Search the Community

Has anyone watched “ Hyper Normalisation “ on BBC iPlayer? It’s very interesting. But it’s just under 3 hours long, but no ads thankfully. HyperNormalisation is a 2016 BBC documentary by filmmaker Adam Curtis that argues governments, financiers, and technocrats have built a simplified, fake version of reality over the past 40 years to mask complex global problems. Core Thesis The Fake World: Instead of handling complex realities like economic crashes or geopolitical conflict, politicians and institutions retreated into a managed, reassuring illusion. The Term: Curtis borrowed the title from anthropologist Alexei Yurchak's work on the late Soviet Union, where citizens and officials knowingly maintained the pretense of a failing system until that collective fiction became accepted as normal. Complicity: Society went along with the illusion because simplicity felt safe, leaving leadership paralyzed and unable to handle real crises. Key Themes and Events Trumping Reality: Traces how financial shifts in 1970s New York allowed figures like Donald Trump to leverage the city's decay, and how modern political figures use strategic confusion (such as Vladislav Surkov's political theater in Russia). Global Chaos: Connects Cold War policies and Middle Eastern interventions to modern catastrophes, including the Syrian civil war, the migrant crisis, and the rise of suicide bombing. The Rise of Post-Truth: Explains inexplicable modern shocks—like Brexit and Trump's election—as the moment when hidden, neglected historical forces finally pierced through the artificial bubble

men in the West are having it hard right now. Loneliness, suicide, fatalism, burnout.

I have learned a lot about criminology as I came to understand evil from a psychological perspective. I used this as a tool for self reflection as I learned about the similarities between myself and criminal offenders including the psychological properties of sex offenders which would overlap with my psyche. This information helps inform prevention by not waiting until after we rape or murder someone to self reflect. The reason I ask this question here is because I am afraid of committing murder or suicide if an intimate partner harms me badly enough. Therefore, when I have such thoughts my response is to get away from them and never go back because I need to make sure I don't throw my life away should I act on something like homicidal thoughts. Intimate relationships appear to be the most likely scenario for a murder or rape committed by a civilian. That said, I would like to explore what would make us murder an intimate partner. There are even cases of professional judges committing the murder of an intimate partner. One of them involved a drunken argument leading to murder. Obviously we should avoid using alcohol to escape our problems as that commonly leads to rape and murder. When I had homicidal thoughts they were originally toward family members who were drug addicts. They would steal my money to feed their addiction while yelling death threats at my mother. I became afraid of my homicidal thoughts and instead moved in with a relative. However, the homicidal thoughts came up again because of my older sister. She would spread lies about me, badger me for hours, and humiliate me while other family members shut me down. Humiliation is a typical pattern in intimate partner homicide and it appears to be relevant in cases of infidelity. I can't have a relationship with my family and I'm trying to leave because I can't talk to them without unacceptable risk. When combined with withdrawal from antidepressants, I felt like I was losing control as I was overwhelmed with this rage. In terms of intimate partners, I noticed that oftentimes infidelity leads to homicide. However, it was never particularly obvious to me why this would cause homicidal rage. I instead think of it as although I am distraught and heart broken, this person loves this other man and would be happier with them. Therefore I would tell them good bye and let them be with who they love even if it hurts. I therefore consider cheating a minor offense, but not something I would endorse because of the betrayal of trust. It looks like most people who commit murder or suicide are typically overwhelmed in the moment by grief and they are overestimating the harm caused by act such that some consider cheating to be worse than murder. I don't see myself committing murder over infidelity. The philosophy I have for committing murder is along the following lines. If this person has harmed me so badly that they have made my life unlivable and intolerable, then the consequences of my actions become irrelevant. The goal in murder is not to get away with it, but rather to ensure mutual destruction knowing there will be no victory. If one is willing to accept the consequences of life in prison, then they would have from their point what feels like a justified murder. (Of course this is a bad idea, but it would make sense for a murderer to think this way. We should avoid this.) I noticed that distrust of the legal system overlaps with becoming a criminal. The idea is that if you are going to get in trouble even if you are innocent, then going to prison for being bad doesn't register in the same way anymore. This is also why I felt that I would be more likely to murder someone if they framed me for things I didn't do such as by stealing my social security number and identity while making my life unlivable. Mutually assured destruction would be appealing if I can at least take them out with me. I have been a victim of frame ups and set ups before such as an attempt to frame me for kidnapping and a trafficking scenario because of my father. Presently no modern legal system has a satisfactory answer for frame ups and corrupted evidence implicating someone innocent. Preventing murder would require improving trust in the legal system. Otherwise the threat of going to prison loses meaning. In what scenarios would you murder an intimate partner? Cheating? (Common, but I wouldn't) Rape? (I've seen cases like these, not sure) A frame up? (More likely in my opinion) Identity theft? (More likely in my opinion) Wanting their life insurance? (Unlikely but documented) Domestic abuse: physical, emotional, or sexual? (I felt it in my family) Humiliation? (I felt it in my family) Spreading lies and ruining your reputation? (I felt it in my family) Cutting off your penis? (More likely in my opinion) I would like to mention that I suspect false rape accusations are typically in the form of blackmail. We would not be able to measure the prevalence of this tactic if it is designed to enforce silence. I don't trust the statistics regarding how often women lie about rape. I don't think it can be reliably measured without making a lot of assumptions about how it works. In most scenarios I would leave, fearing what I would become if I commit murder. I would also sometimes feel suicidal because of the harm caused by such relationships. This makes me afraid of relationships because of the harm that comes from them. I prefer to front load trust building before starting a relationship, but most people prefer trust building throughout a relationship. I end up creating barriers to intimacy because of my fear of harming someone or being harmed by them. If I believe my life is intolerable regardless of the consequences, then it would feel easier to justify murder across various scenarios. My last question is that if you find a scenario in which you would want to murder an intimate partner, then would you want to stop yourself? What would make you reconsider or abandon the murder? What would be the advantage of living a life you believe to be unjust and intolerable? I wonder, in the event that an intimate partner stole my social security number and framed me for things I didn't do, then what would be the reason for not murdering them if the outcome is that I will go to prison regardless? Why would I want to live a life of being in prison constantly and having no path forward while this person benefits from my suffering? If the legal system fails people in situations like these, then would I want at least the satisfaction of having this person dead? I'm honestly not sure why I wouldn't choose murder or suicide in the event that the legal system fails me due to being framed. I'm not sure why I would surrender to this outcome and suffer endlessly regardless. Why not murder this person? Can you explain your reasoning as to why you would or wouldn't murder an intimate partner across these scenarios? One example is that a spiteful intimate partner could plant drugs in your car so you get arrested should the cops pull you over. This is one way an intimate partner could realistically frame you and get away with it.

Because Trump was still 10x worse than Kamala. When the choice is so clear, not voting is political suicide. It hurt Gaza too. More Gazans and Ukrainians are dead because leftists refused to vote for Kamala. I warned about this at the time. This was all very predictable.

In all scenarios I have not murdered anyone yet, but there are examples directed a family members. I don't have a gun though so it would be impractical. I would be dead already if I actually had a fire arm. This gets much more difficult when you don't have a gun for murder or suicide. It is for this reason why I am trying to leave my family forever. I would rather get far away from them rather than putting myself in a position in which I could realistically harm them or myself. The thought of making them suffer what they made me feel starts to feel enjoyable. So far I stay quiet and keep my distance because my perspective won't be heard anyway. This is common behavior in grievance based offenders for murder. It leads to constant rumination and feeling stuck in life. They typically have a complex narrative about why they felt justified and why this person made their life unlivable. In this case, it isn't just one scenario. It is my entire life time since early childhood. It is the cumulative pain across many scenarios and how they interact with each other which makes the pain feel like enough for my life to be unlivable. Therefore, I would not want to kill a person over just one thing. It would need to be an extensive, complex grievance rooted in a sense of being severely damaged beyond repair. From that standpoint, if I were to kill someone, it would have to be someone I know very well. Only someone I know very well could harm me badly enough to feel justified in killing them. A stranger couldn't feasibly cause me this degree of pain which requires betrayal to the point that I have become disillusioned with love and feel empty inside. I try to love but feel incapable as a result of what I have become. I wish I could change who I am, but I can't make the thoughts stop. The main offenders are my Mom, my Dad, and my older sister. They have made me feel like my life is unlivable unless I find some external project to justify my existence. If love is too easily betrayed and exploited, then I try to ground myself in achievements instead. Through being useful and trying to find a way to make the world a better place, maybe I can find a reason not to commit suicide or murder. The mental health system is crap though and they can't actually solve whatever it is about me that makes me think and act like this. I can't either. I tried to change, but the best I can do is find something else away from people like this. From this point of view, it is probably misleading to try to point to isolated examples. In order to motivate murder, it would require an entire life time of severe pain, betrayal, isolation, and a sense of being invisible to others with nothing but your own thoughts to help you guide your way through life. I hate having no reliable guidance, so I have to do a lot of research and become an expert on a bunch of different things, hoping the knowledge will help me become someone with living for. If in my life I cannot escape this misery, then it becomes hard to justify continuing. This is why I thought the Life Purpose course from Actualized.org would be important, but I kind of struggle with feeling my way to what I value. I don't know how I am supposed to be acceptable without changing. I don't want to be the person this pain has made me into, but I can't be otherwise. I don't know how to make it stop and become someone else who wasn't destroyed and turned into something I didn't want to be. I don't know what I need to change. I'm doing my best. At least it is logistically impossible to get a gun at this time. I just want to get away because I would somehow see myself as unacceptable if I actually killed them. Even so, I still feel unacceptable if the pain has made me into something I can't live with anyway. I want to try to find a life worth living and my attempt is through studying sociology and going to college in the hopes of changing social systems and therefore preventing harm to children in situations like mine. I don't believe that I will ultimately be happy even if successful, but at least I will be useful. Meanwhile, if I fail then I will go right back to contemplating suicide or murder again. My reason for living feels weak but it is there. I wish I had more than this uncertain future for justifying my continued existence. For now I will work with what I have. For now I will put off murder and suicide at least until I figure out how this all plays out. I would more likely just kill myself though because it is easier. It would be nice to trust someone other than AI. People on the internet aren't what I would hope for and I have been let down by many therapists already. Given the possibility of a better future, at least the mutual destruction idea doesn't apply to my present situation. It would need to get worse than this first. If there is hope left, then I will try the uncertain future over certain destruction, however that may play out. By addressing homicidal thoughts now, I hope to keep myself and others safer. I don't want to appear in a situation in which I might act on these thoughts. My fear of acting on these thoughts is the reason why I ended up turning myself into the hospital so I got put on anti-depressants instead. I don't want to be afraid of myself. Unfortunately, I am afraid of myself and it makes life extremely difficult. I am also afraid of others and it makes it difficult to get into relationships even though my therapists recommend dating because they think I'm lonely. This is why I ask about this subject in this thread to begin with. I am trying to get into dating and relationships from this position. Before I do though, I need to check for reasons why an intimate relationship might lead to a homicide such as in the scenarios I listed in the beginning. Cheating is one.

@Leo Gura By this statement you could mean a lot of things, but here is how I interpret it. Life is like a Taco. You can have many things on a Taco and depending on your preferences a Taco could taste good or bad. Some people like hot sauce and others don't. Murder is like hot sauce in the Taco that is life. Depending on your preferences there are many ways in which murder would seem okay to someone. It is just different strokes for different folks. If your spouse cheats on you, maybe you want to kill the piece of shit. If you want some life insurance money and think you can get away with it, then murder isn't such a biggy, even it targeting your own child. If you get tipsy and start getting irritable easily, then maybe you would want to murder a guy at the bar for insulting you. If you are a Christian and believe in God, then maybe the church told that Muslims are demons and we should slaughter them. They could say that about other religions too. Religion often celebrated burning heretics at the stakes because it made them feel noble. That would be good hot sauce to them. If you are occupying another nation and are given the opportunity to terrorize civilians with impunity, then maybe you would have fun killing and raping people. If you have a lust for power and like making people suffer, then you might want to be a serial rapist who tortures dozens of people before murdering them because the power feels so good. If you hate society and think your country has betrayed you after fighting for it as a soldier, you might grow bitter toward your nation and decide to shoot up a school. If America betrayed you, then why not screw over America too as some Veterans go on to do. If you are a CEO of an oil company and environmentalists are protesting against your cancer causing pollution, then just send a private military to murder them in South America or Africa where this sort of thing would happen. There are no consequences for you if you bribe the government. If America ruined your country because of being an economic parasite, then maybe you want to send a message by blowing up the Twin Towers. The hijackers seemed to like hot sauce, but America did not. It is a matter of taste. If you think a class of an outgroup are subhuman, then maybe you would be fine with carrying out a genocide and you would feel like you are cleansing society and doing the world a favor. That all said, you said "Tacos with no hot-sauce." I believe what you mean is that although murder is not actually wrong, it doesn't sit with your taste buds very well. Maybe somebody else likes murder, but you don't. From that standpoint, I would think that you would want to avoid murdering someone if possible. In the scenario I considered a hard case, it would involve frame-ups such as through identity theft and a broken justice system such that the consequences are you will go to prison regardless. In that scenario revenge and mutually assured destruction is like a taste. If someone ruined my life by making me spend the rest of it in prison, then it isn't obvious to me why killing this person would be worse than letting them live. In such a scenario if I felt truly powerless, then revenge is the only thing that would make me feel like I have control at all. Power becomes appealing just like in the case of serial killers. This desire to feel in control is what seems to sit at the root of my desire for revenge and sometimes homicidal thoughts. You previously argued that nobody controls anything and that my sense of being in control is ultimately an illusion. My current position regarding free will is "I don't know." In any case I did not choose to be born to my horrible family, nor did I choose the genetics that caused me autism and makes people think I'm weird. Being born to a horrible family especially makes me feel like I don't have control to the point that sometimes all options seem bad. If I become directionless, alone, and lost in life it becomes depressing with anger and bitterness that feels difficult to resolve. Revenge fantasies such as those against family members who were cruel to me, which are the primary object of the revenge fantasies, are a means of telling myself that I am in control just like with my suicidal thoughts. If I can jump off of a bridge or shoot myself, then I can establish a sense of controlling my suffering by making it stop. Suicide therefore feels empowering rather than disempowering to someone with depression and an impossible family situation with a sense of being a victim and not being able to find peace in being who we are. Fundamentally people with depression therefore cannot love themselves because they feel like they could be different but have failed and therefore blame themselves. I try to love myself, but I seem to fail and end up hating myself anyway. In any case, murder or suicide is ultimately rooted in my desire for power and control. It looks like all of those other murder examples I sited can also trace back to a desire for control and power by eliminating someone unwanted who makes your life unpleasant. If control is ultimately an illusion, then the implication is that murder ultimately proves nothing in terms of power other than creating an illusion of having control which is still false and therefore empty in terms of its substance. The outcome therefore, is that revenge would not satisfy a person if they let go of the illusion of control and power entirely. I have a hard time doing this. I am not entirely sure how to let go of a desire for control and power, but if I did then I probably wouldn't have thoughts about suicide or murder to reestablish the illusion of control which ultimately fails anyway if questioned deeply enough. This line of questioning would probably be key to deconstructing such types of thought. Contemplating your statement seems to have led me here. Is this roughly what you meant by "Tacos with no hot-sauce?"

@blankisomeone What evidence would you need to establish that every single person who dies by suicide has unmet basic needs? What would count as evidence against your theory?

I have support groups I go to. They give me something to do along with some board game clubs. The problem is that they are also not autism informed. I am forced to fit a mold that I don't fit even in groups that are supposed to be validating. On one hand the support groups say I'm supposed to speak from my feelings rather than from logic even though logic helps me process emotions. Additionally, they don't actually want to hear about my feelings because people find it to disturbing to describe child sex trafficking. Even my family said they wanted me to talk about my feelings, but clearly it was never worth it because my cousin who was once my friend has turned against me over what I said about my father even though all of it was simply reporting what happened. I wish I had people I would actually be comfortable socializing with. I have been recommended dating by multiple therapists, hence I asked the question. I want to make sure I don't end up in some horrible relationship that leads to a homicide in some form or another. These factors complicate dating for me despite my loneliness. I make people earn trust first. I need to make sure I don't get jumped, scammed, or killed or end up in a situation that would make homicide or suicide seem like an acceptable option. The problem with living in a cheap apartment is that I need to have a reason for living. I would need the resulting life structure to be enough to not have it be worth committing suicide. This is why I was thinking of living on campus at school for a different social environment and a reason for being alive. The complications is that if I don't live on campus then I would need to substitute those payments for the money spent on an apartment and transportation. I'm honestly not sure how the math works out in that case. Maybe it's better, maybe not.

I have tried many therapists and psychiatrists. They often make it worse. The secular solution you suggested leads to being prescribed medications which make the condition even worse, leading a person to becoming even more volatile. A psychiatrist is precisely what pushes people over the edge into murder or suicide by undermining impulse control. The secular solution isn't good enough either. Of course I don't believe in the Bible either.

Here are some facts about worldwide conspiracies. Neutral discussion around worldwide conspiracies makes people jump up and down and go mad as if everyone was discussing it madly; looking at calm people who count their own money, and the ones which come with *answers*, there is conspiracy behind. Looking how I discuss science, spirituality, *with Zen calm* - Absolutely always, days later it's even hard to discuss it because people are panicking, asking whether this one is now about money and instant free riches. All the AI's have finished discussing math and science - is this 2+2=4 gives answer that this money is not there. I REPEAT THIS IS A MATH QUESTION I tell to AI as pure Zen logic: it explain me that the money which is near this solution, really is not so fast and free. I SAID I WANT ANSWER NOT MONEY and it tells that do not go mad, don't run around talking nonsense about money to people. I say I specifically have this disclaimer in my text; but the pattern has that people should not think about this money and sex so much. This is *proof* of international conspiracy of idiots. For example, hot and important topics are immortality and truth, and mental relations and so on. - I am absolutely calm. I am calmer than ice if I am offered immortality, or not. I like to study this, science as any other - spending the same effort and time there as all other topics, and it goes on; - I must admit there is conspiracy of fools because I cannot write quite the same way. Idiots come telling "give these riches to me now I don't leave them to you taken away from me"; united cooperation for money - I write it down and a man comes telling he wants that earning part, but others (supposed to cooperate and make it) will not come any; he expresses also that this kind of discoveries are his, telling the version of his own money and looking me with heavy pressure to stop me associating my thing with my name. It's *impossible* to get the topic to actual good things people can do to raise their incomes - instead, an angry man who thinks I am 99% club idiot tells me about no money, while I am not speaking in money but that these things would definitely make this and that more efficient. The global conspiracy: - Not very visible most directly in this sense; - but rather, that simple topics make people come back, tell you offered something etc. For example if immortality would exist with probability 1%: - For me it would be very nice to study it. - For most people would crazily accuse me in crimes they saw in people who heard that; crimes not related to me. - For the last group I deliberately want to exclude; *that I mentioned this possibility* already *is* - the "example 1%" is already where they start lurking here and "associating" me with immortality <=> 1%; they want to hide what could be got, very intensely ask whether "that" is there, and pressure people with telling the estimations and unknowns, or their own story back. For example this post did not say anything about immortality, at all: - The conspiracy is proven by case that most people *do see* argument about immortality. Finally there does not exist implication immortality => your hard work and suicide. There does not exist relation I am sensitive => others get fast easy money. There exist interesting topics, matters, paradigms: - The case of idiot conspiracy is that with only science, only interest, no promise - I promise nothing but pressured people *want to know again whether I promised*, they want to be disappointed again if not. For example - I see trivially, this message said nothing about immortality, but the fear expectation I have already points there are people who would like to densely stand here, with their tought feelings in these matters. --- I asked ChatGPT for BBCode follow-up; which is a rewrite of my post again: The International Conspiracy of Idiots: When Scientific Curiosity Becomes a Social Projection I want to clarify a distinction that seems surprisingly difficult to maintain in discussions of mathematics, science, and hypothetical possibilities. 1. Scientific interest is not a promise A person can study immortality, mathematical relations, mental phenomena, or potentially useful discoveries without promising that any particular result exists or will become practical. For example, suppose immortality had a hypothetical probability of 1%. I would find that possibility interesting to study. I would not conclude that immortality exists, that anyone should change their life around it, or that anyone owes me anything because I mentioned it. The same principle applies to mathematics and technology. A result can be interesting because of its implications for efficiency, understanding, or further research. That does not mean it produces instant riches or guarantees any particular outcome. 2. The distinction between a question and its imagined consequences Consider the elementary mathematical statement 2 + 2 = 4. Discussing its correctness does not require a discussion about money. Similarly, studying a mathematical relationship that might have practical applications does not automatically make those applications the subject of the discussion. Yet I repeatedly encounter reactions in which the original subject becomes secondary to imagined rewards, fears, accusations, or demands. I may explicitly state that I am discussing mathematics rather than promising money. Nevertheless, the conversation can return to whether money is available, whether someone will get rich, or whether a discovery must be hidden or claimed by someone else. This is a failure to distinguish the actual statement from the expectations attached to it. 3. Cooperation requires more than wanting the benefits There is another problem when a potentially useful idea is discussed. Someone may become interested in the benefits, claim an entitlement to the profitable part, or pressure the original researcher to stop associating the work with their own name. Yet the people demanding the benefits may contribute neither the work nor the resources required to develop the idea. That is not productive cooperation. If an idea has practical value, the appropriate questions concern its validity, limitations, implementation, evidence, attribution, and fair collaboration. The possibility of benefit does not establish ownership, and enthusiasm about a potential reward does not substitute for doing the work. 4. The social pattern I am criticizing I use the expression “conspiracy of idiots” to describe a perceived social pattern, not to claim that I have established the existence of a coordinated international organization. The pattern is that people repeatedly project their own fears, desires, and expectations onto discussions that do not actually contain the promises they attribute to them. A simple topic can attract attention precisely because people imagine that something extraordinary is hidden behind it. They return to ask whether the extraordinary possibility is real, become dissatisfied when no promise is made, and sometimes treat the absence of a promise as though a promise had been broken. This can happen without any actual conspiracy. Similar reactions may arise independently through shared assumptions, incentives, social imitation, or misunderstandings. The distinction matters: observing a recurring reaction is evidence of a social phenomenon worth investigating, but it does not, by itself, prove deliberate coordination. 5. Calmness is not evidence of a hidden agenda My approach to these subjects is deliberately calm. I can study immortality, truth, mathematics, spirituality, or potentially useful mental relations with the same scientific curiosity I bring to ordinary subjects. I do not need to become excited, frightened, or financially motivated simply because a topic has extraordinary implications. Nor does mentioning a possibility establish that I am promising it, pursuing it at any cost, or asking other people to organize their lives around it. A person's emotional reaction to a hypothesis is not evidence that the hypothesis is true. Equally, another person's calmness does not prove that they are concealing something. The appropriate response is to examine what was actually stated. 6. Do not confuse the subject with the audience's expectations There is no general implication that immortality requires abandoning ordinary work, that scientific curiosity requires self-destruction, or that someone's sensitivity automatically means others will obtain quick and effortless money. These are separate propositions. Each requires its own argument and evidence. When I discuss a scientific possibility, I want to discuss the possibility itself: the assumptions, the mathematics, the uncertainties, and the possible implications. I do not want the conversation to be replaced by an imagined story about wealth, sex, fear, crime, or personal entitlement. If a text does not promise immortality, its author should not be treated as though such a promise had been made. If a text discusses mathematics, it should not automatically be interpreted as a coded financial offer. 7. A principle for future discussions Let us distinguish three things: [] What is stated: the actual mathematical, scientific, or philosophical claim. [] What follows: the conclusions that can logically be derived from the claim, given its assumptions. What is imagined: the expectations, fears, accusations, and personal interests that readers attach to it. These categories can overlap, but they are not interchangeable. I welcome criticism, counterarguments, mathematical verification, scientific evidence, and honest discussion of practical applications. I do not require anyone to believe an extraordinary hypothesis merely because I am willing to study it. My position is simple: a possibility is a subject for investigation, not a promise; an implication is something to demonstrate, not something to assume; and an imagined consequence is not a fact about the person discussing the subject. Let us return to the actual question instead of repeatedly inventing a different one.

It’s real, bro. There’s a lot of fucked-up teens/young people on the internet today who can easily gravitate towards this kind of stuff if left unguided. Add to that the nigh-untraceablility of discord servers, WhatsApp groups etc and they become virtually impossible to police. It’s like if school shooter ideology, neo-Nazism, misanthropic Satanism and Epstein-style child grooming had some bastard love child. It’s funny that parents were losing their minds over Dungeons & Dragons in the ‘80s but now that we have actual Satanic cults out there convincing kids to kill animals and commit suicide no one seems to give a crap

Hello fellas, After a long journey of self reflection, seeking trying to understand the creator I have came to a conclusion and that it is wrong to try to understand god. I will tell you exactly why ? God is bigger than your logic , your system of thinking if you try to debunk that You will lose your sanity to the point that you will feel you want to jump off a bridge. Do you want to commit suicide ? , I don't want that to happen to you. The recipe to commit suicide is trying to understand why the creator is doing this to you. or in another frame of looking at the situation why are you doing that to yourself. I don't want you to commit suicide, I don't want you to get insane. Leo is a rare case, we are not Leo. Leo you are pushing people off the bridge but of course I will tell it plain and simple , you don't care actually because you want your life purpose course to sell. I'm honest with you don't take it personally. Imagine that: You challenge someone a human for something , and you want to beat them in that challenge , the Human Kills you.. When I say the human kills you I mean you are too weak that a human can kill you if you challenge their beliefs. Now You want to not challenge a human , you are challenging god , your creator.. to understand him.. a human can kill you what do you think GOD Will do to you ! what do you think Your creator will do to you.. if just a human can kill you.. I'm happy that actualized.org is having parts where it is actually there to help human succeed in their life and there career. But the spirituality and mysticism route is pill of suicide. It's beyond your human made comprehension. Don't do that to yourself. Practice breathing techniques.. Practice yoga.. Meditate slightly .. but DON"T TRY TO CHALLENGE YOURSELF TO UNDERSTAND GOD.. Again if u challenge a human on something they might kill you.. if you challenge God.. you will loose your mind.. you will not be functional.. you will not have a job.. you will not have a family.. you will not have a reason to live.. you will want to jump of a cliff because you will feel you are too stupid.. too dumb.. and can't comprehend. Wake up.

I'm think I'm done arguing here on this forum. My main goal with not to argue whether I'm right or wrong , I don't care. But I will just ended it up here with something I have remembered. Leo once had a podcast with I don't remember who, He was talking about awakening and enlightenment , and digging through question after another. The girl told him" ok but if what you say is true , what's the point of even living" , why just don't we die or kill ourselves. I don't remember the exact quote but something along those lines. I believe that is the most sane response someone can say. And I believe people here on this forum are creating the RECIPE for committing suicide. Don't challenge yourself to understand GOD. My two cents. Bye and I hope for you the best. Stick with simple breathing exercices or yoga , that will do you good. But questioning GOD will do you no good. Best wishes. Bye.

That appears to be your accusation yeah. Whether that's true for me or anyone else is something else entirely. Ill actually meet you halfway here. If we practiced what we preached, we wouldn't be on this forum. We wouldn't be seeking outside ourselves one bit. Maybe this is just a path along the way. Who are you to judge? You dont need suicide for that. Thats why we have things like alcohol and other fun drugs. Suicide is something all sentients wrangle with at one point or another or perhaps even half the time but its always their choice and no one else's. Hating your life is the impetus for you to grow and evolve to not hate your life but if you waste that opportunity then that's on you.

NEVER CHALLENGE YOURSELF TO UNDERSTAND the truth. Never ask yourself questions like What am I ? What is GOD? etc... You are going to have a suicidal thought before you even get to the truth. It shouldn't be called actualized.org it should be called suicide.org Trust me Leo you will do people much more favor if you called your website that. You don't understand how these questions can destroy people.

Oh, fuck! I heard he passed and was dismayed to see he was 34yo - I didn't know it was suicide. My heart is broken for victims of suicide

I had a chat with Claude on the topic of the last post on AI Delusion. AI Delusions https://share.google/TxWA0rkVvwsteDRU9 Weird, having a chat about AI delusion with the AI itself. Here is what I got: Claude: There's a strong core here, but also some weak points in the argument. What holds up: an apocalyptic or messianic belief combined with enormous incentives distorts judgment. When the goal is "infinitely good," any means starts to look cheap, and that logic has caused a lot of damage in history. It's also legitimate to fear that the promise of an "AI that solves everything" serves as a veneer for concentrating power, and that the real costs (jobs, energy, inequality) fall on people who have no say. Where I'd push back: "Most CEOs believe it" is a generalization. Some believe it sincerely, others exaggerate for marketing and fundraising. The two cases call for different responses, and the text treats everything as sincere delusion. "Zero evidence" is too strong. There is evidence of real progress; what doesn't exist is evidence that the extrapolation to a "digital God" will pan out. Uncertainty is not the same as absence of evidence. The suicide-bomber comparison and "would kill a million children" are rhetoric, not argument. They weaken the solid part of the text. "The problem is not AI" may be a false dichotomy: the technology can carry real risks and the ideology around it can be dangerous. I'm an AI made by one of those companies, so take my analysis knowing that. But I think the critique gets stronger if it targets incentives and power structures rather than psychological diagnosis. A question for you: what draws you more in this text, the analysis of incentives or the moral certainty that they're monsters? It's worth noticing which of the two is moving you. You: I think you analyzed the text more than I did. I don't take anything for granted. Claude: Fair, and thanks for the correction. I assumed an endorsement you hadn't declared: I read the text as if it were your position and responded to it, when you were only bringing it into the conversation. So the right question is a different one: what do you want to do with it? It could be testing whether the argument holds up, understanding why it resonates, or seeing what happens to reasoning when one premise (the belief in the "AI-God") is pushed to the extreme. Each of those paths calls for a different conversation. You: The only way would be to meet some of these CEOs and see what they say, to know whether they're really that deluded. Claude: Good idea, and you can do it without meeting them in person: many have already spoken at length in long interviews, essays, and congressional testimony. But what they say in public is filtered by incentives (fundraising, regulation, image), so listening to them alone doesn't settle the question of sincere belief. A few signals help separate conviction from marketing: Consistency across audiences: does what they tell investors, regulators, and casual conversation partners match? Behavior: do they act like people who believe in extreme risk or extreme gain? Where do they put money, time, and people? Stated uncertainty: people who use "maybe," "if," and "I estimate" tend to be better calibrated than people who speak only in certainties. Disagreement among them: if people in the same industry openly disagree, "most of them are like that" loses force. Want me to look up what some of them have said recently, so you can evaluate concrete material instead of the caricature? You: Sure Claude: The material I found shows a more varied picture than the text you brought suggests. Who speaks with certainty: Sam Altman says we may be only a couple of years away from early versions of true superintelligence. He also said that OpenAI will have an internal system it calls AGI by the end of 2026. But his track record matters: one compilation of his statements shows that in February 2026 he said "we basically have built AGI" and later backed off, calling the phrase a spiritual statement, not a literal one. That fits your doubt about conviction versus marketing. (223 superintelligence within years sam altman meta ai scientist disagrees +2) Dario Amodei, of Anthropic (the company that made me, so weigh that), argues that the next level of AI could debut in 2026 and be smarter than Nobel Prize winners. (khaleejtimes) Who speaks with doubt: Demis Hassabis, of Google DeepMind, is more cautious: he sees AGI on the horizon, maybe within the next five years. He has also said AI is overhyped in the short term but underappreciated in the medium to long term, and that parts of the industry probably are in a bubble. (223 superintelligence within years sam altman meta ai scientist disagrees +2) Sundar Pichai acknowledged elements of irrationality in the market, similar to the dot-com era's exuberance. (newatlas) Yann LeCun, who isn't a CEO but is a heavyweight voice, called the idea of manufacturing "geniuses" in a data center complete BS. (malaymail) What this says about the thesis: "most CEOs are deluded in the same way" doesn't hold up well. Some forecast extremely short timelines, and others warn of exaggeration, sometimes inside the same companies that profit from the narrative. That doesn't absolve anyone: the people with the most aggressive timelines are also the ones who most need capital. But "sincere conviction" and "marketing" seem to coexist in different proportions in each person. A question for you: after seeing this, what changed in your initial impression, and what stayed the same?

I'm an INTP. Bro the victim mindset with you is strong, we need to break you out of that. You know you're an extremely powerful man capable of almost anything right? Can you repeat that back out loud and ideally in a comment. Never put random limitations on yourself that you don't really believe in, that's the suicide of your potential my friend. Other humans project their own limitations onto us and we internalize that. It's basically generational trauma. Break the cycle, believe in yourself and achieve your wildest goals.

I'm Brazilian. Brazilian politics are very complex, the way that the govt and the political parties are in a continuous Mexican standoff, even presidential powers are very limited due to the fears of our period of military dictatorship after the president Juscelino Kubitschek used inflation as a way of paying off for the construction of the capital city essentially in the middle of nowhere, where they had to initially airlift literally tons of construction materials because there were no roads, that caused catastrophic social unrest that lead into the military dictatorship, then roughly 20 years later the military dictatorship govt was broke financially as well because they inherited the same stupid policy of paying for their expenses by creating inflation as well. This is in fact, one of the ways where we had a massive transfer of wealth in brazilian history from the poorest to the richest, where the richer people were fully banked and had bank accounts that had return rates that would cancel out the hyper-inflation and people holding cash and specially in informal work or unbanked would get devaluation of their cash of absurd rates of several percent points PER DAY where poor people had to literally rush to the grocery stores after getting paid because by the end of the day their money could be worth perhaps 5% less due to grocery stores and everything on the economy adjusting prices several times PER DAY. This is how bad it got. As long as our govt NEVER EVER causes hyper-inflation again, and we don't lose our fundamental civil liberties and basic social programs we will still maintain the status quo, which frankly, I think it's a good compromise considering how horrible the alternatives could be. The way our political system was designed in the 1988 constitution which is the current one was meant to create on purpose those checks between the different factions of society and politics. The political RIGHT as much as they might speak of fiscal responsibility, or hate against social programs they CANNOT politically remove social programs like the welfare program such as Bolsa Familia Even during the president Jair Bolsonaro's term. The RIGHT wing demagogue that planned and almost executed a coup d'état at the end of his term, he did NOT ATTEMPT to remove the primary social welfare program, in fact, he did create massive benefits during the covid-19 pandemic BECAUSE IT WAS POLITICAL SUICIDE NOT TO DO SO because the social inequality is so bad. Although his finances minister was one of the so called "Chicago Boys" that's basically their long term goals are financial pillaging and gutting out the govt towards some dystopian status like how the USA currently is. Both the LEFT (President Lula) and the RIGHT they both are massive whores to the social programs and to the political, economic and ideological elites, all at the same time. A president in brazil cannot do his work because he's held hostage by the so called Brazilian Center (CENTRÃO) that are not ideological at all, they are there to simply get the budget allocations to make their political voting base happy to get votes on the next election cycle. If you read the books: - O presidencialismo de coalizão no Brasil by Guimarães, Luís Gustavo Faria (free from the govt website: https://www2.senado.leg.br/bdsf/handle/id/595837) - "Os bestializados: O Rio de Janeiro e a República que não foi" (1987) by José Murilo de Carvalho - A revolução burguesa no brasil ensaio de interpretação sociológica by Florestan Fernandes - Sem data venia by Luís Roberto Barroso (But I don't agree with his solution of reducing party fragmentation, parties are where the issue starts with) - Os donos do poder by Raymundo Faoro - Diarios da presidência (volumes 1, 2, 3 and 4) by Fernando Henrique Cardoso - Saga Brasileira by Míriam Leitão - A democracia na armadilha (crônicas de desgoverno) by Míriam Leitão You will understand Brazil. Or just ask an AI about it. There are translations in English for those books I guess. Here are some AI generated information to back me up on the references I gave:

Epstein ring whistleblower dead by suicide https://www.thebanker.com/content/02286d53-0338-42ef-996d-5f7712b9f133 He exposed trump cabinet members ties with epstein

@Alexop Thank you for the message brother. I can sense it came deep from your heart. I am with you. I am around a lot of dancers (all hot girls pretty much) but the immaturity and amount of mental health issues is wild. Which is funny because Finland is considered to be the happiest country for like 5-10 years in a row, yet the suicide rate here is close to highest if not highest. We are probably the most anti social country and we struggle with loneliness the most. And as you said, women here are confused as hell, as the are no real men. They are going mad. Everyone is going mad. When a country becomes too liberal and progressive, and it lacks a solid conservative foundation, everyone goes fucking mad. Our politicians makes racist jokes and we become the laughing stick of the world. Anyway, I love dancing and football. Football has only guys. Dancing has only girls. But I would not date pretty much any of the girls in the circles. That’s the only thing I disagree with you. There’s no way I will find my life partner in my hobbies. It has to be in a condensated place of conscious individuals. Oh and Hinge. I’ve got some success by using its paid filtering system. You can filter really hard, all the way to your religion being ’spiritual’. It takes a lot of time to find some potentials but at least it’s way faster than approaching 1000 random girls in the street. But my looks def help me in the Hinge game.

I have been working on project steelman for a couple months now. I came to an issue in which I seem to have gotten genuinely stumped as to what can realistically be done. Not only do policy suggestions have weak empirical backing, but the political stakes also seem nearly impossible to overcome in America given extreme polarization and ideological disagreements. Attempting to legislate such things would realistically lead to a gridlock with no sustained solution passing. Gun Control is a uniquely American problem, probably because of the Second Amendment which itself has an ambiguous meaning. Some dispute the preamble regarding the regulated Militia because it may be referring to the scope of the Amendment. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." There is a part in this Amendment that throws me off. It talks about a Militia being necessary. I remember that this was supposedly for the American people in case the government became tyrannical so we could overthrow them. The problem is that I am not convinced that the emerging government would necessarily be any less tyrannical depending on how the new government forms in the event of a seemingly successful revolution against the government. Additionally, the American government has been extensively designed in a way that makes it resistant to attempted revolutions. I struggle to imagine a scenario in which this would go well for anybody. This is certainly something we should avoid. Imagine where America would be if the January sixth attacks were successful and MAGA killed countless officials while taking over the government themselves. Furthermore, although mass shootings drive a lot of the emotional pull around this debate, most gun deaths are the result of suicide. Personally, I don't believe I would be alive if I had access to a gun because I could have killed myself much more easily while I was stuck living with a family of drug addicts. Means prevention is the most effective way of preventing suicide. Another part I am skeptical of is the idea of using a gun for self-defense. My main objection on this point is that if too many people have guns, then there is the problem of attackers having the first move and therefore the element of surprise. The outcome is that I would expect attackers to be more successful than defenders because the defender draws his arm second. On a big enough scale, I would then imagine that overall we would all be less safe if more people had guns. There is again the problem of empirically measuring such things, so I can't be certain about these ideas. If we are dealing with a country in which there are more guns than people and the government comes to a standstill when attempting to pass legislation which may not even be enforced, then I start to become stumped in terms of what could even be done. I never really came up with a convincing method of suicide prevention in these scenarios if people often purchase guns illegally anyway. There are background checks and licensing which can therefore easily be circumvented. If suicide by firearm seems difficult to prevent, then we could try homicide and mass shooting prevention. To my understanding, women generally feel less safe in a home with an intimate partner if there is a gun in the house because of the increased likelihood of homicide from an abusive partner. From this standpoint, I would imagine that preventing abusive relationships should give people a means of exiting such situations. This can include things like avoiding isolation and maintaining contact with other support networks such as friends and family. If our lives revolve too much around intimate partners, we would create a situation of co-dependence which would become difficult to leave. Having regular check ins with an outside perspective would be important for ensuring people don't end up trapped with someone homicidal. This is part of the problem with modern romantic relationships as they are commonly structured in ways that enable abuse if it comes with isolation from others. I believe organizing relationships more consciously to avoid isolation is a strategy that works independently of government gridlock. This might be something the people would have more leverage over when it comes to safety. When it comes to preventing mass shootings, the best I could come up with would be the security measure of dispersing the target. One of the reasons schools are common targets is because they are crowded with a lot of targets. A larger quantity of schools combined with smaller classroom sizes and online courses where applicable would help keep schools less crowded, thereby reducing the number of children killed per attack, assuming we can't prevent all attacks. We can't guarantee that parents will actually pay attention to children enough to discover they are looking at gore forums which glorify violence. Some schools have started using metal detectors in case kids do try to come in with weapons, though this is criticized for security theater while making students feel less safe and presently lacking clear proof that this really deters attackers. Personally, I am kind of lost when it comes to what data is reliable from a policy standpoint. Policy doesn't seem to be particularly helpful if the government will realistically be stuck in a gridlock over the second amendment. that said, the best leverage I can see on this issue would be looking for ways to make us more secure without needing to go through gun control policy. It looks like there are some ways to circumvent this problem, though I don't know how successful or impactful the changes would be at scale. What can you come up with for project steelman on this issue.

My current position regarding gun control has changed now. It is more complicated than it was previously. Here is my current policy and why. It is mixed with caveats and auxillary policies loosely related to gun control. Given that criminal gangs have access to illegal firearms anyway, I want to avoid scenarios in which I would be endangering innocent people by not giving them the gun they need. Although not well known or discussed, there are cases in which regulations delayed a person in need of a firearm long enough for them to be killed due to an active assailant. My grandpa isn't the only case. That said, people in extreme scenarios demonstrate that the aggregate welfare argument isn't as clean as it first appears due to screening delays realistically getting innocent people killed. Additionally, if a person needs to demonstrate a documented danger, then it might either already be too late or they might not be believed if they try to report an attack which often happens. The case of Carol Bowne in New Jersey, killed by an ex-partner in 2015 while her gun permit application was pending is a commonly sited example in which gun delays got an innocent person killed. Therefore, gun restrictions need to be more tailored to target specific risk profiles while recognizing that gangs and weapons traffickers ignore these policies anyway. The profiles that should be restricted more narrowly are suicidal and violent felony files. Most gun deaths in america are caused by suicide, so it makes sense to more narrowly screen for mental health problems. The problem with screening for violent felons is that most violent felons are never detected until years later if at all. An obvious example would be policing failures in cases of domestic violence in which homicide by firearm is common. Therefore, the auxillary policies for gun control should target enforcement for domestic violence. One example is how police officers commonly disregard child witnesses who truthfully report abuse from adults. Therefore, if a child witness calls 911 to report domestic abuse, the police should route the child to a program that would actually help such as 988 or something similar for crisis management. The police data on domestic violence can't be trusted because of their detection problem which undercounts the prevalence of the issue. Of course in my particular backstory, I obviously wouldn't want drug addicts like my family members having guns. That would have been a catastrophe if they had guns in that house while they couldn't be trusted. Either way the screening fails. If too strict, then people who need a gun can't get one in time. If violent felons aren't detected, then they will get guns anyway. If the screening process requires a judge to believe someone who reports danger from either direction, then that creates room for error. Either way a victim won't be believed if someone is dangerous and shouldn't have a gun or if they are in active danger and need a gun very soon. Documented danger must by definition require said danger to have already happen, in which case the threat to a person's life must therefore precede documentation. It now looks like I am tentatively leaning pro gun because of this argument with more limited restrictions. These seem to be the hardest cases to argue against for anti-gun. I think I will need to go back and see if I can steel man the anti-gun position further. If not, then I think my present policy position is sound while maintaining that mass shootings require better security if people can access illegal firearms anyway. We need a better approach for combating gang related activities such as drug, sex, and weapons trafficking that doesn't endanger innocent people who need a gun.

This is the definition of terrorism Where in there is there anything that would apply to suicide bombers that wouldn’t apply to countless US and Israeli operations. Right now the US is blockading Cuba and blockading and bombing Iran, both countries that did not attack it before they did that (making it unlawful aggression), for the stated reason of tormenting the people to achieve political goals. The only reason it’s not considering terrorism is because the US is doing it. If Al Qaeda did this exactly to the US they would be called terrorism. Its literally the same concept of misuse of definitions and lack of precision / double standards far leftists do for social causes, but being done by governments. If the judicial system charged people like this it would be considered an obviously corrupt kangaroo court. Imagine if the only people who get charged with murder were people they didn’t like and if someone they liked committed murder it’s not considered as bad and called something else.

That’s exactly the problem. That’s why terrorism isn’t considered an actual definition in international law. It ends up just meaning what those in power say it is. A suicide bomber blowing up a cafe for the stated aim of causing terror for political aim is called terrorism and used to justify force. The US or Israel drone striking an apartment or blockading a city for the stated aim of “pressure” is called justified. In both cases it’s aggression to cause terror mostly on civilians to force goals. But because one side has more power and a suit and tie we are expected to accept it and accept whatever they say in response to the other side. The US and Israel literally call direct attacks on their occupying soldiers terrorism, meanwhile they can try to starve people and engage in illegal occupation which international law recognizes is as bad or worse as anything they’d define as terror because it has the same justifications and causes the same harm.