Drama Alert! Another YTber is calling us a cult! 😈☦️

[Elliott]

6 hours ago, Jirh said:

I honestly have no idea who you're implying.

 

Sorry, @Carl-Richard and @zurew . They're generally-terrible people actually.

Edited 20 hours ago by Elliott

[Jirh]

@Elliott Actually, these two in particular are some of my favourite people here. I especially like the structure of their logic and how they gradually break down and present their arguments.

[Elliott]

1 minute ago, Jirh said:

@Elliott Actually, these two in particular are some of my favourite people here. I especially like the structure of their logic and how they gradually break down and present their arguments.

That's how toxicity usually works.

[Jirh]

4 minutes ago, Elliott said:

That's how toxicity usually works.

So everyone we like is toxic? That doesn't make sense.

Actually, I have disagreed with both of them on different occasions, and we still engage in a neutral way. I don't understand why you are feeling this strongly about them.

[Elliott]

Just now, Jirh said:

So everyone we like is toxic? That doesn't make sense.

No

[Sugarcoat]

The way you guys's profiles shift shaping as one scrolls is kinda trippy 

Edited 21 hours ago by Sugarcoat

[Jirh]

@Sugarcoat

How perceptive!!

[Natasha Tori Maru]

I love disagreeing with people I like. We should be comfortable with ambiguity and discerning subtle differences. Intellectual maturity. 

When someone can argue a crazy outlandish point with sound argument, internal consistency and transparent logic - I kinda love it. It's like "they are serving up this delicious horseshit with the ultimate garnishes and aesthetics, it's still horseshit, but the presentation is immaculate" 

The truth usually arrives with a bunch of bullshit anyway. The wheat is always being sorted from the chaff. Maybe I just like the process as much as the end result ╮⁠(⁠＾⁠▽⁠＾⁠)⁠╭

[Jirh]

@Natasha Tori Maru

The experience of being accepted through disagreement is likely the highest form of human connection. It signals presence and deep care.

For me, what it communicates is: "I am with you, and I will support you whether or not we share the same perception. My disagreement with you is my way of looking out for you."

But ego and lack of trust often get in the way. And most people don't have the prerequisites for such a way of communication, like critical thinking skills or high consciousness, even when they come from a good place. And then we have a broad layer of logical fallacies that most people are not even aware of, which kills effective communication.

It's extremely rare to have someone with whom it is safe to disagree with, let alone enjoyable or beneficial.

1 hour ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

It's like "they are serving up this delicious horseshit with the ultimate garnishes and aesthetics, it's still horseshit, but the presentation is immaculate" 

This line is gold, by the way. It suggests you value the craft even when you reject the conclusion, which is its own kind of intellectual generosity. You're not just tolerating the process; you're savoring it. That's rare too.

Edited 20 hours ago by Jirh

[Joshe]

@Jirh I see it as high Need for Cognition + relatively low identity fusion (perceiving thoughts as objects separate from the self). Ideas are much easier to work with when they aren't intertwined with the self. 

If you have this combo, disagreement is more like intellectual catnip than it is threatening/attacking, but it's easy to forget others aren't operating this way. 

Edited 18 hours ago by Joshe

[Jirh]

@Joshe I see it the same way 💯

Although, it wasn't always like that, and it's still relatively easy to get immersed in the topic and forget the ultimate point of human well-being. But I'm improving as I'm learning to keep my identity separate from my ideas.

 

[Joshe]

1 hour ago, Jirh said:

it's still relatively easy to get immersed in the topic and forget the ultimate point of human well-being

True. 

[Sugarcoat]

6 hours ago, Jirh said:

@Sugarcoat

How perceptive!!

😄

[Human Mint]

On 27/6/2026 at 0:15 PM, Carl-Richard said:

Show me one concept you cannot learn anywhere else.

I don't think there is one. But if you could potentially learn it here, why would you shut down that oportunity?

Edited 7 hours ago by Human Mint

[Joseph Maynor]

People are so focused on concepts.  They are trying to tie reality to their carefully curated concepts.  And they don't realize this.  

[Wilhelm44]

One of the points brought up in the cult accusations was that Leo was making definitive statements about other people's awakenings. 

In Razard86's latest post in the spirituality section, he claims to have that very ability, ie to tune into what the specific flavour of someone's awakening is.

I found that quite interesting.

@Carl-Richard  How do you view this ?

Edited 1 hour ago by Wilhelm44

[Joseph Maynor]

 

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Wilhelm44 said:

One of the points brought up in the cult accusations was that Leo was making definitive statements about other people's awakenings. 

In Razard86's latest post in the spirituality section, he claims to have that very ability, ie to tune into what the specific flavour of someone's awakening is.

I found that quite interesting.

@Carl-Richard  How do you view this ?

It's two very different things to claim to read people's state by being with them (virtually or in person) versus claiming to know the state of any person you have never been with or could ever be with.

Reading someone else's state by being with them is quite straightforward. It's called empathy. But some things require more subtle attention and perception to know how to read. I know some people who probably couldn't read a saint from a rock.

But yes, the issue of claiming to be more awake than anybody in the entire world goes way beyond the issue of reading people. It's about making firm statements of things outside your experience or evidence (which is not to embrace solipsism; it's to acknowledge that you haven't met or don't know about every person in the world).

And even if you do meet or know about somebody, your knowledge of them can be flawed. So even then, firmly claiming one way or another will be most likely a mistake of epistemology (if your epistemology is sensitive to any form of nuance or probability).

Edited 19 minutes ago by Carl-Richard

[Mellowmarsh]

Your own awakening is the greatest gift you can offer the world. By doing the inner work of self-transformation, you naturally radiate clarity, compassion, and presence, shifting how you impact everyone around you. 
 

If you want to awaken all of humanity, then awaken all of yourself. Truly, the greatest gift you have to give is that of your own self-transformation.
 

You have only yourself to thank for that. 🌻

 

 

Edited 36 minutes ago by Mellowmarsh

[zurew]

14 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

It's two very different things to claim to read people's state by being with them (virtually or in person) versus claiming to know the state of any person you have never been with or could ever be with.

Reading someone else's state by being with them is quite straightforward. It's called empathy. But some things require more subtle attention and perception to know how to read. I know some people who probably couldn't read a saint from a rock.

But yes, the issue of claiming to be more awake than anybody in the entire world goes way beyond the issue of reading people. It's about making firm statements of things outside your experience or evidence (which is not to embrace solipsism; it's to acknowledge that you haven't met or don't know about every person in the world).

And even if you do meet or know about somebody, your knowledge of them can be flawed. So even then, firmly claiming one way or another is a mistake of epistemology (if your epistemology is sensitive to any form of nuance or probability).

Yeah.

37 minutes ago, zurew said:

Few things:

Im skeptical about such an ability, and anyone can claim to have it.

Im pretty sure that if we were to ask Razard how he knows he has this ability and how he knows its accurate, he wouldnt have a satisfying answer. Im also pretty sure that he hasn't verified its accuracy using a relatively large sample size. (but I can be wrong).

For instance: what do you do if you have two people who claim to have this ability , but they give contradictory answers about Leo's awakening? (For example @Razard86 - do you think Leo is more awake than you and that he is more awake than literally everyone in the Universe?)

 

The other point is that even if I grant that you can determine who has what awakening, that alone still doesn't justify the claim that you are the most awake. That claim presupposes a specific norm by which different awakenings can be ranked and compared. (You could probably have two people with this ability who disagree about how different awakenings should be evaluated and ranked).

Another issue is that, depending on how this ability works, there may be constraints on how many people you can evaluate or "tune into". For example, if evaluating someone requires consuming a certain amount of information about them beforehand, that requirement would necessarily limit the number of people you could assess. (You wouldn't be able to read or watch videos about every single person on Earth, let alone every being in the universe)

---

The claim that "you shouldnt make definitive statements about other people's awakening" still stands, even if I grant that all of the above has been resolved. As long as this ability is fallible in any way, you shouldnt make definitive statements.

But even if I grant, for a moment, that this ability is infallible, that you can actually assess all beings in the universe, and that you've identified the perfect and most accurate standard by which different levels of awakening can be properly ranked, that still wouldn't make asserting the claim fine. (At most, that would address only one small part of the epistemic critique. It would still leave unresolved epistemic issues such as the failure to heal people, the failure to transform into an alien on camera, and several other epistemic problems. [And that is before we even consider the non-epistemic critiques]).

There isn't any trivial deduction from "I have this infallible ability, and I am the most awake being in the universe" to "therefore I should frequently assert that fact and use it to bully and or undermine other people." (unless he can provide a credible explanation for why this tactic or rhetoric is necessary, why it is more beneficial than detrimental to the forum's users, and why alternatives would be less effective)