "I have to feel immense pain, it has to be humiliating and hard, rather than feeling energized and empowered". This is the distinction between self-determination vs emprisonment/coercion/constraint, internal motivation vs external motivation, flow, joy and personal expression vs shame, guilt and insecurity. Of course, you can come to the point where you mentally identify with the constrained movements and the philosophy behind it so that you feel a kind of internal motivation to do it on a mental plane, and you might become very good at it and condition your body to respond well to it and even tap into a kind of flow state, but on a raw physical level, your body might still have another idea of what it wants (and if you were to change the technique, you might experience a great release). You can get used to walking with bad posture or holding on to some tension or energy in your body, but when you get to release it (e.g. by becoming aware of it in meditation or through consciousness-expanding substances), you will feel like you've been freed and that everything becomes lighter. I just said it was an interesting contrast. You can watch more Mike Israetel videos, particularly the cable bicep curls or lying bicep curls that he makes his guests humiliate themselves with, and then contrast that with Eric Bugenhagen blasting some incline dumbell presses. It's not hard to see which one is more inhibitory and which one is more "release".

Eye contact is a bit like physical contact. Too much is creepy.

I've trained like that for a year, by the book as Mike Israetel recommends, and now I'm back to how I've usually trained since I started but I've also added deep stretch microreps on failure for some exercises, and by looking at me, you probably wouldn't notice much difference (expect a bigger chest, which it used to be when I trained more intense, before I got shoulder and sternum issues from injuries unrelated to lifting). It's not "harder", but it's less fun, and for me, it doesn't give the effects I desire from training (which involve the mental effects). High intensity, letting go of restrants, is what gives the mental effects. You just contradicted yourself in one sentence. The eccentric is half of the movement. Punctuating every rep with restraint is not what your body wants to do; it's what your mind wants to do, and it makes you energetically constipated. If you go full set no restraint, it's like a constant surge of energy. It's like one big rep. It's intense in the same way that cutting yourself with a blade is intense. I'm after intensity which explodes out of me, not some kind of neurotic self-inflicted torture technique. It's the difference between being the one who punches someone and being punched. It's about self-determination, doing what you feel deepest inside, not submitting to some prescribed notion that you got from the outside (which is identical to shame, or again, receiving violence from an outside source). "Listen to your body" while cutting yourself with a blade. "Speaking from experience" while it's science-based. Interesting contrasts. Compare the vibe you get from that video and this video: Tell me if you see the "blade cutting" vs "face punching" distinction.

Greg Doucette is also critical of "science-based" lifting.

Then yoga must build hella muscles. And the groin should be 13.2 cm above the waist when benching. Ok. Slow training has its benefits, but it has its downsides. Look at the benefits of sprint training on a systemic level. Imagine if somebody said "nah, you can get that by jogging at 140-160 bpm for 40 minutes". That's the same kind of dynamic we're dealing with. And I'm of course stretching this way beyond pure "hypertrophy", but even there, the so-called "science" is not at all conclusive either way. The type of studies Mike references are CRAP. Sorry, it is just the truth. Look at the methodology of how they make the study subjects train during the so-called "high quality" studies. It's ridiculous. It's things like training only one arm with one technique and training the other arm with the other technique and then comparing, or having some scientist breathe down your neck while doing your sets. Where is the ecological validity? Where is the knowledge that context matters, certainly for performance in high energy environments/situations? Do you think any of this flies for somebody trying to win the Mr. Olympia? No, so why do we use it as the blueprint for "optimal training for hypertrophy"? B-S.