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

[Elliott]

6 minutes ago, Joshe said:

 

Not if you've done "the work", lol. Isn't this what "deconstructing" is about? To see your invisible structures and to transcend or drop them? Or do we consider that not fundamental to "the work"? For me, it's fundamental. 

To transcend what you want to transcend to pursue what you want to pursue, this is what Leo wants to pursue. He's not pursuing 'bliss'.

6 minutes ago, Joshe said:

Leo's denigration is structural.

Ya

6 minutes ago, Joshe said:

The need to be above others is structural. 

*The need to accomplish what he's seeking.

He's not on roids, studying linguistics, or living on a yacht or in a monastery.

6 minutes ago, Joshe said:

The inability to own error and fallibility is structural.

*the inability to entertain reactive criticism.

6 minutes ago, Joshe said:

The "high standards" masquerading as instruments for a cosmic trajectory is structural.

Ya

6 minutes ago, Joshe said:

You can say "but this is normal and it's the way your life energy activates and sustains a pursuit". And that's true, but what I'm doing is deconstructing it. 

It's not normal, just not inherently 'bad'

6 minutes ago, Joshe said:

I've deconstructed my own shit, and as a result, lost a lot. I'm no longer ambitious because I found the unconscious root from which ambition grew. I don't like that I no longer have much ambition. Seeing the truth cost me that. This type of thing is what I consider "the work". 

Make a video and post it, I'm sure Leo will study it.

6 minutes ago, Joshe said:

You can't build a brand on "doing the work of deconstructing the ego" and then not deconstruct your own.

 

6 minutes ago, Joshe said:

Or maybe at some point "transcending the ego" got put on the back burner and exotic states took front and center. 

Yes

6 minutes ago, Joshe said:

But my main point is not how Leo wants to live and run his business. If everyone here showed self-respect, didn't let Leo get away with denigrating them and if 5-10 people routinely chimed in with "not cool" when Leo denigrates someone, as opposed to just staying silent, and if the sycophants were rightly mocked, then Leo's behavior wouldn't be as big of a deal to point out IMO. Although it would still warrant some light mocking, lol. 

I don't think that strategy is viable, because of the motivations and 'purpose'.

[Joseph Maynor]

Anyone running a business must elevate their brand and themselves, unless you want to rely completely on donations.

[aurum]

28 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

If I say that what I've personally verified is different from your own system of beliefs relative to this body of work, what are we really doing?

Yes, that's why debate won't resolve this.

One of us is just going to be mistaken.

Edited 4 hours ago by aurum

[Joshe]

6 minutes ago, Elliott said:

*The need to accomplish what he's seeking.

I think my read is more accurate. 

9 minutes ago, Elliott said:

*the inability to entertain reactive criticism.

Too charitable. He's not merely acting from some "I refuse to engage reactive critics" principle. 

Why couldn't someone just come out and say they were wrong if the critic was reactive or not? Are they denying their audience that to spite the reactive critics?

Leo doesn't have an "inability to entertain reactive criticism". He has a defense mechanism that skirts accountability by telling him his standards are too high to be engaging with the likes of the critic.

It's a double-duty defense mechanism that 1, dodges accountability that would threaten his elevation, and 2, affirms his "high standards", which affirms his idealized self, which reminds him that he is above and the other is below. 

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, aurum said:

Okay, suit yourself.

There will be no learning with taking that frame.

You just say bullshit that is not true. That is what I mean by being a reducing/fake-closure enthusiast. Why will there be no learning if I can't call out what I think is bullshit WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY being open that I could be wrong? Tell me how you're not just saying bullshit to one-up or make me have an emotional reaction. This might be why you're giving a free pass to Leo because you're just the same: when cornered, say bullshit that you can't back up and then ignore any response.

Edited 3 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Joshe]

1 minute ago, Carl-Richard said:

This might be why you're giving a free pass to Leo because you're just the same

Peas in a pod

[Elliott]

6 minutes ago, Joshe said:

I think my read is more accurate. 

Too charitable. He's not merely acting from some "I refuse to engage reactive critics" principle. 

Why couldn't someone just come out and say they were wrong if the critic was reactive or not? Are they denying their audience that to spite the reactive critics?

Leo doesn't have an "inability to entertain reactive criticism". He has a defense mechanism that skirts accountability by telling him his standards are too high to be engaging with the likes of the critic.

It's a double-duty defense mechanism that 1, dodges accountability that would threaten his elevation, and 2, affirms his "high standards", which affirms his idealized self, which reminds him that he is above and the other is below. 

It's how he gets people to quit doing it instead of banning everyone, having a 'dysfunctional' forum rather than no forum. Saying "that's wrong", will not stop people.

[8Ball]

Just saw that Professor Dave uploaded a new video. An updated grifter tier list video. Had a gut feeling Leo would show up this time unlike his previous "grifter tier video". Lo and behold...

Edited 3 hours ago by 8Ball

[Carl-Richard]

7 hours ago, Human Mint said:

Last scandal with the red card says otherwise... He didn't even bothered figuring out the rules, just go by feel.

...what??? Him being a stubborn corrupt baby says otherwise that he has admitted to being wrong in the past? Why do I even waste my time on this?

 

7 hours ago, Human Mint said:

You can keep criticizing, I am not against that. For one I think is healthy beyond right or wrongness. The only thing I want to say is you can be wrong too. You may at some point in your life come to a realization that matches what Leo says, and at that point you're probably not gonna be interested in arguing about it, but more invested in making sense.

I've said I can be wrong. "And that means I'm right" is something Leo would say, and he would also say statistical absurdities like "I'm the most awake person in the world" and then use bullshitting language such as the former to cover up that fact. He wants his "I can be wrong" cake and eat it too. We're here calling out that fact, we're not here saying we can't be wrong.

This "you have to realize you can be wrong" line of argumentation is ignoring exactly what we're calling out, you're just blindly dishing it out as a defense response without seeing what is happening, it's just demented zombiefied numbed-out engagement.

[Joshe]

34 minutes ago, Elliott said:

It's how he gets people to quit doing it instead of banning everyone, having a 'dysfunctional' forum rather than no forum. Saying "that's wrong", will not stop people.

Ok, so, your position seems to be: he's just an ambitious guy and as far as high ambition goes, he's normal for that ambition tier. He's sometimes abusive and wrong because hey, we're all human. For you, these cover the elevation, the denigration, and the absurd claims, and that's about all there is to it? 

If these things were only once in a while, then I'd agree that this is just a normal ambitious human with normal human faults, but the patterns suggest otherwise. 

It's possible to be highly ambitious and not be an asshole and to think you're better than everyone else. And it's possible to admit when you're wrong. We all naturally want and expect these things from our day-to-day relations with those we interact with. When someone fails at one, we don't like it. When they fail at all 3, we really don't like it. If someone were demonstrating this pattern in your personal life, you probably wouldn't like them very much.

This just led me to an interesting inquiry. Maybe some people are just more sensitive to such things: 

Edited 3 hours ago by Joshe

[UnbornTao]

1 hour ago, aurum said:

Yes, that's why debate won't resolve this.

One of us is just going to be mistaken.

And it's already been settled by you that that's going to be me, right?

It's also possible that neither party is right, and that we're engaged in conceptual games to which we may have attributed the characteristic of absolute truth.

But seriously, no. Hopefully the interchanges bring to the fore dynamics that are taking place - without us noticing - as we operate here.

To put a spin on my response, consider the nature and process of your verification.

[aurum]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

Why will there be no learning if I can't call out what I think is bullshit WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY being open that I could be wrong?

Well, you tell me. Do you think you're still seriously open?

How much are you going to try and understand these teachings if you assume it's just a bunch of hallucinated ramblings from a narcissist, wounded cult leader?

Imagine you took that attitude with anything else you were trying to learn.

If you're still open, great. But I just don't see that from you. From what I can tell, you seem quite certain in your position. And that's going to affect your results.

[Sincerity]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Why will there be no learning if I can't call out what I think is bullshit WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY being open that I could be wrong?

Either you think something is bullshit or you think that you don’t know whether it is (which equals being open). You don’t think both simultaneously, you think one. The two are completely contradictory stances.

Imo the telling that you’re open is unconscious posturing on your part to maintain the story you’re telling yourself that you’re „complete” and not missing anything (by having an openness towards the contrary position embodied). But hey that’s up to your judgment.

Edited 1 hour ago by Sincerity

[Elliott]

1 hour ago, Joshe said:

Ok, so, your position seems to be: he's just an ambitious guy and as far as high ambition goes, he's normal for that ambition tier. He's sometimes abusive and wrong because hey, we're all human. For you, these cover the elevation, the denigration, and the absurd claims, and that's about all there is to it? 

If these things were only once in a while, then I'd agree that this is just a normal ambitious human with normal human faults, but the patterns suggest otherwise. 

It's possible to be highly ambitious and not be an asshole and to think you're better than everyone else. And it's possible to admit when you're wrong. We all naturally want and expect these things from our day-to-day relations with those we interact with. When someone fails at one, we don't like it. When they fail at all 3, we really don't like it. If someone were demonstrating this pattern in your personal life, you probably wouldn't like them very much.

This just led me to an interesting inquiry. Maybe some people are just more sensitive to such things: 

Not ambitious that way, more emphasis on the novelty. More like insane or delusional.

 

 

 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Elliott

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Sincerity said:

Either you think something is bullshit or you think that you don’t know whether it is (which equals being open).

Wrong. I "think" it is bullshit, I don't "know" whether it is. It's not hard.

Leo makes it hard because he conflates the two and sends mixed signals all the time. He has broken your brains on this.

It's the most basic distinction in epistemology: theory/hypothesis vs proof/truth/actuality.

"My hypothesis is I think [...]" vs "I know because this proves it."

Edited 40 minutes ago by Carl-Richard

[Elliott]

The ole' motte and bailey

 

 

 

 

Quote

Why will there be no learning if I can't call out what I think is bullshit WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY being open that I could be wrong? 

 

1 hour ago, aurum said:

 

How much are you going to try and understand these teachings if you assume it's just a bunch of hallucinated ramblings from a narcissist, wounded cult leader?

Imagine you took that attitude with anything else you were trying to learn.

 

 

 

 

Edited 19 minutes ago by Elliott

[Sincerity]

21 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Wrong. I "think" it is bullshit, I don't "know" whether it is. It's not hard.

I think you’re bullshitting yourself. All due respect.

You think things because you have a belief in them. It’s not technically knowledge, but in practice in your mind it works as such. And you don’t think nearly as much about not knowing whether Leo is right/wrong. You’re not making dozens and dozens of posts from that stance of openness, but you do from that stance of „knowing” he’s deluded.

Edited 49 minutes ago by Sincerity

[Carl-Richard]

49 minutes ago, aurum said:

Well, you tell me. Do you think you're still seriously open?

How much are you going to try and understand these teachings if you assume it's just a bunch of hallucinated ramblings from a narcissist, wounded cult leader?

Imagine you took that attitude with anything else you were trying to learn.

If you're still open, great. But I just don't see that from you. From what I can tell, you seem quite certain in your position. And that's going to affect your results.

I think most people I learn things from are broken and corrupted in many ways, yet I put that aside. Leo's brokenness is just very loud and obvious and it's cringe when people try to deny it.

[Carl-Richard]

12 minutes ago, Sincerity said:

I think you’re bullshitting yourself. All due respect.

You think things because you have a belief in them. It’s not technically knowledge, but in practice in your mind it works as such.

Do you recognize the distinction between a hypothesis and a 100% certain proof?

Do you recognize the distinction between corroborating evidence and analytical/logical necessity?

These are valueable fields in epistemology. Shame Leo skims over it because "academics are stuck in groupthink". Except when he finds one pseudo-academic which he uses to define what a cult is and ignores all the rest.

[Sincerity]

20 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Do you recognize the distinction between a hypothesis and a 100% certain proof?

Do you recognize the distinction between corroborating evidence and analytical/logical necessity?

Do you recognize that in practice your mind doesn’t clearly differentiate between a held belief and „100% certain knowledge”? Why come at me with this intellectualism which doesn’t apply to you in reality?

Sorry, but in your „smartness” you often sound very stupid. I really often feel like it’s impossible to talk to you. Like hitting a head against the wall. You’re lost in concepts.

You successfully deflected any chance for introspection, lol.

Edited 22 minutes ago by Sincerity